Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

In my opinion, the best movie ever. I love when people ask me what this film is about. I usually smile and say "life". They shrug and probably never give it another thought. The fact that everyone from every background can relate to some part of this movie makes it all that much more amazing. Definately a must see for everyone.

Every generation fully believes it is living in the end times. This has been true for thousands of years now. And movies like this feed on this. How did they get the great Orson Welles to narrate this train wreck? This is a documentary about the biblical prophecies of Armageddon. It tries to link the prophecies as well as it can to what was happening in the times it was made, making it obviously dated and kind of silly.<br /><br />The reenactments look like they are out of "Unsolved Mysteries" but without the high production values. People should have been embarrassed to take part in this.<br /><br />In short, the movie is dated, silly, reactionary, and useless. Good if you want a good laugh, but not good enough to actually look for.

A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee.

Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10!

***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.<br /><br />With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!<br /><br />We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.<br /><br />Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.<br /><br />The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them.

This was a flick doomed from its conception. The very idea of it was lame - take a minor character from a mediocre PG-13 film, and make a complete non-sequel while changing its tone to a PG-rated family movie. I wasn't the least bit interested. Then came the trailer. Not only did it only confirm that the film would be unfunny and generic, but it also managed to give away the ENTIRE movie; and I'm not exaggerating - every moment, every plot point, every joke is told in the trailer. It's like a 3-minute Cliff's Notes version of the flick. So obviously I wasn't gonna pay to see it, but once it hit DVD, I thought sure, I'll watch it for free. Maybe Steve Carell can save it.<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />I'm still baffled as to why he signed on for this. He must have owed someone a favor. The jokes were all so flat and obvious, and the director obviously asked him to go for very broad comedy style like the original Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. But it's just not funny. The studio obviously tried to cash in on the success of 40-Year-Old Virgin, complete with several of Carell's past co-stars, a reference to the flick on a theater marquee, and another musical closing credits sequence. But even the talented Carrell can't save this. His co-stars don't fare much better, with people like Morgan Freeman, Jonah Hill, and Ed Helms just wasted. Wanda Sykes isn't wasted, she's just a waste in anything she does, and her horrible one-liners and reactions just make you wish people would stop giving her work.<br /><br />The story itself is just predictable and lazy. It pounds you over the head with obvious foreshadowing, like Evan's disregard for the environment (drives a gas-guzzling Humvee, opts to use wood from endangered trees for his house, hates animals,...), and by the end it's just over-the-top preachy on both faith and the environment.<br /><br />Why the movie was made at all is puzzling enough, but I really don't understand how it reportedly became the most expensive comedy ever. The only real effects work is the presence of all the animals, and the integration of those into the scenes is some of the worst and most obvious blue/green-screen work I've ever seen. Maybe the rental of the live animals on set cost a fortune. Who knows. But whatever it was that cost them so much, it didn't translate to quality, that's for sure. But hey, it wasn't the worst film of the year by far. There's still plenty of worse duds like Norbit and Death Proof.

Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.<br /><br />The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.<br /><br />The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.<br /><br />***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.<br /><br />1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can.

"L'Auberge Espagnole" collected the audience wherever it was shown. It gathered audience awards on many film festivals all over the world. And it is not strange. We have the ability to watch a cheerful and an astonishing piece of art. And it is wise by the way. "L'Auberge Espagnole" is a very funny comedy about youth and growing up. But most of all it is about the lights and shadows of living in the European Union.<br /><br />The main character of the film is a French student of economy Xavier. For his future carrier his is sent for one year of studying to Barcelona. In Spain it turns out that the lectures are being given in Catalonian language. That probably doesn't help the increasement of knowledge. But it helps in tightening the relationships inside the group of foreign exchange students. Especially if they rent a big flat together. There are 3 girls: English, Belgian and Spanish, as well as three boys: German, Danish and Italian. Our French guy will also get there. A year is a very long time. Long enough to get close and make friends. And get to know some European stereotypes while trying to break them apart.<br /><br />Klapisch treats this special case of a process of uniting Europe with humor and without pecky didactism. He comes out of the idea that young people are everywhere just the same. They like jokes. They like to make irresponsible relationships. But they don't neglect their aspirations. The most interesting is the sum of experience of this little community. They live together in the fire of everyday tasks fighting with the surrounding reality. They are full of unusual ideas for life. Young Europeans come back to their countries to take up a life of an adult on their own. They are Europe's hope to fight the many problems of the Union. For example, the terrifying administration system. In the end they proof that not only can they communicate and make friends despite the many differences. But they also now how to live the full of life. And they won't allow taking that full of life away from them.

If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:<br /><br />1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.<br /><br />2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.<br /><br />3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.<br /><br />4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.<br /><br />5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.<br /><br />6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.<br /><br />7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..) <br /><br />8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.<br /><br />9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..<br /><br />10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!<br /><br />The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0/10

Lost is largely considered one of the most beautiful TV series that have never done ... and so is ... if you lovers of mysteries, intrigue and adventure this is the series for you ...In the first season ... since the first episode starts to go increasingly to move forward until you get to the second season ... in the second you lose a little its cocktail of mystery and expectation and pushes very on and reveal the various mysteries that the island hides ... the third season is perhaps the second most beautiful because resumed suffered since the first episode with the pace and tenacity of the first season ... the fourth also not let pass unnoticed and tends to reveal a little mysteries ... but not as the second season but at a somewhat different ... For the fifth season expects ...

From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity "over with." Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one.

Director Douglas Sirk once said `there's a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains craziness is by this very quality nearer to art'. This statement defines his cinema perfectly, a very unique body of work that includes classic stage adaptations, adventure and war films, westerns and of course, his famous melodramas.<br /><br />Sirk's melodramas were, as the very word signifies, dramas with music. The music sets the tone for his masterful style, and every stroke of his brush (Sirk was also a painter) leaves a powerful image on the screen-turned-canvas. But this ain't life but its representation, an imitation of life. Sirk never tried to show reality, on the contrary. None of the directors of his generation made a better use of all the technical devices provided by Hollywood (most notably Technicolor) to distinguish the artificial from the real thing. Let's remember that his golden period coincides with the time when Hollywood films turned its attention into the social drama (Blackboard jungle, Rebel without a cause). Sirk always knew that cinema was meant to be something else.<br /><br />Another of Sirk's statements summarizes this: `You can't reach, or touch, the real. You just see reflections. If you try to grasp happiness itself your fingers only meet glass'. I defy anybody that has seen Written on the wind to count the amount of mirrors and images reflected that appear on screen. One ends up giving up.<br /><br />Therefore, we are in a hall full of mirrors where there's no difference between real and its false copy. Nobody can say that the Hadley are real people. That town ain't real either, with those hideous oil pumps all over the place. So in this realm the acting is affected, the decore is fake, the trick is visible. Everything is pushed a little bit off the limit (the sexual connotations of Dorothy Malone with the oil tower, for example). Sirk was criticizing and theorizing at the same time.<br /><br />`The angles are the director's thoughts; the lighting is his philosophy'. In Written on the wind we follow the fall of a traditional way of life both in a geometrical way and in terms of light and shadows. The Hadleys house, with its different levels connected by the spiral staircase operates in a strictly metaphorical way. A house that resembles a mausoleum, that no party can cheer up. As tragedy progresses from luminous daylight to shadowy night, Sirk's photography becomes an extension of the inner state of his characters, and so are the colours of the clothes they wear. Drama is thus incorporated to every element at the service of the director's craft.<br /><br />Sirk considered himself a `story bender', because he bended the standard material he was assigned with to his style and purpose. Written on the wind is a good example. It wouldn't work in any other hands.<br /><br />The other director that was using similar strategies was Frank Tashlin, who was for 50's comedy the same that Sirk was for melodrama. Their films are full of the machinery of american life -advertising, TV sets, jukeboxes, washing machines, sport cars, vacuum cleaners- to depict its emptiness and decay. I'm inclined to think that their films were regarded in a different way by their contemporary audiences. The game was played by both sides, so it was camp. Now we regard them as `cult' or `bizarre', because we are not those spectators anymore. That is why Todd Haynes's homage `Far from heaven' turns into a pastiche, because it reproduces Sirk's work nowadays as if nothing happened in between. Then Sirk turns exactly into that painting hanging in the art gallery that Julianne Moore and the gardener discuss in the aforementioned film.<br /><br />Sirk understood the elements of melodrama perfectly. There were always immovable characters (Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall here) against which he could assemble a series of split ones. His balance through antithesis is remarkable and not surprisingly we root for the split characters, because these are the ones Sirk is interested in too. When Robert Stack flies the plane and `tempts' Lauren Bacall with all sorts of mundane comforts of the world below them (obvious Faustian echoes) we are strangely fascinated with him too, as we are when the devilish nymphomaniac little sister painfully evokes her past with Mitch alone by the river.<br /><br />In the Sirk's universe the studio often-imposed `happy ends' have no negative impact. In fact they worked just great. Sirk was fond of greek tragedy and considered happy endings the Deux ex machinea of his day. Thus the final courtroom scene fits well and one must also remember that the whole film is told in flashback, so we know from the very beginning that tragedy will fall nevertheless over the Hadley feud.<br /><br />It was pointed out the many similarities between Written on the Wind with the Godfather saga. I absolutely agree and I'm sure the parallel is not incidental. Both share the theme of the old powerful father head trying to keep his empire going while protecting his family. The temperamental son portrayed by Robert Stack has an amazing physical resemblance with Jimmy Caan's Sonny Corleone. The action of fighting her sister's male friend is symmetrical. The non-son in which the old man put his trust is also common in both films, as the fact that both families carry the names of their town. Even details as the gate that gives access to the property, and the surroundings of the house covered by leaves, suggest that Coppola had Written on the Wind in mind while setting his masterwork. Because both films deal with the subject of Power: the acquisition of power, its manipulation and legacy (even Kyle Hadley's sterility, the event that hastens the turmoil, is an issue easily tied to the central theme of Power, in this case, a weakness in sexual power). The other great film that deals with power and uses american life as its representation is Citizen Kane. One wouldn't think at first of similarities between Welles and Sirk's films but there are a good many, starting with the petrol business as the origin of the family's fortune and ending in the fact that Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), as Charles Foster Kane, was adopted by a tutor, having his own father alive. Amazingly, the same actor (Harry Shannon) perform both Wayne and Kane's fathers. This detail is cannot be a coincidence.<br /><br />Written on the Wind is a masterpiece in every aspect, in execution and vision, in style and technique, a highlight in the career of this wonderful director. Some say that this is his best film. In my opinion, `Magnificent obsession', `All that heaven allows', `There's always tomorrow' and `Imitation of life' are just as good. And for those who put Sirk in the level of Dallas or Dinasty I wish them no happy end.

My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself: <br /><br />1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap? <br /><br />2. The characters easily could have been copy/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called "characterizing" when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clichés that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs? <br /><br />3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: "I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?" So, why was it rated R? <br /><br />4. Here's the only plot the movie/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this "mature"? What the . . .? <br /><br />5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind. <br /><br />Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?<br /><br />I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.<br /><br />1/10

What do you get when you have a tenacious, seasoned French police inspector by the name of Maurice Martineau is called to solve a murder case? Well, simply a very entertaining, fun film. The re-mastered black-and-white film "Quai des Orfevres" delivers the goods despite romance, jealousy and marriage that seem to just get in the way towards the truth of 'who done it?'<br /><br />Inch by inch, technique by technique as seasoned by experience and intuition, the patience of this master Inspector etches into the truth -- but of course, with the help of a bag full of dirty police interrogation tricks.<br /><br />Martineau is the centerpiece of this film. The use by director Henri-Georges Clouzot of raucous background music to intensify the drama in grand film noir style is a wonderful wrapper around the visual experience.<br /><br />Martineau eventually solves the mystery and arrests the culprit. Hey, he is good!! But alas, Martineau, too, can keep a dark secret in his past. Who is that boy that is perhaps not his son?<br /><br />Some things can never get solved -- even beyond the closing credits.

This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.<br /><br />An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.<br /><br />Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.<br /><br />The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.<br /><br />Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.

I can envision the writers of this story thinking up this script:<br /><br />1.Let's make a serial killer movie like Se7en, Knight Moves, Copycat, and Silence of the Lambs. People like serial killer stuff. It'll sell... 2.The killer needs to adopt some sort of pattern. I know; he'll copy it out of a serial killer mystery novel. That hasn't been done yet, at least not exactly like that. 3.Now, we need some kind of way to make this movie unique; of course, the good guy can be bedridden like in Rear Window. 4.Lastly, we need a twist ending that will give this movie the success of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects.<br /><br />Okay, now that you know these things, you know the whole movie, so don't waste your money. One thing I really hate about moviemakers is that they take a perfectly good concept for movies and completely run them into the ground. I wrote better stories than this when I was in Junior High. I just kept checking my watch every five minutes. When the twist ending finally came, I wasn't shocked, I just said, "Oh. Who cares?!" The characters are two-dimensional. They have your typical movie personalities. This movie is just proof that stealing the elements of other successful movies is no excuse for a bad script. I give this movie 1 out of 10. Normally, it would earn at least 2 or 3, but I'm so sick of the unoriginality. When will they learn? 1/10

Rod Serling was, of course, a genius and his wonderful, playful, creative mind left something of the period in which he lived and examples of television at that state of development. There are no such shows now, but rather "Housewife" sluts ala Eva Longoria or Terri Hatcher, or the pitiful stabs at humor and witty banter that litter our high-tech screens.<br /><br />Jack Elam edged into the episode with such acting precision and with his usual craziness that I can't help but think that Rod Serling was tailoring that long ago week's show around Elam, even though he was an ancillary to the flow of the story. This episode ends with a twist, as usual, but shock and humor are mixed with especially "Serlingesque" dexterity.<br /><br />Rex Lewis Field

Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!<br /><br />The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.<br /><br />Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....<br /><br />The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!<br /><br />Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career.

The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!<br /><br />If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time!

This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in several ways. A must see!

This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.

This film is the most cult movie on metal there is. Premise: A kid gets a hold of the final recording of his favorite artist Sammy Curr who recently dies in a hotel fire. He plays it backwards and summons him back from the dead to get revenge in the name of heavy metal on those b**tardly jocks who torment him. Any fan of true metal will enjoy this movie, and if you are a metal head being tormented by jocks, play a Sammy Curr album backwards.........no wait he is fictitious, well get a hold of this movie and watch it with your fist in the air, your head banging, and the volume at 11!

The first opening scene that lasted around five minutes showed the potential of becoming an instant classic, with moderit to good acting, good film, a story that keep the volume up, and an in the corner the of screen a spooky "did you see that!"(the scarecrow moves).<br /><br />After the quick set up of history that would come into the present, it was like someone else had written and directed the rest of the "film". The next scene is a basic outline of how the film goes downhill like a runaway truck. It looks like the rest was shot in video, with crappy "porn style actors", the set design was a lawyers office with practically nothing on the bookshelves or anything in the office at all. <br /><br />I remember only watching crap horror films for a chance of seeing some naked "teenage" girls, back then there weren't Victoria's Secret mags everywhere, and not watching for things that make great horror films of today like acting, terror, suspense, intregue, and so on.<br /><br />It took nearly fifty minutes for the first person to die. When it did, me and and my friends were so shocked by the WORST costume of a "monster" EVER, we through our popcorn at the TV screen booing.

with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John.

I sought this film out because I'm a new Frain fan and wanted to see more of his work. First of all, his Irish accent is great. He's got a keen ear for dialects, it seems. His acting was marvelous, as usual. James Frain aside, I thought the film was very well done. It showed the conflict in Northern Ireland as the *mess* it really is. Both sides are guilty of grave injustices, and the men drawn into the conflict usually have very little to say about their circumstances.<br /><br />Also, it is interesting to realise that not every man (or woman) that is supposedly fighting for his country, is really doing *just* that. For example, when Kenny (James Frain) asks Ginger (Ian Hart) why he does "it", Ginger can't come up with a morally acceptable answer. Why? Because Ginger isn't in it for the noble cause of protecting his country or the rights of his fellow Protestants...Ginger is in it for the fun of killing. He's full of blood-lust and it's the perfect job for a guy like him. In a struggle like this there are guys like Liam (John Lynch) who just want to live their daily lives and enjoy their families...guys that see all of the fighting just begats more fighting. There are guys like Kenny that are born leaders full of charisma, and they add fuel to the flames, rather they mean to or not. Also, Kenny genuinely believes in the "cause". He believes what he is doing will make a difference in the future...which is a bit odd 'cause his character seems too intelligent for it all. But, like a lot of other seemingly intelligent men, he is sucked into a gang lifestyle not even realizing it...'til it's too late. Then there is Ginger, a pure psycho who isn't in the fighting for any other reason but for the sheer thrill of it, which in a gangland type war makes him a valued asset, some might argue. However, now, in this film, Ginger has out lasted his worth, and has become a very dangerous loose cannon.<br /><br />Everything comes to a boiling point, and predictably, the ending is a tragic one. What makes this film worthy is that is shows both sides of this ages old conflict. Being American, I can't begin to fully understand what all struggle is about. But, I do know there has to be a better way.<br /><br />All in all, a well acted, touching...but troubling film.

I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing, especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's, Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs.

This tear-teaser, written by Steve Martin himself, is so unbelievably bad, it makes you sick to your stomach!<br /><br />The plot is pathetic, the acting awful, and the dialogue is even more predictable than the ending.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs!

''Meet Sherri..for an evening of Pleasure and Terror!'' Cheap special effects,cheesy lines,yep its the original 1978 Movie ''Nurse Sherri'' Starting Geoffrey Land as Peter Desmond,and Jill Jacobson as Sherri Martin and Directed by Al Adamson.<br /><br />The movie is about an evil ancient spirit that possesses a nurse at a hospital,then she starts killing doctors one by one.The acting was okay but some of the acting was robotic.The storyline was good but the sex scenes were just thrown in there probably to get more views.The directing was bad,And the special effects looked like a drawing,the effects didn't fool anybody.the death scenes were pretty good but the director mixed too many things in there that didn't make any sense like the sex scenes,the nudity,the football player,and many more.<br /><br />Overall Its A Good Movie,But Not The Best.<br /><br />7 Out Of 10

Telling the story wouldn't be the point at all, would it? Barnens ö, spelled almost like "booné aww" is the title for that brilliant novel of the late seventies that shocked a lot of people, including myself.<br /><br />Children's Island is the title, and what an island. In the book, Raine, the main character has The Guiness World Record Book as his own Bible. And he's keen on breaking new records himself. In particular the youngest person under water for three minutes.<br /><br />The story is, as most Swedish films and books of the time, deep, consciously provocative and awe inspiring. Bergman was beginning his final film and Cries and Whispers was barely out. expectations for any Swedish film were pretty high. They taught us then that great theatre, great actors, superb writers and gifted directors made a veritable team of perfection in cinema.<br /><br />All this said, Barnens Ö is a story of discovery. It is, too, a story of alienation: cities are alienating and living in one of them make us aliens to most of its residents. It is a story of revelations and sudden encounters with our own destiny. It is a film of overwhelming hope and desperation. Of feelings buried under layers and layers of isolation and insulation from a world that couldn't care less...<br /><br />This approach, in itself, is a pretty difficult way to weave a convincing narrative. Here, the masterful guidance of Kay Pollak on Ola Olsson's script of P C Jersilds novel, turns it not only in a possibility, but in one of those master pieces of cinema.<br /><br />I may disagree a bit with someone who said that this work was all but forgotten. It is not. Even as I write this in 2009, discussions on P C Jersild's story are conducted all over the world, and the film shown at many film schools and small theatres.<br /><br />Why? Waxing philosophical on all of it would be difficult and many have already done it scholarly through writing and lectures. The reason why Barnens Ö was and IS a special story is the cosy feeling you get from the start when you discover that everything is told through the eyes of a small child. And that's where it ends, too. Maybe it's a clinical view, as someone else pointed out. But deeply disturbing, moving and satisfying. The concept is deep: as long as we have no pubic hair, we still can live one more day as an angel. Afterwards, we'll become what Raine reflects as the colophon of his experiences: "Men are Pigs". He finds his fears when he's fearless. He finds love when the world is crumbling around him. He discovers a reason not to behave like the grown-ups because he refrains from committing crimes. He let go his inner purity and confidence in others without reservation, just to learn how rotten the soul of a man can be.<br /><br />Where love is expected, he finds hatred. Where compassion is needed, he finds suspicion and cold hearts. It's a film of metaphors. A film to think and to raise questions that are hard to ask but harder to answer.<br /><br />In the end, the satisfaction of witnessing such a superb work (that really upped the ante for any other Swedish film after) is a ride of joy and hope. Be aware that it is a film full with the dark side of our nature. But, alas!, a film of hope and deep joy. Reine will still be an Island in Stockholm, but there is the big hope of living today in full, even when we found our first signs of sexual maturity show.

**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.

A young woman nicknamed "T.N.T." for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.<br /><br />Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of "T.N.T." and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in "T & A", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.<br /><br />In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad.

I am a Talent Manager. I have been for 15 years now. I have discovered some wonderful talent. They have been in Movies, Commericals, Braodway and Television. In my opinion Eddie Monroe was cast wonderful. I love seeing the ability of real people. Not just a name. The Actors in this movie were very natural and believable. I was very entertained by this film. I love a movie with a few twists. I also enjoy when at the end of the movie the puzzle is solved. I still would like to know what happened to the large sum of the money.(When you see the flick you will understand what I am saying.) The Mobsters all look real ???? I would like to see this film on the Big Screen. The footage was shot really well. The scenery of New York was the New York that I know. Have a Happy 2006 and may this movie make it to the awards.

The cover of the VHS says it all: "Without doubt, the most powerful movie of its kind since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre". I'm a huge fan of 70's and 80's slashers and I have to say, I agree 100 %. The characters are believable, the actors have an excellent charm (especially George Kennedy as the forest-ranger). There's the twisted atmosphere, that only TCM has, an astounding soundtrack to reflect the emotions and the filming locations that are the most beautiful in the history of horror. This has to be one of the most beautifully shot horror films of all time! Jeff Lieberman as a director of this 1981 low budget film does and excellent job and with his other works (Blue Sunshine, Wrong Turn) added, he must be one of the most underrated directors in the filmindustry today.

...the first film I had to walk out on. And it was the cast and crew pre-screening (Not that I was involved, I hasten to add). I made it through the first hour, so I reckon I'm just qualified to comment, but that was my limit.<br /><br />Like other comments here, how did this get through any kind of QA. An accumulation of the very worst in dialogue, the epitome of wooden acting, awful casting, all wrapped together without a plot.<br /><br />Tara Fitzgerald's casting was bizarre, almost comic. She possesses the worst Russian accent in movie history.<br /><br />As I left the screening, the director and producers were drinking in a bar outside the cinema. They obviously couldn't sit through it again either.<br /><br />

This is one of the more adorable episodes of the Twilight Zone, with some fun dialog and amusing characters to break the tension of some creepy moments. There's the usual blond vamp "dancer" (what is up with Serling's fondness for that kind of character, such that she keeps showing up in various episodes?) and other assorted characters, but it's Jack Elam's "old man" who totally steals the show. I consider this the funny, light-hearted version of "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" -- or, perhaps, a 20-minute Twilight Zone parody of "The Thing." On another note: I thought the young lover of the episode might be someone who eventually went on to other things -- he looked familiar -- but it seems that "Ron Kipling" disappeared after just two TV credits to his name.

What?!?? Why are people saying this is "mind blowing?" Just face it the ending is on of the worst endings in the history of cinematography! 4 left and the whole world has ended! Not to mention the character 9 was a idiot the whole time he got everyone killed. 1 was right the whole time, if he sacrificed 9 then non of this would have happened. People giving there lives for a stupid cause and for what?... to make it rain? I admit the movie had it's parts, and the whole concept was fascinating. But a lot of it was clichés one after another. And did anybody else get this feeling that this is a lot like "Lord of The Rings?" Characters died for stupid reasons, there was almost no character development, and honestly ask yourself is it good to have only four guys left in the world; its pointless and stupid. It was one of the shortest movies I've ever seen, and thank god! How is robots turning against humans creative in any way! It's been done like a hundred times! This movie is really stupid, go see a movie that's worth watching like Star Trek, The Hangover, or Inglorious Basterds, those were good movies!

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

Steve Carell has made a career out of portraying the slightly odd straight guy, first on 'The Daily Show', and then in various supporting roles. In Virgin, Carell has found a clever and hilarious script that perfectly capitalizes on his strengths. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, a middle aged man living a quiet, lonely life. Andy is a little odd, but in an awkward nice guy sort of way. One night, while socializing with his co-workers for the first time, Andy accidentally reveals that he is a virgin. His co-workers, David (Paul Rudd), Jay (Romany Malco), and Cal (Seth Rogen) initially tease Andy about his situation. But it's clear that all three have a certain respect for the decent human being that Andy is, and they resolve to help him out by assisting him in ending his virginity. And so begins Andy's quest into adulthood. Andy is the quintessential innocent, and the bulk of the humor derives from his naiveté to the situations he finds himself in throughout the film. Some of the humor is crude gross out stuff, but most of it is just well done intelligent comedy. In addition, I found some parts of the film actually pretty touching as Andy finds himself developing both romantic relationships and friendships perhaps for the first time in his life. I'm not trying to portray the movie as a love story or a drama; it's a rolling in your seats comedy. Still, every good comedy I have ever seen contains enough heart for you to care about the characters. A good comparison would be 'The Wedding Crashers' from earlier this summer. Virgin has a similar humor, but is perhaps a bit more vulgar in some of its jokes. I particularly loved the ending of the film, which I thought was a perfect way to end the flick. Without giving anything away, it reminded me of 'Something About Mary'. Very light and fun; it leaves you laughing and smiling, which is exactly how you should feel when you finish a comedy. I would highly recommend.

The comment by "eliz7212-1" hits the proverbial "nail on the head" for this turkey of a program. But it is a hoot to watch William Shatner "cavort" and "dance" (yes, the " " marks on the word dance are necessary for what Bill does). This show would be a great skit on SNL or MAD TV - and it does rate a few stars for one viewing, or so, to see Shatner, who seems to have taken "camp" to new heights - whether in a role or as himself. But the guy is funny.<br /><br />The girls who are in the cubicle areas with the game data scrolls, will be pretty much out-of-luck when this turkey is canceled - unless there is a revival of the whiskey-a-go-go genre, with a resurrected demand for shapely young women to dance in elevated cages once more.<br /><br />I watched the first contestant, who was annoying, and literally "dumber than a :post," yet through sheer luck, walked away with a quarter mil or so. The second contestant, somewhat more intelligent, but who'd be lucky to gain $1,000 on Jeopardy!, got zonked by the card which requires answering a special question - which he didn't know, and thereby left with zilch.<br /><br />This plethora of game shows, which dangle, and sometimes award, large sums to everyday individuals, are admittedly a cheap effort, overall, to attempt to woo viewers. Even if the host is well-compensated, and they give away six figures in an average episode, I suppose that the revenue versus costs can be favorable - since you don't have a sitcom cast where several stars are getting six or seven figures, per episode, with some big residual deals as well.<br /><br />But I suspect even the better ones will wear thin before long. This one has already pretty much reached this point. I think his offerings, especially with James Spader, and the others on "Boston Legal" should give us a satisfying quantity of Bill Shatner's offerings.<br /><br />Again, the above rating is simply appropriate to view Bill hoot and prance, perhaps one time; that should be sufficient.

In over 70 years of watching movies,This has to be one of the very worst comedies ever made. Mel Brooks, Mike Meyers & a few other have made some very bad comedies, this however is the absolute bottom of the barrel.<br /><br />It is unfunny from the very opening,to the tacked on scene during the credits.<br /><br />Diane Keaton who I normally like must have needed her paycheck badly. She desperately needs to re-learn her craft.<br /><br />Dax Shepard (I do not know who he is),needs a better director,to show him how to act.<br /><br />Liv Tyler is also not up to her role.<br /><br />Mike White needs to find another character,he has done this same type person a few times too many.<br /><br />Ken Howard who started out years back as a first rate actor, also not as good as he used to be.<br /><br />There is nothing decent I can say on this attempt at movie comedy.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) points 25(out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10)

'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......

One of my favorite movies of all times, have seen it three times already. It does a great job of summing up the Isrelai walks of life, Israeli humor, and seriousness, and much of the problems Israelis go through. Universal theme of wanting to be accepted, and be accepted for who you are. Good subtle humor, and it's the charisma of the characters, that makes this movie magic, and says a lot about Isrlaei culture, and the irnonicness, contradictions, and humor, with a great actor in it, Oshri Cohen. I highly recommend it to anyone, and it's a movie perfect for practically anyone, family movie, boyfriend/girlfriend movie, and also says apart from Israeli culture, wanting to be accepted, most of all, how important family is, with all its diversity and imperfections.<br /><br />Great great movie.

The plot seemed to be interesting, but this film is a great dissapointment. Bad actors, a camera moving like in the hands of an amateur. If there was C-movies, this would be a perfect example. A plus for a nice DVD cover though and a great looking female actor.

Very disappointing version of Lorna Doone. Too many missing characters, no romantic scenes, changes in story line, too short, appeared low budget. Hardly enough dialogue to understand the story if you're not familiar with the novel. In some scenes it looks like Lorna has a cold sore on her upper lip. I'm sure make-up did it's best to hide it. I guess they didn't want to halt filming until it healed up, pity. Most likely why this movie lacked kissing scenes. Only one disappointing kissing scene at the very end. Lorna Doone is a great epic tale and should be told true. The 2000 version of Lorna Doone is twice as long, more romantic, much more enjoyable and more true to the book.

The story of the boy thief of Bagdad (as it was once spelled) has attracted filmmakers from Raoul Walsh in 1924, who starred Douglas Fairbanks in the first, silent, rendering of "Thief of Bagdad," to less imposing, more recent attempts. The best, however, remains 1940's version which for its time was a startling, magical panoply of top quality special effects. Those effects still work their charm.<br /><br />No less than six directors are listed for the technicolor movie which starred Sabu as the boy thief, Abu, John Justin as the dreamily in love deposed monarch, Ahmad and June Duprez as the lovely princess sought by Ahmad and pursued by the evil vizier, Jaffar, played by a sinister Conrad Veidt. The giant genie is ably acted by Rex Ingram.<br /><br />Ahmad is treacherously deposed by Jaffar and when later arrested by that traitorous serpent, he and the boy, Abu, suffer what are clearly incapacitating fates. Ahmad is rendered blind and Abu becomes a lovable mutt. Their adventures through the gaily decorated Hollywood backlots are fun but the special effects make this film work.<br /><br />Two men were responsible for everything from a magic flying carpet to the gargantuan genie who pops out of a bottle with a tornado-like black swirl: Lawrence W. Butler and Tom Howard. (Howard, incidentally, did the special effects for the 1961 version of this film. Both men had long and distinguished careers in technical wizardry.)<br /><br />Duprez is outstandingly lovely while little called on for serious acting. Justin's Ahmad projects a driven but dreamy romanticism untouched by erotic impulses. Sabu is really the central actor in many scenes and he's very good. For a movie meant for kids as well as adults there's a fair amount of violence but of the bloodless kind. Still, I don't think anyone under eight ought to see "Thief of Bagdad."<br /><br />This film makes periodic appearances on TV but today my teenage son and I saw it in a theater with quite a few youngsters present. It was great to see computer-besotted kids in an affluent community respond with cheers and applause to special effects that must seem primitive to them.<br /><br />"Thief of Bagdad" is a pre-war Hollywood classic from a time when strong production values often resulted in enduringly attractive and important releases. This is one of the best of its kind.<br /><br />9/10.

What this movie fails from answering is how wrong this war is (and most US wars recently made only to get some oil).<br /><br />How many innocent civilian casualties there has been, how many lives perished and how blatantly stupid the perpetrators are.<br /><br />So, let me ask you - if American soldier kills women and children apart from enemy, its OK, but if government accidentally kills their own forces by deadly chemicals while killing many civilians as well, it is not? Your logic fails, gentleman.<br /><br />I'll give it 5 for the solid performance and 1 to everything else, 3 in total.

In A Minute To Pray, A Second To Die, Clay McCord (Alex Cord) is an unhappy outlaw with a ten thousand dollar bounty on his head and degenerative epilepsy.<br /><br />Realizing his days as an outlaw are numbered, he wants desperately (though somewhat reluctantly) to take advantage of an amnesty being granted by rough and tumble territorial governor Robert Ryan, (excellent performance) who badly wants McCord to renounce his ways and accept the amnesty as an example to others while in the bandit hub of Escondito, outlaw Mario Brega plans to kill McCord to stop that from happening.<br /><br />Also starring Arthur Kennedy, Aldo Sambrell and a slew of other familiar European faces, this is co-written and produced by (American) spaghetti western pioneer Albert Band, also responsible for the pre-Leone film Gunfight At Red Sands.<br /><br />Though the solution to the main character's "epilepsy" is lifted straight out of Howard Hawks' El Dorado, the script is solid, pretty fresh and unpretentious. This has a great balance of action and story and Alex Cord is great in it. He really should have been a bigger star.<br /><br />In defense of the shorter (well dubbed) English version: personally I'm past that age where the longer version is always the better version and the ending where McCord is ironically gunned down by grimy bounty hunters after his pardon, is needlessly nihilistic and completely destroys the film's message about hope and redemption.<br /><br />Call me old-fashioned, but I rooted for McCord and felt he earned that happy ending!

WARNING: PLOT SPOILER<br /><br />The always-abnormal movies of David Cronenberg certainly are an acquired taste. Fans of his earlier films will probably like `eXistenZ', but it definitely isn't one for the squeamish. All of the usual elements are here. A game pod made out of skin (hooked into your back), buckets of blood, a gun made out of bones, and a manic mechanic to name but a few. The result is good in parts, bad in parts, and just plain weird in others. But one thing the film has is undeniable originality. <br /><br />Despite the excessive use of… weirdness it does prove a point- virtual reality games can have a dangerous effect on some people. In the movie, a character shoots someone dead claiming that he was `annoying' (assuming that she was still in the game). But it leaves the question as to whether that really happened or if it was an occurrence in this stunningly life-like game. `eXistenZ' leads to a conclusion that can be responded to in several ways. <br /><br />Despite some extra gadgets and gook, it was simply your classic `it was all a dream… or was it' twist. It is a smart surprise and answers a few questions, but giving that the entire film was leading up to this moment is a bit disappointing. At only 97 minutes it could have went on a bit longer too. In a peculiar way the film raises moral issues but answers them in a violent and rather inappropriate way. <br /><br />Jennifer Jason Leigh appears here in her first big role in quite a while. But her character doesn't have enough qualities to make her jump off the screen or even give her a likeable character. Jude Law on the other hand (equipped with a curious American accent) is good as your average Joe sucked into this abnormal world. We see the film through his perspective.<br /><br />`eXistenZ' is far from flawless but it certainly is a movie experience to remember. There's tonnes of weird characteristics to match the similar styles of David Lynch (what next? - being consumed by a question mark?!?!?!). It definitely isn't for all tastes but it is rewarding enough to recommend. My IMDb rating: 6.2/10.

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

This has to be one of my favourite flicks, unlike the weak 'Elvira's Haunted Hills'...anyway I love the way the movie is a goth/com 'Wizard of Oz' story...<br /><br />Elvira is a goth Dorothy who is stranded in an unfamiliar town after the death of a Good Witch (elviras Aunt Morgana)...she inherits a "Ruby" ring which is extremely powerful and sought after by the Bad Warlock (Her uncle)...She befriends four Characters whom she inadvertently helps grow throughout the movie all the while with a dog in tow. There is a show down with her uncle (the wicked witch of the West) where Elvira realises that she has the strength within her and ends up defeating him. In the end she gets sent off by the towns folk after winning over their hearts and finally gets to her destination Las Vegas (Dorothy's home in Kansas).<br /><br />There are many references made to the wizard of oz throughout the movie...she and her uncle both quote lines relevant to their parallel characters. Elvira: "Youe must be aunt Em, and you must be uncle Remus....There's no place like home, there's no place like home!" Bad uncle Vinny: "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!"<br /><br />There is a sign that Elvira passes when first on her road trip which mentions the state of Kansas.<br /><br />But aside from this, the fact that one of the sequences she "ripped off, um...I mean was inspired by FlashDance" is pure genius...and if you don't roll around laughing at her titty twirling at the end of her "very 80's" Las Vegas show then you haven't got a camp bone in your body...This movie is a Cult/Camp Classic

We found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often. <br /><br />The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed. <br /><br />The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.<br /><br />I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.

I avoided watching this film for the longest time. Long before it was even released I had dismissed it as an over-hyped, over-blown, overly romanticized piece of Hollywood schmaltz, and I wanted nothing to do with it. I never watched it in the theatre. I shook my head in disbelief at the 11 Academy Awards - even though I had never seen it. Then I was asked to be a judge at a high school public speaking contest. One of the girls spoke about this movie. "It was so great," she said. "You really felt like you were on the ship." "Nonsense," I thought. I shared my feelings with my fellow judges. One looked at me and said, "you might be right, but if she liked the movie that much maybe she'll want to learn more about the real Titanic. The movie must have done something right to get her so interested." "Well, maybe," thought I. Then it finally appeared on Pay TV. "OK," I thought, "I'll give it a look see." I didn't want to like it - and I didn't. I loved it! What a great movie.<br /><br />Where to start? First - the directing. My high school public speaking contestant was right. James Cameron does a superb job of creating an almost "you are there" type of atmosphere. The gaiety of life aboard the most elegant ship in the world. The nonchalance as news of the iceberg first spreads; then the rising sense of panic. You don't just watch it; you really do feel it. Then - the performances. The lead performances from Kate Winslet (as Rose) and Leonardo DiCaprio (as Jack) are excellent - Winslet's being the superior, I thought, but both were good. They had their rich girl/poor boy characters down to a perfect "t" I thought. In my opinion, though, stealing the show was Frances Fisher as Rose's mother. She was perfect as the snobby aristocrat, and you could feel the fear and loathing she felt every time she looked at Jack. Then - the details. I'm no expert on the sinking of the Titanic, but I have a reasonable general knowledge, and this film does a super job of recreating the historical details accurately and then weaving them seamlessly around the fictional romance. Very impressive, indeed. Then - the song. Who can watch this movie and not be taken with Celine Dion's performance of "My Heart Goes On."<br /><br />Problems. Well, the romance was perhaps too contrived, in the sense that I just don't accept that Jack could have moved so effortlessly from steerage to first class. (I know he was invited the first time; but he seems to keep getting into first class without being stopped until he's been there for a while.) The realities of the separation of the social classes were much more realistically portrayed, I thought, when the steerage passengers were going to be left locked down there after the ship hit the iceberg while the first class folks got to enjoy half empty lifeboats. <br /><br />A minor quibble, though. This is truly an excellent movie. My only regret is not seeing it in the theatre, where I think it would have been so much more impressive.<br /><br />9/10

I am a fan of a few of the Vacation films, but when a movie franchise goes from the big screen to the TV screen, you know it's out of steam. Made for TV National Lampoon films do not do well on TV. This movie is another reason.<br /><br />I think a lot of us were excited when this was coming out, but we also had to face the reality...it's a TV movie. Randy Quaid is fine as Cousin Eddie, but is better in a supporting role than the lead. Dana Barron sets history as the first actor to reprise her role as one of the Griswold kids. She is just as pretty, but it doesn't help a thin script. <br /><br />Why was this movie even made? It was probably because NBC recently picked up another few years of presenting X-mas Vacation. There is nothing wrong with the acting. It's all in the script. It's just not that funny. People need to think before they write stuff like this. It is one Christmas movie I do not recommend.

There has never been anything like it, that's for sure. This episodic, seemingly redundant trilogy only really makes sense taken as a whole, and as such it is not a movie about Groovin' Gary, Utah cross-dressing sensation. It is very self-consciously a film about how the filmmaker REACTS to Groovin' Gary. For Harris the entire project is clearly an extended and spectacular contortion of guilt and repentance. He's trying to atone for his sins - yes, Gary did attempt suicide after the initial doc was aired - through correction, commentary, and convention, reclaiming such Hollywood-narrative standbys as the best friend and the defiant happy ending (two different ones, with a telling adjustment in the Glover version) and turning them to his own very personal uses. So while thematically it remains a movie about gender and difference, the structure ensures that it is also a movie about MOVIES - but on an almost unprecedented level of complexity. There is just so much going on; in telling and re-telling this story Harris is in the right place at the right time three times in a row, and he doesn't miss the opportunity to make something of it. Immensely moving, and as profound as camp ever gets.

I don't doubt that Victor McLaglen won his Best Actor Oscar for this film by dint of a three way split among the Mutiny on the Bounty leads of Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tone who were all in the same race. But The Informer is still a fine film because John Ford wouldn't have gotten his first Best Director Oscar if it wasn't. No split involved in his award.<br /><br />The movie and the story by Liam O'Flaherty that it is based on involves a poor simpleton of a man named Gypo Nolan who was once a member of the Irish Republican Army. He was cashiered out of it for some imbecilic stunt he pulled and wants back in. He's down to his last pence and if he can't get back in, wants enough for passage to America. There's a twenty pound reward for information leading to the arrest of a former comrade named Frankie McPhillip played by Wallace Ford. In a moment of weakness he goes to the Black and Tan constabulary and informs on McPhillip.<br /><br />The IRA is pretty anxious to find out who ratted McPhillip out and they're pretty certain it was McLaglen. He hasn't the wit to really cover his own tracks. He does make a feeble effort to implicate another man named Peter Mulligan played by Donald Meek. He also picks up a hanger-on played by J.M. Kerrigan.<br /><br />The whole action of The Informer takes place in 1922 in Dublin from about six in the evening to early the following morning. Of a necessity it is shot in darkness and shadows, making it possibly the first noir thriller. Had it been done post World War II The Informer would have ranked as a great noir classic, like Odd Man Out or the The Third Man which it bares a lot of resemblance to.<br /><br />John Ford knew this world very well. He took some time off during the Rebellion and was in Ireland at the time and had a brother who was in the IRA. His real name before having it anglicized was Sean O'Fiernan.<br /><br />Preston Foster plays the IRA commandant Dan Gallagher. In the book Gallagher is a harder and meaner man than Foster has him here. My guess is that John Ford wanted him as a sympathetic character to give movie fans some rooting interest. He makes it clear that Foster has to eliminate the informer because the Black and Tans will grab him and get quite a bit more out of him and put the whole organization in peril.<br /><br />The IRA trial scene is the highlight of the film. When Foster asks Donald Meek whether he recognizes the authority of their court, Meek ain't in a position to say no. The King's justice and writ does not run here. It graphically illustrates at that point despite occupation by army troops and constabulary, the British are indeed losing their grip on the population.<br /><br />Of course The Informer a rather grim story has its John Ford touches, but rather fewer than you would expect. Even as McLaglen is spending his money on a drunken spree, the IRA is constantly in the shadows watching him and counting every farthing.<br /><br />The Informer is a tale well told about Ireland in a grim and dismal time.

Seeing the cover of this before I watched it, my expectations weren't high, especially since it was amongst those other crappy horror movies at blockbuster (alongside films like Junior).<br /><br />Alright, not only does this movie have the brainless stereotypical characters (the rich douche bag, the bitch, the sheriff, the localer that knows what's going wrong in the town, and so forth), but has such god-awful dialogue, acting, directing, and cg effects. The Jeremiah Stone dude was hilarious. (*SPOILER*) I'll never understand why he bit his finger off out of nowhere when he was holding that chick up hostage.<br /><br />The premise for the movie is just as atrocious as the other flaws. From what I could get from it, Jeremiah Stone was a gold digger during the Gold Rush, and a notorious outlaw. He had a crapload of gold, (*SPOILER*) and put a curse on anyone who went after his gold before he was gunned down by the locals after he killed some girl, but not only did he survive, he bit off his own finger and ran off. So, present day, a group of clueless morons find out about this gold mine, and of course, they are warned by locals about "The Curse of the Forty-Niner". And what do they do? As expected, ignored the warnings and greedily sought for the gold. They get the gold, and all sorts of s**t goes on. Thankfully, (*SPOILER*) the bitch gets her head cut off.<br /><br />That's about it. Looking at the cover of the film, you can tell what kind of movie it's going to be. It's just so terrible it's hilarious.<br /><br />1 1/2 stars out of 5.

I first saw this film in 1959 at the Hoyts Double Bay cinema in Sydney when fifteen years old. I loved it then and still do. The ensemble cast is great - in those days the actors acted "naturally" and you "felt" for them in the respective roles. A "glossy" film of the period -the relationships therein still relevant to today's world but now the sexes are on the same level, women would not or should not allow the type of treatment displayed in the past. The soundtrack music is wonderful and it is a delight that Film Score Monthly released the CD in January, 2005. Pity scenes were cut prior to release - even at two hours you want more! I have registered with Amazon for the DVD (they do now have a special page). To view this film in CinemaScope after forty six years of pan and scan will be great. Twentieth Century Fox, please look further into your catalogers of fifties CinemaScope productions for DVD - there IS a large market out there. I await arrival from US of March, 2004 Vanity Fair Special article on the film, which is said to be fifteen pages with many photos on set. Cheers.

I purchased this one for a couple of dollars at the local video store, as they cleared out their tapes in favour of DVDs. I doubt they'll be replacing this one, somehow.<br /><br />I couldn't say that it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it's very dull. No real cannibal scenes. Me Me Lai is not naked enough of the time (only about 4 or 5 times). And she's not the Thai goddess that I expected, either. So two of my reasons for watching this movie were knocked out.<br /><br />There is some severe animal violence here for those that enjoy that sort of thing. A great fight between a mongoose and a large snake gets quite bloody. Animal torture, as well, some of which is real and some fake. Thankfully the fake is somewhat funny, but the real is just a little sickening.<br /><br />Generally speaking, it's a 70s film - overly long, under-developed, not as deep as it would have liked to have been. But it's something different, right? ONE AND A HALF STARS!

If you believe that any given war movie can make you really feel the war, you need to see "Letyat zhuravli" (called "The Cranes are Flying" in English). It tells the story of Veronika (Tatiana Samoylova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov), who are in love on the verge of WWII. They are walking along the waterfront, watching the cranes fly by, when the war starts. Boris is promptly sent off to war. Veronika hides out with a family and ends up marrying the son, whom she does not love. Boris, meanwhile, continues trotting through the countryside, fighting the Nazis and experiencing all the horrors of war, until he he runs out of energy. When Veronika - working in a military hospital - receives this news, she refuses to accept it, until Boris' body arrives home on one of the trains. Simultaneously, the radio announces that Germany has surrendered and the Allied Powers have won the war; the Soviet Union lost 27 million citizens, but it's the start of a new era.<br /><br />This movie did a very good job showing the human impact of the war not only in the battlefield, but also how it affected the civilian population. This is definitely a movie that everyone should see.

Xavier,a French student moves into an apartment in Barcelona with a cast of six other characters from all over Europe. An Italian, a Danish, a German, a British, a Spanish and a Belgium.<br /><br />He wants to get a job in EU with the help of his father's friend. He says there are jobs here a lot, but if you know Spanish and Spanish market. So, he advice him to go Spain. Xavier gets an Eramus grand and fly to Barcelona by living his girlfriend and mother.<br /><br />He first learns that the house he will stay is no longer available and the small rooms in Barcelona are even more expensive than he thinks. He stays in a French couples house while he was looking for a house. He has been interviewed with the 5 people from the house and has been accepted. He had an affair with this French guys lovely wife and totally messed up everything with his problematic girlfriend.<br /><br />Do you want to hear more? Did you travel abroad for education? Watch this movie, I promise that you will have a very nice time.

The plot line is an expose of the under belly of American politics. While the theme seems common, what "makes" the movie is the unconventional way the story is told.<br /><br />The characters are played with conviction. You feel the innocence of the lead, and his innocence lost. The politician is the prince of double-talk, a real snake.<br /><br />The camera work is impressive. It affirms the nuances of the acting and dialogue. Ditto for the music.<br /><br />The story uses a parable-style with vingettes where the message is filled with double-entendres. A very canny strategy by the writer/director. The tension in the storyline is carried through to the last scenes.<br /><br />The movie was like a good mystery book. Something was "afoot"; you knew it was bad; you didn't know exactly what it could be - you had your suspicions; and when the evil was revealed you let out your breath you hadn't noticed you were holding in. Saddened, shaking your head.<br /><br />A story well written and well told. 3 cheers to a young writer/director.

After a slow beginning, BRUCE ALMIGHTY is a very funny film that had something positive to say. It wasn't one of Jim Carrey's best performances, but he was still OK. Morgan Freeman was just right as God. Jennifer Aniston had some good moments. I miss Steve Correll on "THE DAILY SHOW!"<br /><br />I like director Tom Shadyac's choices of movies. He also did LIAR LIAR, PATCH ADAMS, and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR. In all three of those and in Bruce Almighty, he takes a big comedy star and tells a human story with him. A director who knows comedy, can get the talent he gets, and can tell a meaningful and intelligent story with it is hard to find.<br /><br />My biggest complaint is that they should have used more biblical references. I only remember three specific biblical references and they were the three funniest parts of the whole movie. My guess is that the first few drafts of the screenplay had more biblical references, but they were cut out because the producers were afraid of offending people. That's too bad because I thought it was a missed opportunity.<br /><br />My Grade:<br /><br />7 out of 10

Would someone explain to me when the Ghoulies learned to speak? This was a horrible film, I loved "Ghoulies" and "Ghoulies 2", but what's this? Unless you want to kill yourself, please stay away from "Ghoulies 3". On a scale of 1 to 10, "Ghoulies 3" gets a 1!!

I cannot for the life of me understand why the rating here for this movie is so low. This was one of the most beautiful films I have seen this year. It really struck a chord with me. I had been anticipating this film for several months and I thought to myself, there's no way it can possibly live up to the expectations I had for it...seeing as how I built it up in my head as much as I did. Well needless to say, not only did it meet my expectations but it far surpassed them. Jordana Brewster and Cameron Diaz were excellent in every way. Their acting superb by far. They were both in their element and completely natural for the roles. The locales were absolutely gorgeous. Every shot filmed was perfectly captured and fit the mood and atmosphere beautifully. I found this film very touching and took it very close to heart. I would even contemplate saying this could be one of my all time favorites. At the very least, certainly I could see it again and again.<br /><br />I swear I couldn't find one fault in this film. It's hard to say that about any film. I would highly recommend this one. It's touching, it's meaningful, and it says a lot about human nature and family.<br /><br />10 out of 10. Well done by all.

I checked this out at the Vancouver International Film Festival and was not impressed.<br /><br />The only area of the film I enjoyed was the commentary on film-making. For the most part, this film seemed random and somewhat fantastical (I don't say that in a complimentary way, however) and just silly. It was as if he was mixing fantasy with everyday life, which may sounds intriguing in some films, but the fantasy merely seemed needlessly perverse.<br /><br />My criticism of this film is not upon the actors, rather the story itself. I found it boring and narcissistic. I wanted my money back, but considering it was a Film Festival, that wasn't about to happen.

The story deals about Jet Li who has to fight against his old<br /><br />friends.But there is one problem, the friends are superfighters. The film is filled with blood, super action and the best stunts forever. And Lau Ching-Wan is a great Co-actor. Of course the movie has the typical HK-Fun.But I love it! In Germany "Black Mask" is uncut.

It's hard to believe that there are some people out there in the world that actually think this is a worthy Charles Bronson vehicle. <br /><br />Bronson is a good actor that can do more than tote a gun and knock off bad guys. He was quietly moving in the TV movie "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus" and showed a lot of class and style in the Sean Penn-directed "The Indian Runner".<br /><br />In "The Evil That Men Do", however, Bronson again plays a character that sees injustice and sets it right with fists, knives and, of course, guns. There's nothing here you haven't seen in the last five "Death Wish" flicks. <br /><br />Wait, I take that back. This has to be the most sadistic and repellently violent film Bronson has ever had the dis-service of being in. Not just repellent in the scenes of torture or the descriptions of torture, but in the fact that these scenes were put in a film just to sell tickets. And Jose Ferrer! What in blue blazes was he doing here?!! I mean, he won an Oscar, for crying out loud!!! <br /><br />Okay, sorry about that outburst. Let me just say that "The Evil That Men Do" has to be one of the worst movies I had ever seen that was based on a book. Yeah, that's right. I wonder if it was written with Bronson in mind?<br /><br />No stars. Watch "Death Wish" instead. At least IT was topical.

I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.<br /><br />I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.<br /><br />From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.<br /><br />If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.<br /><br />This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".

Even by the standards of most B-movies, this movie is by far the worst I've ever seen. The graphics are so poor that a man in a monster suit looks more realistic. the ocean water effects are especially laughable, including the one scene where they board the mini-sub, and the "water" looks like its frozen in place. The problems with this film are so numerous that I'll just stop here with the details. needless to say, I kid you not when I say that even Uwe Toilet Boll himself could do a better job. Avoid this movie at all cost, there are other B grade movies out there that, despite being horrible, are at least a good way of passing the time by.

When 'My Deja Vu, My Deja Vu' aired last season, I was pleased. Scrubs, I thought, is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip-show concept. Instead of replaying footage, they're replaying jokes in a self-aware manner, and I really enjoyed it.<br /><br />I found it really unfortunate that I was wrong. One season later, they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do, the clip show...and it looked like it was put together by the work-experience kid. Dr Cox's shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together, as it doesn't appear again until 'My Long Goodbye' some 4 episodes later. I can't imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well-constructed sitcom. Who knows why it was slotted there, it just seemed lazy and out of place, reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year.<br /><br />Three second clips jammed together with background music is a DVD extra for a (very) rainy day, not an episode of prime-time television.

Utopia, made in 1950 in France, was the last film Laurel and Hardy produced. With the bad reputation the duo have for their post 1930's productions I was expecting this film to be awful. Although admittedly it isn't up to the standard of their "vintage" comedies I was pleasantly surprised. It's watchable, and in parts genuinely funny! And certainly the plot is of the same standard as you'd expect. Some gags are derivative from their earlier work, but when you consider this film was their first for five years after their last Hollywood produced film, "The Bullfighters", the routines are executed confidently as you'd expect from these professionals. Some scenes are not up to much, but the value of this film is that some scenes are funny, and as such, absolutely priceless. I particularly enjoyed the bedtime scene.<br /><br />I felt sad at the end of the film. Our heros are left on their own desert island. It's such a metaphor for the real life truth. Hollywood and audiences of the time had consigned the stars to a desert island of memories, and that was to become last image they portrayed in film. Ollie died seven years later and Stan died fifteen years later. Stan turned down an offer to appear in "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" in 1963. What a shame that was - a colour film, only two years before he passed. However, his health probably wasn't up to much.<br /><br />These boys are probably the greatest comedy performers of all time, and although the movie is far from their true potential, it's still an honour to watch them appear in film for the last time, and touching on the echos of their towering talent.

Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The "killer scarecrows" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.

I read Holes in 5th grade so when I heard they were doing a movie I was ecstatic! Of course, being my busy self, I didn't get chance to see the movie in theaters. Holes was at the drive-in just out of town but, alas, We were just too busy. I was surprised to hear that all my friends had seen it and not one of them had invited me! They all said it was good but I've read great books that have made crappy movies so I was definately worried.<br /><br />Suddenly the perfect opportunity to see it came. It was out that week and my parents were going on a cruise and I was left to babysit. My sister, who is 9, and I watched it and absolutely loved it! I then took it to the other people I was babysitting's house and their kids, 9 and 4, liked it too. Even my parents loved it and they're deffinately movie critics. Overall, I recommend this movie is for anyone who understands family morale and and loves a hilarious cast! This movie should be on your top 5 "to See" list!!!!

Just saw 'The League of Gentlemen: Apocalypse' at a special screening in Manchester, with Mark Gatiss and Reece Shearsmith of the League in attendance.<br /><br />At the back was Peter Kay (who has a brief cameo in the film) affectionately heckling at the back during the Q & A session after the film.<br /><br />The film was complicated (in a good way) and very very funny. It follows Geoff Tipps, Hilary Briss and Herr Lipp as they try and save fictional Rosyton Vasey from the disinterest of their creators.<br /><br />The League play a wide range of their characters and themselves (or character based on themselves) and are ably supported by the cream of British character and comedy actors such as Bernard Hill, Victoria Wood and David Warner.<br /><br />Warner is a particular stand out reminding me of his smooth and cutting turn in 'Time Bandits'.<br /><br />The film swims in and out of various realities and allows some of the denizen's of Rosyton Vasey some space to grow beyond their usual limits of their comedy shtick.<br /><br />Steve Pemberton's Herr Lipp has a great Bretchian moment near the end of the movie and has to make a decision about his purpose and meaning in life which brings a lump to the throat at an unexpected moment and surprises you with its tender affection for the characters.<br /><br />This echoes something Mark and Reece said in the Q & A afterwards, that the plot of the league being tired of their famous characters is spurious and that the whole film is really a love letter to them.<br /><br />For a format that started as a radio character-based sketch show, these guys have really evolved the idea so far as to sustain a movie which takes you on a journey through fiction, 'reality', comedy, tragedy and a pleasing journey for two of the less obvious characters to carry a long form story from their 70 odd existing creations.<br /><br />The fans of the show will love it. It pays off dedication and attention to detail in spades, the uninitiated may be a little lost, but the joy of the LoG was always the ability to almost instantly tune into their acutely observed characters and take the stylistic leap into farce and expressionistic movie homage.<br /><br />There are homages a plenty in this one including 'The Shining' and 'La Belle et la Bete', to name but two I spotted and they ably demonstrate their love for cinema and history with a segment in 1690's England that makes perfect sense when you're engaged with the movie.<br /><br />What can I say, I marvelled, boggled, emoted and snickered throughout and they have definitely pulled off what many have failed at. A successful British TV comedy to cinema translation.<br /><br />If you've watched and enjoyed 'The League of Gentlemen' in the past, go see it; you will enjoy.<br /><br />If you haven't, rent/buy a DVD and then go see it.<br /><br />Well done guys and thanks for the charming and humorous Q & A.

It pains me to say this about an Australian film but Mr. Accident ranks with the worst of the worst films I have ever seen. What's even more tragic is that it doesn't fit into the 'it's so bad it's good' category. What annoys me the most about this film is the fairly large amount of money that has been frittered away on a pointless, unfunny, underdeveloped, inept screenplay. Dumb performances (What are Garry McDonald and Elisabeth Gore aka Elle McFeast doing in this trash?), inadequate direction, no plot and a general sense of meanness totally take away from the interesting production design and leave you with a truly horrible taste in your mouth. Comedy! Ha! Do yourself a favour and stay away!

Good show, really good acting, and the director takes us swimming through his storyline in an interesting, unpredictable way, especially since, essentially, it's two people in a room. It doesn't race through like many modern films, but doesn't drag, either. Bohl is flippant enough to believe her in the "now" of her character, which is still involved and not going back on her 'career' choices - so it is believable without the need for her to show us a deep, self-examination of her soul...Brundage has the delicate balance of weight, innocence, meekness, and class to pull off 'Buddy' very well. A bit grainy on the film quality, but it fits the tone of the story. Could use a little polishing on the hair and makeup end of things, but definitely worth watching.

"Nat" (voiced by Trevor Gagnon), along with his brainiac friend "IQ" (voiced by Philip Bolden) and the always hungry "Scooter" (David Gore) are kids with big dreams. They want to be the first flies in space. And what encourages their dreams is the first spacecraft to land on the moon, the Apollo 11, is waiting for its historic trip on the launch pad near where the three hang out.<br /><br />The first thing you notice is the animation of the film. I found it done very well done. The scenery had depth to it, as things in the distance actually looked like they were behind the focus of the scenes. I didn't see the movie in 3-D, as it was broadcast on HBO. However, I could see that there really wasn't any scenes which took advantage of the 3-D effects except a fight between characters near the end. I also wasn't really impressed with the design of the characters. To me, they didn't look like anything resembling a fly, especially in the coloring. The flies were an unusual blue-gray that was kind of distracting to me.<br /><br />The performances from the cast was not bad, but it wasn't good either. There were many times I focused more on my computer than the story. The writing was certainly written for a younger audience, with comedic moments that will make younger kids laugh. I saw nothing for adults, like jokes that they'll get the punchline for the adults to understand the meaning.<br /><br />History was not followed in this film. In fact, I think it was completely ignored, as the main focus was the flies. I also hated when a well known astronaut popped up on the screen and explained that the stories about the flies in the film was a work of fiction, and no flies were on Apollo 11. I did like how he thanked the men and women who sacrificed their lives for space exploration though.<br /><br />If you are an adult, this is not for you. It was not made for the entire family. This is certainly just for kids. But, save this one for a rainy day.

Considering the original film version of 'The Haunting" is in my top ten films of all time' I approached this adaption with trepidation. I was right to be cautious as this film is a poorly written and badly executed load of old tosh, all those involved should be ashamed. the original was terrifying to me as a child for one reason! you see nothing. Robert Wise used innovative camera-work and superb lighting to generate fear and this is why it work's. The shame of the new version is that it relies on clever special effects and pyrotechnics to get from A to B, sadder still is that the ingredients were there (actors such as Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones) to do something different. This film should only watched as an example of studio butchery!

I saw 'Descent' last night at the Stockholm Film Festival and it was one huge disappointment. Disappointment because the storyline was potentially powerful, the prospect of seeing Rosario Dawson in a smaller intimate movie was exciting and, being a fan (sounds pervy, I'm not!) of 'rape/revenge' flicks of the 70's, I was needless to say very curious to check this movie out. My conclusion: let's stick to the classics! Yes, the storyline has potential but the dialogs are flat, the actors unconvincing. Even Dawson is empty. Some would say that it's a right depiction of the college world in the US, that the emptiness of the characters serve a purpose and all that jazz but it just makes the whole movie unsubstantial. Just like the scene where Dawson gets raped: it seriously lacks intensity! I wasn't expecting anything 'Irreversible'-style but still, aren't we suppose to feel compassion for her? I didn't. Not for a minute, she was so lame all the way ;-) And I read that the photography was impressive. Well, it is good indeed but nothing ground-breaking either. I must admit that the screening at the festival wasn't so good so maybe I missed out something here but at the end of the movie, I couldn't help thinking 'I feel like watching Argento's 'Inferno' again. lol. More seriously, the first scene in the club is beautifully shot and all but I had the bitter sensation of watching a longer and more boring version of the scene in the filthy bar near the American-Canadian border in Lynch's 'Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me'... the crude red and blue lighting, the heavy bass music, the general lascivious/decadent atmosphere... No, I just couldn't get into this movie. Too bad.

I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.<br /><br />Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.<br /><br />Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.<br /><br />I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.

So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.<br /><br />From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame "Decapitron" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.<br /><br />Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.

this show is awful. no comedy, no plot no good characters. America are you blind give the award to real shows. i hate this show along with 30 rock. honestly I'm so glad they canceled this show. thank you CBS. keep two and a half men, keep Christine, keep rules of engagement keep how i meet your mother which really isn't funny but a lot funnier than this. this show is a rip off of friends. with the same director so thats okay. but keep this show gone and never bring it back. never ever ever ever. the only reason i didn't give it a 1 rating is because it keep my awake instead of asleep. those are the types of movies or TV shows that i give a one. the only reason i was still awake was because of the audiences laughter and i was looking forward to the next show. i really wish this show was funny sorry but my opinion stupid. very stupid. i don't see why everyone loves it. my opinion again. but i also find big bang theory kinda stupid. my bad smart. the class bye bye now i have a smile and it is not from watching your show.

I thought this film was a poor effort by the British film council - fell flat as hey, come on, Tim Robbins is an old guy and here is this beautiful young woman who falls straight for him as well. Like lost in translation its really hard to suspend disbelief in this context. It's a good looking film but lacks punch. When Tim Robbins is pretending to be psychic it looks like he has a small migraine. He looks uncomfortable and life less. The part where he is screening suspect employees at sphinx is laughable. If an investigator came to my factory the last thing I would do is tell him about my freckle fetish. It's obviously over-intellectual. Clumsy. The city is as it is, a convenient backdrop. They obviously picked the most futuristic city they could (shanghai) as a backdrop but the city never really comes out and effects the characters as in for example blade runner, where the characters of the city often intersect the story. slow as a wet week. No chemistry, real dramatic high points, so so plot.

So what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.<br /><br />Which is why we should be glad that films like "Hatred of a Minute" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, "Hatred" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.<br /><br />If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.<br /><br />Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not "Evil Dead". Bruce has never tried to bank on his "ash" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with "Hatred" so that it could do so either.<br /><br />My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.<br /><br />The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with "Hatred", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.<br /><br />Technically, "Hatred" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and "Hatred" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.<br /><br />All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.<br /><br />Check this one out.

This first time writer/director comes across as a season pro with "Two Coyotes". Most action dramas are all about the action first then the story. But this picture works the other way around. If this is just the beginning for this director, then Hollywood will soon be making room for this rising star. Independent movie making has once again reached a new level.

I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.<br /><br />Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.<br /><br />A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(

A film with very little positive to say for it.<br /><br />Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.<br /><br />Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.<br /><br />It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.<br /><br />And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.<br /><br />There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".<br /><br />With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.<br /><br />Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad.

The 40 Year Old Virgin, is about Andy Stitzer, a forty year old man who works in an electronic store and doesn't have much of a social life and is very awkward around women. Some of his co-workers at the store invite him out one night and they discover that Andy, is still a virgin so they plan to help him lose his virginity. One day in the store Andy, meets a woman named Trish, who gives him her phone number and eventually Andy, works up enough courage to go on a date with her and they start to really like each other but Andy, is still very awkward when it comes to sex and he is going to have to tell this to Trish, much to his embarrassment if he can actually get up enough courage to tell her before things get awkward. The 40 Year Old Virgin, has good direction, a good script, good comedic performances by the whole cast, good cinematography and good film editing. The film stars and is co-written by Steve Carell, who does a very good comedic breakthrough performance and his writing for the film is very good too. I was very pleasantly surprised with this film. It is sweet, funny, entertaining, fun, enjoyable, clever, good natured and a good time. This film is just as good as this year's Wedding Crashers, and both films are two of the best comedies I have seen in awhile. The 40 Year Old Virgin, really showcases a lot of talent and it is put to good use and it works as a comedy and a romance and it is sweet and a lot of fun. One of the biggest surprises and one of the best comedies of the year.

I was always a big fan of this movie, first of all have you seen the cast, the acting is superb and help make this movie move along very well. Cybill Shepherd was given great reviews for her role, and they were well deserved. The beginning of this movie starts in the past when Corinne Jeffries (Cybill) whose picture-perfect marriage comes to a shattering halt when her husband Louie dies unexpectedly. Fortunately, Louse gets a second shot at life when he agrees to be "recycled" back to earth as the newborn Alex Finch (Robert Downey, JR). Alex goes on to live his new life forgetting his past life while Corinne tries to get on with hers. But fate crosses Alexs path 23 years later when he meets Corinne's daughter Miranda (Mary Stuart Masterson) and is suddenly flooded with a wealth of unwanted memories (this is where the fun begins, and embarrassing situations occur.) The music is great and the scenes are heart felt and very cute. You wont be disappointed if you give it a chance, Chances Are you'll like it. Very funny and sweet!

I cannot BELIEVE anyone is giving this film a good rating. In addition to the terrible acting, thin (nonexistent?) plot line and slooooooooow pace, this would be the movie to watch if you were really TRYING to fall asleep. The writer's and director's brains must have been fried eggs to ever have concocted something as abominable as this. Based on the plot summary on the DVD case, the premise really sounded promising. But within the first ten minutes I knew it was a lost cause. If you want to see a REALLY creep take on the Area 51 idea, check out the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes". Dreamland will soon fade away as all pathetic films of its ilk do. NEXT!!!

If you like bad movies, this one's a real treat. Kaufman & Peters stagger around in robot costumes, escape slavery only to wander aimlessly, and find true robot love. I believe this is the first movie that ever made me consider walking out. I should note I was 12, and could be entertained by shiny objects.

I have been living in Istanbul for 24 years and I (a 39 years of experience would suggest) do know what Istanbul has gone through all those years.<br /><br />Faith Akin is still quite young (born in 1973) and falling in the great mistake of being ORIENTALIST when looking at Turkey (just as his other movie Gegen Die Wand did) This movie SERIOUSLY LACK contemporary urban Turkish life AND MISLEADS the audience when giving out (quite false) clues as to the geographical and cultural spreading of Istanbul.<br /><br />Anyone who could speak Turkish could easily attest that many underground bands & groups depicted in the movie (Siyasiyabend for one ) are SO MISERABLE and their members cannot even speak a proper language that they cannot be taken as 'representatives' of the contemporary Turkish music. Much less a piece of crap which many Turkish listeners even do not know about at all.<br /><br />We Turks have long been accustomed to 'superficious' westerners who look at Turkey with some Orientalist point of view: trying to fit the actual Turkish image into their mind molds.. What is new in this movie is the fact that now a Turkish originated director (Faith Akin) is making the same mistake: Looking at Turkey with some false western glasses and scrambling to depict it as if he understands better. All of a vain effort.<br /><br />Just ask any Turkish friend of yours: What sort of a musical documentary is this without mentioning the names : Zeki Muren, Baris Manco, Ajda Pekkan, Teoman, Muslum Gurses, Ibrahim Tatlises, Ferdi Ozbegen?.. and many others who have SHAPED so far the real MUSIC we are listening today?<br /><br />Faith Akin has a long long lesson to learn before babbling away and confusing other people's minds with false images about the contemporary Turkish Music.

This is an excellent film about a traditional working class family in Northern England. Filmed on location in Bolton, it stars James Mason as the father who is the dominant force within his home. Or so it seems. Cleverly, the film, based on the play, portrays the complexities of family life. The supporting cast is terrific as well, with many familiar faces lending support.

I was not only an extra in this movie, I got to see it in Boston to a sold out cinema. Over a thousand Boston Red Sox / Farrelly fans jammed themselves into a movie theater near Boston Common to watch a comedy....about them....Red Sox fanatics! Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon star is this cute comedy about love and lust. The love is between the two young lovers. The lust is for the Red Sox winning the world series. Although Fallon is not a great actor, he is the best actor for the role. He is funny enough and gets the most laughs. Barrymore on the other hand is the same old Barrymore. At times, I felt supporting actress Ione Skye would have been a better actor for the role. All in all, all Boston Red Sox fans will love this movie. For the rest of the world, this is just a funny movie.

Of course the plot, script, and, especially casting are strong in the film. So many fine things to see. One aspect I liked especially is the idea of the antagonist--Luzhini's (Turturro's)--ex-mentor working his evil on the sidelines. His chess opponent--an Italian dandy in three piece and cane--turns out to be a real gent, and a truly fine chess player. To his credit the "opponent" nobly goes along with the plan at the end to complete the final game for the championship posthumously (Luzhin has taken a flyer out a window--sad, but so releasing to him)by way of the unstable genius' widow (Emily Watson.) In death, then, because of the gallantry of an honorable chess master, Luzhin's defence (which he worked out in a late moment of lucidity) is allowed to be played. The Italian gent commends the play and calls it brilliant. Talk about a dramatic "end game!"

The Kindred opens to shots of a Porsche racing along a highway, it catches up with an old pick-up truck and gets held up. As it speeds past the pick-up the driver (Benjamin J.Perry as Ben Perry) shouts obscenities and honks his horn. Distracted he doesn't notice an obstruction ahead and crashes his Porsche. He is quickly freed from the wreckage and is taken to hospital. On the way the Paramedic (Randy Harrington) trying to save him suggests that he probably won't make it. Then the Ambulance is attacked and forced off the road by a van. The driver of the van, Jackson (Jim Boeke as James F.Boeke) beats the Paramedic up and steals the patient. The Ambulance driver, Harry (Charles Grueber) makes no attempt to stop him. Once the injured man has been placed into the van Jackson turns his attention to Harry whom seem to know each other. Harry asks Jackson not to hit him because he broke his jaw 'last time'. Jackson punches Harry to the floor and throws a bundle of money at him. The film then makes it perfectly clear we are in San Fransisco by showing a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge. Sharon Raymond is woken up by a phone call for her boyfriend Dr. John Hollins (David Allen Brooks) to inform him that his Mother, Amanda (Kim Hunter) who has recently had a heart attack has regained consciousness. Hollins works for a company called the 'Geneticell Corporation' and is delighted at the news and heads off to see her. Once there she asks him to go back to his old childhood house in a small town called Shelter Cove and destroy all of her notes and experiments, especially the 'Anthony journals' which Hollins has never heard of, she also claims that he has a brother named Anthony. Back at Geneticell, Hollins talks with a Dr. Phillip Lloyd (Rod Steiger) about his Mother as they had both worked together before they had a falling out with each other, and questions him about her research and if he knows of anyone called Anthony. He claims he knows nothing. When Amanda dies after a visit from the sinister Dr. Lloyd, Hollins decides to carry out his Mothers request and try to find out who Anthony is. While paying his final respects at the funeral a woman named Melissa Leftridge (Amanda Pays) introduces herself to Hollins and says she was a big admirer of his Mothers work and research after she helped her. Because Melissa seems to know so much about his Mothers work he invites her to the house as she may possibly be able to help find some answers to various questions he has. Hollins, Sharon, Melissa and three lab assistants, Brad Baxter (Peter Frechette), Hart Phillips (Timothy Gibbs) and Cindy Russell (Julia Montgomery) plus a girl with a watermelon(!) named Nell Valentine (Bunki Z, great name what were her parents thinking!?). They get down to business straight away but find little of any interest. For some reason no one at this point thinks to look in the basement, which is just as well as there's something down there, something large, slimy and has lots of tentacles. First it kills Duke, the dog. Then it moves on to larger prey. When Hart is attacked by something in a barn Hollins decides he must destroy all traces of his Mothers work and whatever Anthony is. Jointly co-written and directed by Stepehn Carpenter and Jeffery Obrow, Carpenter also acted as cinematographer and Obrow as producer. This is a pretty poor film in my opinion. The script is credited to five(!) writers, Carpenter, Obrow, Earl Ghaffari, John Penny and Joseph Stefano and with five people working on it I'd like to think they could come up with something a little bit better and more coherent than this. Nothing is explained that well, why did Amanda create these monstrous sea creature/human hybrids? What is Dr. Lloyd's interest and his motives? Why does he steal bodies from the back of Ambulance's? Why does he have a basement full of mutants? Why do none of these so-called genetic scientists think to check the basement out? Could Melissa act more suspiciously even if she tried? Why are none of the characters given any background? Why do people keep mentioning a substance found in sea creatures called Hemocynine when 99.9% of the audience isn't going to have clue what their on about? There is also a serious lack of blood and gore, only one person dies on screen, just one! And all the scientists survive in a vomit inducingly mushy 'happy ending'. This is a horror film guys, all we want to see is the slimy monsters kill and eat people in various gory ways. The one on screen death is actually quite cool, someone has slimy tentacles inserted under their skin, in their ear and up their nose in the films only decent horror sequence. To try and up the gore quotent there is a scene where Dr. Lloyd is experimenting on a skinned animal but it only lasts for a few seconds, and in the context of the rest of the film doesn't mean a thing. Melissa also turns into a fish, don't ask. There's no nudity either, which isn't a surprise. The film looks professional enough with decent production values but is just so dull and plods along at a snails pace, we don't even get to see the giant monster in the basement until 15 odd minutes before the end which is far too little far too late, when it does make an appearance the effects are OK and that makes it even more of a shame that it wasn't used more. Overall I was very disappointed and I was expecting a lot better. A horror film with only one on screen death and only three in total, what's the world coming too?

To get in touch with the beauty of this film pay close attention to the sound track, not only the music, but the way all sounds help to weave the imagery. How beautifully the opening scene leading to the expulsion of Gino establishes the theme of moral ambiguity! Note the way music introduces the characters as we are led inside Giovanna's marriage. Don't expect to find much here of the political life of Italy in 1943. That's not what this is about. On the other hand, if you are susceptible to the music of images and sounds, you will be led into a word that reaches beyond neo-realism. By the end of the film we there are moments Antonioni-like landscape that has more to do with the inner life of the characters than with real places. This is one of my favorite Visconti films.

I was expecting this to be just like the others, tries to be scary- ends up looking silly. Somewhere along the line the writers must have realised this and so took the film in a totally different direction basically ignoring the other films. This feels like a different film rather than the fourth entry in the Child's Play series. The new idea works making this the best in the series by far.

Special sneak previews are always a good time. No matter what movie it is you are seeing, the theatre will always be packed by people who have been awaiting the film, like free stuff, thought it'd be something to do, or just got lost. Either way, no matter how good or bad the film, the audience alone will make it enjoyable. Now when said movie is a PG-13 pseudo- horror film (can you really delve into horror when the MPAA is on your back censoring everything?) you know there will be chatter, laughing, and breath holding. With The Messengers, the crowd did not disappoint giving numerous outbursts and warnings to the characters on screen. As for the actual movie, I feel sorry for those involved because it really could have been much better had it been paced right and allowed to stretch its legs beyond the scare/fade-to-black/show aftermath progression these films have. In the end we are shown a boring, plodding story with no surprises and few moments of actual suspense.<br /><br />The story is a common one. A family moves from the big city to the country after a traumatic event to try and rebuild their relationship with each other. Once settled in, the spirits of the house come out to the reformed troublemaker child whose past makes it even easier for the parents to disbelieve everything told to them. Of course the child is not crying wolf and those around only find out when it is too late. I will credit the Pang Brothers, (directors of the acclaimed The Eye that I would like to watch more than before to see what they can do without Hollywood interference—supposedly reshoots on The Messengers were done by someone else, but the brothers retained credit; it's a shame what our studio system does to foreigners especially when it was creative independence which made the films that brings them in and not bottomline interference), for really having a fitting style and for keeping the tired plot line somewhat fresh. Unfortunately, though, I also must give them credit for the almost unbearable slowness. Similar to why I disliked What Lies Beneath, I couldn't stand the drawn out suspense, which goes so far as to make it laughable. When our heroine and her brother stand in a hallway with a ghost behind them, the scene lasts about eight minutes with just static, oddly composed close-ups and depth of field focus changes to end up culminating to absolutely nothing. For being only 84 minutes, I almost think it would have worked better even shorter.<br /><br />Besides a very effective opening sequence, featuring the fantastic Jodelle Ferland, (strangely playing a boy), and a great atmospheric credit sequence, the only thing that saves the film from utter garbage is the acting. Except for Penelope Ann Miller, who first made me wonder what ever happened to her and then, after a few scenes, made me understand why I never asked that question in the years she was absent, and Dustin Milligan, completely lacking in credibility, the acting is very strong. Dyan McDermott does a nice job as the father trying to keep his family together through all the tough times. He has many little moments of light comedy to counteract his serious, dramatic role. William B. Davis (everyone's favorite Cancerman) is used effectively as an almost foreboding character, sadly not utilized more. Our true stars are Kristen Stewart and John Corbett. Stewart plays the emotion very well and shows some promise as an actress with this and Panic Room on her resume. As for Corbett, if he didn't pull off his role, the entire movie would have unraveled completely. I do wish he would be given more work as I've enjoyed him since the under-appreciated series "The Visitor"—I still need to check out his first role in "Northern Exposure," a show I haven't yet been able to catch up on. It's a shame he will probably be most recognizable for the overrated My Big Fat Greek Wedding.<br /><br />If anything, The Messengers gave me a nice introduction to the Pang Brothers' work and reinvigorated my desire to check out their Chinese horror catalog. The mood and performances were there; it was just the simple and vacant story that needed way too much padding to make a feature film. If they delved more into other characters, rather than just Stewart's, it could have been more effective while also having something more to show then ten minute scenes of nothing. If our protagonist is the only one being attacked, there is no suspense as to how far the creatures will go to harm her. The moments of danger had no gravity to them and until the ending really just stood in as filler. I am excited, however, for the free comic book given away after the special screening, as hopefully the medium will allow for a faster paced story that engrosses before it tries to surprise.