Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

This movie was terrible. You couldn't fast forward fast enough to get to the end of this movie. It came down to the last 20 minutes of the film and I literally hit the eject button right in the middle of the scene. It was one of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Worse than all Dean Cain films combined. To start, the acting was terrible. I realize that the main actors were from the cast of survivor, but one would think that any TV experience would have given them a little more talent. The movies other main problem was the campy visual effects and the poor film quality. In the movies defense, the theme of the show was well intentioned and the story was all right.

Bruce Almighty, one of Carrey's best pictures since... well... a long time. It contains one of the funniest scenes I have seen for a long time too... Morgan Freeman plays God well and even chips in a few jokes that are surprisingly funny. It contains one or two romantic moments that are a bit boring but over all a great movie with some funny scenes. The best scene in, it is where Jim is messing up the anchor man's voice.<br /><br />My rating: 8/10

This film had me spellbound this evening. Thanks to Fox Movie Classics for showing it uninterrupted. John Voight, this cast of little known black actresses and most of all, the children, made this a worthy way to spend a Sunday evening. How wonderful to see the early work of this seasoned actor, as well as Paul Winfield's excellent portrayal of Mad Billy. I can't see why anyone would say that Hume Cronyn is miscast in the role as superintendent. Who would they have chosen? The shrill character actor, Charles Lane? Although his career is laudable, an actor such as Lane would have cheapened the role. Cronyn was an excellent choice for the part. I will count this film as a true treasure to hold in memory.

Katherine Heigl, Marley Shelton, Denise Richards, David Boreanaz. Even before I knew what this film was about, these names were enough to draw me in. Gorgeous, talented and popular, these are performers to look out for.<br /><br />Ok, where do I start. We already know what the film is about. Five beautiful girls being targeted by a 'romantic' serial slasher, a guy they all turned down at the school dance 13 years ago. His trademarks include subtle deaththreats disguised as valentine cards, maggot-infested chocolates and a bleeding nose. His weapon of choice: well, take a pick - axe, knife, electric powerdrill, bow and arrow, hot iron, etc. Ok, so basically it's a horror movie with a nice twisted sense of sexuality.<br /><br />Horror movies aren't supposed to be Shakespeare, but I'm not gonna go there. I love horror movies, but not all of them. This one, I adore. It's up there with some of my other favorites. It's funny, sexy and scary. The killer's mask is childishly creepy, and seeing cupid firing a bow and arrow at a victim is really freaky. The acting is topnotch: Denise Richards, Marley Shelton and David Boreanaz are a lot of fun. I really did wish to see much, much more of Katherine Heigl. I am one of her biggest fans and would love to see her doing some leading work soon. Jessica Capshaw is a very capable actress, and Jessica Cauffiel gets to do the ditzy blonde role she perfected in Urban Legend 2. The smaller parts were also good; Hedy Buress was a hoot ('bleedmedry.com') and that younger version of Denise Richards looked frightfully like her.<br /><br />Highlights: Every death scene had a particular distinction to it. The creepiest being the opening scene in the morgue. The hottub scene, while ludicrous, was well done. And the audiovisual maze was sinister. The soundtrack is great, with creepy music and some fine alternative tunes.<br /><br />Lowpoint: I felt as though the killer wasn't featured enough, we barely saw the mask, and it wasn't featured at all during the climax. I also thought the climax was really unfocused, but fun nonetheless.<br /><br />The twist at the end wasn't that big of a surprise, but I'm really glad that the filmmakers decided to spare us that whole 'explaining killer' routine.<br /><br />I don't like to tell people which movies they should see, but if someone asked me to pick a horror movie that I thought was really worth seeing, then Valentine would be it.<br /><br />My rating: 10/10 (Bullseye!)

Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.<br /><br />In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.

This little film is hysterical, full of stereotypes about gays, straights, dwarfs, British tea and pubs, American gun culture, divorce and marriage; yet, it manages to be sensitive to the issues surrounding each. Kathy Bates is "Amazing" Grace Beasley, and as a character actor of staggering range, she brings her considerable comedic talent to ground this somewhat unusual film as she did in Fried Green Tomatos. With the help of other comedic talents like Dan Akroid as Max, her ex-lawyer husband and the backdrop of downtown Chicago and rural England, the story is just intriguing enough to entertain. Jonathan Price plays Victor Fox, a closet gay singer murdered by a cross-bow killer in Chicago. His valet-lover Dirk Simpson, played by the stunning Rupert Everett, must overcome Victor's siblings, including Lynn Redgrave, who want to turn their home into a tribute museum, and teams with Bates and her dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudy Beasley, to find the killer among the homeless of Chicago.<br /><br />The entire cast sing at various points in the pursuit, and are excellent, esp. the talented Price and Bates. This implausible storyline, both funny and bizarre, is one of the most off-center films. Cameos by Julie Andrews, Barry Manlow, and Sally Jesse Raphael should tell you just how bizarre this film truly is. Strange, funny, and off-center but with a good perspective about people with every kind of difference.

What an ambitious project Kenneth Branagh undertook here and how well it was realized! This is the first filmed version of 'Hamlet' to use the full text of Shakespeare's play, but Branagh didn't do it just because "it was there." His intention, I believe, was to make the play accessible and understandable to the general viewer without dumbing it down, so to speak. In return he asks viewers to put in a little work themselves, a fair enough proposition and one that's a bargain.<br /><br />The setting is a generic 19th century European one and this does more than work well, it keeps a modern or ancient look from possibly distracting from the work itself. The production design and cinematography and both outstanding, which helps immensely when you're watching a four-hour movie. Branagh's casting once again is inspired and the acting is likewise. The direction accomplishes the heavy task of making this a movie rather than a deluxe version of a play. Since so much of 'Hamlet' is based on interior monologue and there are relatively few duels, battles, etc., this can be a daunting task. But everything Branagh tries to do seems to work.<br /><br />Branagh has always been one of the most interesting actor/writer/directors, if not always the best, since he made his big splash with 'Henry V.' One quibble I had with him was what I saw as a tendency to ham it up at times. In his portrayal of Hamlet here he might be accused of that again, but there is a method at work. Let's face it, 'Hamlet' is not an easy work for the average person to understand and if one has never seen it performed before, he or she needs help even if they've read the play. Hamlet has the most lines of any Shakespearian character and Branagh makes sure that his viewers know what this man is thinking and feeling throughout the film, even if you don't know the literal meaning of every arcane word. This performance by Branagh was at the very least worthy of an Oscar nomination.<br /><br />There are so many other outstanding performances here they're almost too numerous to mention, but some of them must be acknowledged. Derek Jacobi as Claudius is superb but even he takes a back seat to Kate Winslet when it comes to handing out praise. Her portrayal of Ophelia is awesome in its depth of feeling, made only more outstanding by the knowledge that she was only about 20 years old at the time! She looks to me like the finest young actress around. Other super performers in no particular order are Richard Briers, Nicholas Farrell, Michael Maloney, and Reece Dinsdale and Timothy Spall as Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, respectively. Honorable mention goes to Julie Christie, Charlton Heston, and Robin Williams, who manages to do his thing here successfully. Even Billy Crystal as a gravedigger works. The one cast member who doesn't, inexplicably, is Jack Lemmon. In the very opening scene he appears, and while the other three actors do a great job at setting the tense mood, Lemmon sounds like he is just running lines in rehearsal as a favor. You know this must have been a real dilemma for Branagh, since everything else about the movies screams out that it's the work of a perfectionist.<br /><br />Not to be facetious when speaking of a four-hour movie, but it does seem just a tad too long. Some monologues and conversations do tend to go on a bit, if I may be so bold, and a little bit of judicious pruning would be welcome.<br /><br />Did I forget anything, other than Patrick Doyle's score? No doubt I did. I'll just sum up by saying that Kenneth Branagh may have made the definitive film version of 'Hamlet,' and it will be a truly monumental production that tops this one.

<br /><br />I really liked this film. One of those rare films that Hollywood Really does not make anymore. William H Macy Is Just great as the hit man with a soul, and Neve Campbell is just flat out fantastic as the woman who puts his life on the track of redemption.<br /><br />If you have a chance, see this film. It earns it's praise

Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.<br /><br />I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.

This movie was, unfortunately, terrible.<br /><br />Clichéd, hackneyed, stilted dialogue and acting make it almost unwatchable.<br /><br />The feel-good finale is laughably lame.<br /><br />There is a reason Judge Reinhold's career has vanished.<br /><br />If you don't live in New York, and aren't Jewish, several of the jokes will be inscrutable.<br /><br />I, too, found the need to have the unacknowledged lesbian daughter go straight at the end quite insulting.<br /><br />I simply cannot fathom how this film was so popular at film fests.<br /><br />It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time.

Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release).

A Disney movie that dares to do something different should at least be awarded for effort. "Holes" doesn't make the same mistakes as one would expect from a Disney movie about troubled teenagers put in a camp. For the first time events are not explained in details. The flashback scenes really do serve a purpose and present several mature topics that may surprise the viewer. I must admit that at first I was a bit put off by the seriousness of the movie. But soon I realized that we had to endure those moments to see the beauty of the story. Besides the story this movie also does a good job of questioning some methods that are used in correctional facilities. (One example where Caveman is forbidden to teach Zero to read because they have to dig holes in order to build character,like learning to read won't contribute to that). "Holes" is a movie that is smart and beautiful. A must watch!

Frank Sinatra did so many excellent things in the world of entertainment that it's hard to single one out as the best. If I had to name the best thing he ever did, though, it would be his performance as Frankie Machine, the heroin- addicted musician and poker dealer who is saved, just barely, by the love of a good woman (played by an exceptionally babelicious Kim Novak). The "cold-turkey" scenes between Sinatra and Novak are terrifying and heartbreaking. The movie is very nearly perfect, in fact, from Saul Bass's title graphics to the ground-breaking jazz score by Elmer Bernstein. It might not be the sort of thing anyone thinks of in regard to the 1950s, but it's a must-see nevertheless.

I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.<br /><br />Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.<br /><br />*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!

This has long been one of my favourite adaptations of an Austen novel. Although it is definitely not in the same category as the spectacular "Pride and Prejudice," "Emma" is a lush and relatively faithful TV version of Austen's novel -- especially considering its short length. The biggest change between the novel and the movie is a good one, as the unnecessary snobbishness that Austen exhibits at the end of the story is removed here and replaced with someone much more akin to Emma's character in the rest of the book. I thought the characters chosen to portray the roles were well-picked. Kate Beckinsale walks the fine line between girlishness and the social snob with a grace completely lost in Gwyneth Paltrow's '96 version. Samantha Morton's wispy blonde locks suit her attitude and character as the simper that accompanies her role in previous characterisations is replaced with the Harriet we know from the book. Mister Knightly's role is carried out extremely well in my opinion; both the seriousness and the gentle compassion that the hero is painted with in the novel are present here in this much-neglected, sumptuous film.

I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!

This movie was incredible!!!! I did not know the back story on it so I needed to let it unfold before me on DVD. It had many twists and turns but still kept the story fresh and exciting. The acting by Elaine Cassidy was in a word Brilliant as well as Sally Hawkins. The storyline is rich with plausible occurrences as well as fresh ideas from the present.<br /><br />There is truly something about Ms. Cassidy's eyes that leaves "a mark." This movie is a refreshing look on the way in which we look at the 'victorian times' and how we view that society. A very worthwhile watch.

This was a wonderfully clever and entertaining movie that I shall never tire of watching many, many times. The casting was magnificent in matching up the young with the older characters. There are those of us out here who really do appreciate good actors and an intelligent story format. As for Judi Dench, she is beautiful and a gift to any kind of production in which she stars. I always make a point to see Judi Dench in all her performances. She is a superb actress and a pleasure to watch as each transformation of her character comes to life. I can only be grateful when I see such an outstanding picture for most of the motion pictures made more recently lack good characters, good scripts and good acting. The movie public needs heroes, not deviant manikins, who lack ingenuity and talent. How wonderful to see old favorites like Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Cleo Laine. I would like to see this movie win the awards it deserves. Thank you again for a tremendous night of entertainment. I congratulate the writer, director, producer, and all those who did such a fine job.

This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out "And now we're over budget!" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.

I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.<br /><br />*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.<br /><br />Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.<br /><br />The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.<br /><br />tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.<br /><br />If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.<br /><br />You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.<br /><br />All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.<br /><br />If... only I could get my two hours back.

Band Camp was awful, The Naked Mile was a little better, and this third straight to DVD in the American Pie franchise seems the same quality as the predecessor. Basically Erik Stifler (John White) split from his girlfriend after losing his virginity, and now him and Mike 'Cooze' Coozeman (Jake Siegel) are joining Erik's cousin Dwight (Steve Talley) at college. With the promise of many parties, plenty of booze, and enough hot chicks at the Beta House, they only have fifty listed tasks to carry out to become official privileged members. But a threat comes into sight with the rivals, GEK ("Geek") House, led by power-hungry nerd (and sheep shagger) Edgar (Tyrone Savage) offering bigger and better than what Beta have. To settle it once and for all, Beta and Gek go into battle with the banned, for forty years, Greek Games to beat each other in, with the loser moving out. The last champion of the games, Noah Levenstein aka Jim's Dad (the only regular Eugene Levy) runs the show, which sees the people unhooking bras, a gladiator duel floating on water, catching a greased pig, Russian Roulette in the mouth with cartridges of aged horse spunk, wife carrying and drinking a full keg of alcohol (with puking not disqualifying). It all comes to the sudden death, with a guy getting stripper lap dancing, and they have to resist cumming, Beta House win when Edgar cums with a girl dressed as a sheep on his lap. Also starring Flubber's Christopher McDonald as Mr. Stifler, Meghan Heffern as Ashley, Dan Petronijevic as Bull, Nic Nac as Bobby, Christine Barger as Margie, Italia Ricci as Laura Johnson, Moshana Halbert as Sara Coleman, Sarah Power as Denise, Andreja Punkris as Stacy and Jordan Prentice as Rock. The nudity amount is very slightly increased, as is the grossness of the jokes, and I could guess it being rated one star out of five, but I like it. Adequate!

A dozen bored surfers, mostly kids in Venice, California, not only reinvent the skateboard but remake a once-forgotten-about suburban fad from the 1950s into an action sports revolution.<br /><br />Narrarated by Sean Penn, Dogtown depicts life in the more rundown "Locals Only" beach communities circa 1974, which consisted of mostly of surfing in the early morning tides and loitering. The Zephyr Team (or Z-boys as they are called) spend one summer combating the boredom by building their own boards with the help of a local who owns a surf shop. After they enter re-emerging skateboarding competitions in SoCal, they transfigure it all into their own scene; one that rouses a generation of skateboarders consisting of greats like Tony Hawk, Shaun White and the creators of the of X-Games.<br /><br />Dogtown puts chronological perspective into skateboarding, and the up-from-the-bootstraps history you never knew it had.<br /><br />from Andy Frye at MySportsComplex.blogspot.com

Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!<br /><br />This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!<br /><br />One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga!

I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity.

The plot of this movie hangs on one important point: that this murderer was also a responsible, loving, caring father. Not that being a father and a murderer is impossible. But this man is shown murdering a teenage girl without provocation or reason and without emotion. This girl was someone's daughter. I don't think a father who cared so much about his own daughter could have been so cold-blooded to someone else's daughter. Or, alternately, could have been so cold blooded and yet worry about and care for his own daughter. And the idea that a convicted murderer would actually ask his victim's parents to take in and care for his daughter is beyond belief.<br /><br />That said, the characters were acted with conviction by the actors. I thought changing Scott Bakula's eye color did make him seem more cold and menacing than he usually is. You couldn't see into his eyes at all.

Once you sit down to see this film " A Cannon for Cordoba " you get the feeling it's going to be a great. The reason? The film begins with a rousing score by noted composer Elmer Bernstein who gave us such memorable themes as 'The Great Escape and the Magnificent Seven.' Indeed, when you read the opening credits headlining the cast is none other than George Peppard as Capt. Rod Douglas, you know it's going to have action and lot's of it. Furthermore when you see actor John Russel playing General John J. Pershing, you know you're in for a heroic saga. The story is taken from the annals of the Mexican revolution and involves the U.S. in a border town dispute with the Mexican bandits who cross the Rio Grande in the early 1900s. Among the most brazen of the rebel leaders is General Cordova (Raf Vallone). With his army of Mexican revolutionaries, he attacks Pershing, kills his men and steals some valuable artillery pieces. Since the United States Army cannot enter Mexico legally, Capt. Douglas is sent on what is slated a suicide mission, without orders and without aid from Pershing. His mission is to retrieve the Cannons, destroy a rebel stronghold and bring Cordova back alive. Selecting the roughest, toughest, most experienced, certainly the most insolent men available, Douglas enters Mexico and attacks the nearly impregnable fortress. Dramatic action follows, as does lots of explosive excitement. If one is asks for criticism, I would say the choice of heavies. Vallone and John Larch are not very menacing. Not so with the men who side with Peppard. Pete Duel and Don Gordon (Who is superb.) Nevertheless, this movie is recommended as good viewing. ****

I saw "A Page of Madness" in a silent film course at Wesleyan University and it haunts me still after 25 years. Truly ahead of its time - perhaps even still - this gem of a film reveals both the frightening and attractive aspects of madness.

Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon starts aboard a plane full of American high school teens who are on their way to play a football game in Japan, unfortunately during a fierce thunder storm their plane crashes in the Himalayas. Unlucky really. With some dead & some alive the survivors have to think about themselves & decide to wait it out until help comes. However just when they think their luck couldn't get any worse they soon discover that a huge, hairy Yeti type Abominable Snowman creature wants to kill & eat them all. Trapped, cold, starving & fighting for survival will help reach the stranded teens in time?<br /><br />Yeah, with a title like Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon it can only mean one thing & that is that someone at the Sci-Fi Channel has made yet another 'Creature Feature' although to give these things a bit of variety the Sci-Fi Channel here in the UK are now dubbing them as a 'Beast Feast'! As if that will make any difference. Directed by Paul Ziller one has to say that Yeti: Curse of the Snow Deamon is a terrible film but a somewhat entertaining one at the same time, sure it's bad but it's sort of fun at times too. The basic premise is alright actually, it's a sort of cross between Alive (1993) with it's plane crash & the survivors having to turn cannibal to survive & the excellent gory killer Bigfoot (another legendary hairy monster) exploitation flick Night of the Demon (1980) which I would defend with my last breath & I have to say it's not exactly a marriage made in heaven but as I said it's fun at times if not exactly gripping or well written. The character's are mostly annoying American teens, there's the expected arguing, there's the macho hero, the strong female & the coward who thinks only of himself so there's no prizes for originality. There are some plot holes too, if a plane load of people crash why only send two rangers on foot to search for them? How are you going to dig a large hole & line it with sharpened sticks in the space of ten minutes? Why did the Yeti not kill that bird at the end? It had killed everyone else up to that point so why not her? The 'there are actually two Yeti's running around' twist isn't used to any effect at all either. At least there's a good pace about the film, it certainly moves along at a fair old pace & I never found myself becoming bored with it. There's some moderately gory action & the film does have some fascination in seeing whether the kids are going to survive or not & if they are going to eat their dead mates or not.<br /><br />The one thing you can always say about these Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' or 'Beast Feasts' is that the CGI computer effects will be laugh out loud hilarious & so that proves to be the case yet again. The plane crash at the start looks awful & the Yeti when it's CGI looks simply embarrassing jumping all over the place like it's on a pogo stick. There one or two nice gore scenes including a ripped off arm, a squashed head, a ripped out heart, some dead bodies, some blood splatter & the best bit when the Yeti rips a guy in half & beats him with his own ripped-off legs before biting a big chunk out of them. According to the IMDb the actor playing the Yeti took three & a half hours to get into the suit & the make-up which seems like a long time since it's actually a pretty tatty looking creation. Apparently the original title was Raksha: Curse of the Snow Demon with Raksha meaning demon in Tibetan Sanskrit, so now you know.<br /><br />This has reasonable production values considering the usual Sci-Fi Channel stuff they churn out although the mountain location looks nothing like the harsh, bleak Himalayas & was probably situated near some ski resort somewhere & during a lot of the daytime scenes it actually looks pleasantly warm. The acting isn't that good & I didn't think any of the girls looked that good either which didn't help.<br /><br />Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon is another terrible Sc-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' if I am honest that any sane person will not like but if your looking for a bit of horror themed fun then this isn't too bad & there are one or two entertaining moments that make it somewhat watchable even if it's not very good.

Just watched this movie on DVD and thought the acting was very good, but the over all story left a lot to be desired. This movie has the same texture and look of Panic in Needle Park or Drugstore Cowboy. Hard to believe that human beings can live this type of lifestyle; on the underbelly of society, in which their total existence is based on hardcore drug use, crime, violence, sex, and a total lack of self-respect for anyone or anything, including themselves.<br /><br />Val Kilmore is outstanding in his role of "burnt-out" former porn star John Holmes. The supporting cast is just as good. However, this is a bleak, dark, disturbing, and depressing film. The murder was brutal, but the daily lives of these people were brutal as well. Unless you have an interest in these murders or were a "fan" of John Holmes, this really isn't a film to see. If you want to see a docu-drama on murder, Truman Capote's 1960s In Cold Blood starring Scott Wilson and Robert Blake is much better.

I loved this show. I used to actually leave the pub ten minutes before closing and run down the road to catch it. I remember Daniel Peacock's sketch about Gandhi in the newsagents as a masterpiece. The set design and lighting were out of this world, creating an atmosphere that you felt you were actually living in. V unusual for a comedy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I have only encountered one other person (apart from the other reviewer here) who ever knew that this programme existed. In fact I have to thank the IMDb for coming into existence and proving to me that I hadn't in fact imagined the whole series in a drunken haze, which I was seriously starting to believe!

Two L.A cops track down a serial killer nicknamed "The family man" who has wiped out whole families and when one of the police officer's wife takes the deep six, questions are raised and it turns out that a serial killer isn't responsible but rather mobsters. The idea of Seagal in a serial killer movie is an interesting concept, indeed one could see Seagal play a good serial killer however making him a cop who has a ridiculous penchant for prayer beads and razor sharp credit cards comes off more stupid than likably ridiculous. Also a running joke involves Wayon's enjoyment of eating powdered deer penis and well this raunchy material is utterly out of place. Not to mention the beginning of a school being taken hostage, due to a boy's breakup with his girlfriend. After Seagal neutralizes him, the girlfriend tells the young lad that she loves him. Now there is a lesson to be learned from all of this, if you want your girlfriend back, taking the school hostage may get you back on her good side. I myself would think flowers or the old fashioned phone call might work, then again though, i'm old fashioned. Besides who am I to put a damper on somebody else's brilliant reconciliation plan.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)

This was an absolutely spellbinding series and was sorry that I was only able to catch a few shows way back when it aired late night in the UK. The style of it was so different from others of its kind and the whole thing had an unnerving air of stylish dread to it. All you have to do is read all the positive comments (not a single negative that I can see) to realise what a really innovative series this was and how it caught at the imagination. I now understand from reading the comments it got CANCELLED that's just so unbelievable. What a bunch of 'headless overpaid suited turkeys' there must have been (or just maybe still are) running around to do that.

This was an adorable movie. A real feel-good movie when you need one. The story is light (this is no Gone With the Wind) but sometimes, one needs this kind of plot. Funny and warm characters, fantastic acting and beautiful costumes/wardrobe.<br /><br />Parminder K. Nagra (also from the TV show ER) is WONDERFUL in this role. She is definitely a new shining star for Hollywood. All should keep an eye on her, she's going to be BIG in the future.<br /><br />Also impressing was the soundtrack for this movie. A nice mix of modern and Indian tunes. I was dancing throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />Highly recommended if a fun movie is what you need.

The child actor certainly deserves a lot of credit. It was a pretty weak field for Best Picture that year. I think "Apocalypse Now" should have taken it, but the Academy probably felt it was too violent and strange, plus Vietnam was still too recent. Meryl Streep was tremendous, as always, playing a very unlikeable character. I don't usually compliment directors, but I really liked that bit with the elevator doors. Grade: B

For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the "F" word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of "F's" for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek" and have a good laugh.

... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised "disturbing and politically incorrect scenes", and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4/10

The Falcon and the Snowman is the true story of two college-age rich kids from L.A. who become spies for the Soviet Union. One, played by Penn, is already a drug smuggler up to his eyeballs in trouble. The other, played by Hutton, lands a position at an aerospace firm where his job is to man a top-secret cable facility. There he learns of some of the dirty tricks employed by the CIA on foreigners that America doesn't like. Don't forget that the movie is set the early 70s, the time of Vietnam and Watergate. Appalled at what he's learned, the Hutton character decides to betray his country and convinces his buddy to join him. Neither of them is long on brains, it is not long before they're way in over their heads with no way out.<br /><br />This is not a thriller, and is rather slowly paced. If this is not a problem for you, then it is well worth the rental.

This Hong Kong filmed potboiler packs in more melodrama than week's worth of 'The Young & The Restless'. This one is more of a throwback to the original 'Emmanuelle' trilogy(especially 'Goodbye Emmanuelle') than a D'Amato sleazefest. Chai Lee(Emy Wong)undergoes a stunning transformation from dour nurse to hot-to-trot streetwalker. Future Italian porn star/politician, Illona Staller, who would later go by the name Ciccolina(and have sex with an HIV positive John Holmes) plays Emy's competition. Exotic locales and some decent soft-core scenes round this one out. Recommended for fans of the original 'Emmanuelle', of which I am one!

I can't believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.

This is easily the most disappointing, least gratifying movie of the entire so-called blacksploitation genre, which, by the way, are films we generally enjoy a great deal in our home. Rather than being "exploitation" or demeaning, these films actually provide a priceless insight into an era. Well, not Bucktown.<br /><br />In this story, Duke returns to Bucktown to operate the night club left to him by his recently deceased brother. He quickly learns that the city is entirely controlled by a corrupt police force, bleeding protection money out of all the local businesses. Duke resists, and determines that he will rescue the city from the corrupt police. Unfortunately, he does so by calling in a posse of his friends (these people are vaguely explained as some former black-militants who have worked with Duke on "jobs" in the past) and they simply murder the entire police department in cold blood. And literally in the presence of hundreds of witnesses who do nothing to stop it. Ignorance is not a justification for murder, and it would have been much more entertaining to see the Cracker Police suffer for their actions as opposed to merely getting whacked in the street. While revenge is a ubiquitous and generally satisfying theme in films of this genre, it is a far cry from seeing Pam Grier track down the thugs who off'ed her family, cuss them out, give them a jujitsu ass-kickin' and set their 'fro on fire. That has art (and a reason for existing) and merits a level of respect that is quite undeserved by simply shooting someone in the back. Of course, in this bizarre tale, she is playing a woman completely under The Man's thumb, afraid of the Crackers who run her town and oppress her people. Indeed, her advice to Duke is, "Run, man, they gonna kill you!"<br /><br />Following the sickening and gratuitous violence, we are expected to believe that the town's mayor wholeheartedly condones the actions of Duke and his friends, congratulating them and offering to throw a parade in their honor, as opposed to, say, calling the district attorney to press capital murder charges against them and have them taken into custody. Duke's posse declines the parade and instead opts to fill the numerous vacancies on the police force created by their recent killing spree. They immediately prove to be even more corrupt than their Cracker Police predecessors (to quote the mayor, "They are ten times worse than what we had before!"). Now Duke finds he must again rescue the citizens of Bucktown from corrupt, protection-racket law enforcement officials and again make it safe for decent folk to operate a prostitution business in the streets. Unfortunately, Duke has already lost all moral high ground and sympathy due a hero, as he was a willing participant in the murder of the original police force. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other if he had rescued Bucktown or gotten plugged himself at this point. I suppose we are to be entertained by the clever way Duke has to outsmart the new Police Goons, but in reality the film has now just become an opera of gratuitous violence, Duke murders all of his former friends and allies in cold blood with the same absence of compassion he had when gunning down the Cracker Police. Duke is a pig.<br /><br />Finally, when everyone in town but Duke, Aretha, and the employees of the local brothel are dead and bleedin' in the street, our hero and heroine walk off into the night as though they had some admirable qualities or redeeming values; they don't. Duke is merely a murderous thug and Aretha his enabling misogynist accomplice. If you are interested in this genre of film, by all means, I highly recommend them, see Coffy, Foxy Brown, Truck Turner, Blacula, Sheba Baby…but if in the process you should run across this DVD, throw it as far away as you possibly can! Drop it like it's hot! It should be treated as one would treat a glowing puddle of nuclear waste! There is no single film in the entire Blacksploitation era that is not dramatically more entertaining, satisfying and populated with more sympathetic and admirable characters than this piece of slime, obviously written by and targeted at some hormonally imbalanced high school sophomores.

The movie celebrates life.<br /><br />The world is setting itself for the innocent and the pure souls and everything has "Happy End", just like in the closing scene of the movie.<br /><br />The movie has wonderful soundtrack, mixture of Serbian neofolk, Gypsy music and jazz.<br /><br />This movie is very refreshing piece of visual poetics.<br /><br />The watching experience is like you've been sucked in another colorful, romantic and sometimes rough world.<br /><br />Like Mr. Kusturica movie should be.

Effort aside (This isn't a review about good intentions, its about the final product), this film is poorly written, overacted, and poorly directed. The story obviously had potential, but that story is nowhere present in this film.<br /><br />Clara Barton was a human being. She had passions, desires, love, pain, embarrassment, weakness, and self doubt just like the rest of us. You would never know that from this film of the lead actress's performance. In fact apply that to every character in the film, but in Barton's case: Every sentence is a speech. An epic over the top speech as though from an inhuman robot. In fact the only scene that plays well in one in the board meeting, and I realized thats because she's making a speech! Every idea she has is unbelievable in its context and she comes up with ideas that sound like they take a lifetime of soul searching right on the spot. For example, when she sees a wounded man, she'll start pontificating about the needs of the battlefield and to protect soldiers and putting up white flags, etc. As played in the film, there's no WAY she could come up with such a detailed well thought out idea in seconds.<br /><br />IN conclusion, this film robs Clara Barton of her struggles. It robs her of her humanity, and it inherently cheapens all she did because the script is written in clichés. The writer doesn't know Clara Barton, and seems to have based his script on an encyclopedia Britannica article. (yes they had those back then) But hey, nice Technicolor! (who cares)

What can I say about this movie except that it is great fun!<br /><br />John Cusack plays Hoops McCann a recent High School graduate who has two choices, learn to take up the family business of street sweeping or spend the summer at Nantucket with his pal George Calamari (played hilariously by Joel Murray) and his zany friends.<br /><br />When I say zany, believe me, it can't get much zanier than the Stork brothers, Egg (Bobcat Goldthwait) and Clay (Tom Villard) and Ack Ack Raymond (Curtis Armstrong). Throw in a little girl named Squid and her weirdo mutt and a great performance by Demi Moore and you have the makings of a split your sides laughing, movie.<br /><br />The laughs flow freely in this movie and the story line, though the typical good versus bad and good conquers, is great with the twist of a regatta as the showdown.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie for anyone who likes loads of laughs and a feel good time. If you like to thoroughly *enjoy* your movies, then you can't miss One Crazy Summer!

I saw this film numerous times in the late 60's/early 70's whenever it reared it's head like a reindeer with rabies every November-December as a Saturday matinée kiddie show.It was always stiff competition for THE CHRSTMAS THAT ALMOST WASN'T (oops-can I SAY "Christmas"?), perhaps the greatest,most iconic Christmas-season film of all time.But that's another review.<br /><br />At the time,I marveled that the on-screen tint of SANTA CLAUS was almost "pink and white", so much had the color of the sprocket-torn prints changed color.<br /><br />The film is kinda creepy! I thought so then--and still do, actually. I was highly entertained then, as I still am! It's amusing in a "retarted-elf" sort of way. By the way,the image quality looks much better on the DVD I have now than it did in the theater, circa 1969-74.<br /><br />If you are expecting maybe "the lost RANKIN-BASS Christmas special-forget it! If you want FELLINI DOES Christmas--read on...<br /><br />By nature, the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in Spanish)always makes them seem "surreal". This adds to the films inherent oddness. It is also pretty scary in that a "mishevious demon" (as described in the original US trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids "evil". One particularly nightmarish scene has a young "latch-key" boy wishing he had parents for Christmas-suddenly the "port-a-family" emerges out of giant "Christmas presents-of-the-mind" until he realizes he's just daydreaming! See this,Christmas lovers--and if you're a stoner, save your stash--this film will make you think you're hallucinating...without drugs!

I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is <br /><br />With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?<br /><br />Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment

There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl going through the admissions process at school. The parental absence at all important junctures in Lauren Ambrose's school search provide admissions interviews only and draws the interviews with them at below transcript quality review that in 30 minutes sabotages four years of high school grading. The incident of anger in her mother obviously block a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or her disabled sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother's truer involvement in family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has done something big - trying to make her mother fulfilled and then that plan itself, somewhat heroic in light of the age she is - still giving when everyone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart not yet connected to her head - something that age has never had a genuine answer to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, not necessarily requiring a father image, however, a trusted authority nonetheless being imagined if not real. A pure cup without a handler .......(see the movie). Everyone needs a friend to see through understanding of a proportional world - she made hers up on what she knew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higher learning though having no friends present for her time makes the ending a developmental tragedy in progress ... given a bird in a cage... not a puppy... that would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas out of the roof she is under would be the developing on her sidewalk life. Sad is the looming psychiatric ending... how could she be committed at a time when she has proved an important responsibility? (believe it or not taking of a dog is a better witness than taking care of a bird at this time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too much mental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story. The neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is as developed as the training education will allow for the mental maturity that dwarfs her eternal purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. I myself, eventually just went to the Mensa magazine and got a $20.00 degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all the education that buying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content. "Run the world" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who was freeing anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is not having your pleasure right. What fight figged on that? She has been denied an act for life commensurate to her love for life. What is college, a reward for failing high school? Do you graduate with your class or without it - what is the exchange? A lifetime of correcting youth with only questions? Could lead occur w/o a question? The loss followed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexual intimacy or growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn't good people treat her with good things? If good people do not do good things for good people, what is good for? She is young, pretty and walked on long before personal development is given a winning game. Her act taken in life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be better as "Christmas Doors" not "Admissions".

Being (somewhat) an independent filmmaker myself, I really understand what these guys were trying to do and it sounds like a good idea. On paper. On 16mm film, however, it's awful. I didn't realize the thing was made in the mid 90's because the film was so grainy and bad I would have sworn this was one of those 30 year old flicks where a porn producer tried to go mainstream. And the sound! Ugh, I don't know what kind of mic they were using to record but it sounds like someone is walking over dead leaves throughout the entire thing. I guess I shouldn't judge too harshly, after all, how many feature films has MY company put out? None, but I'd like to think that we'd at least have good picture and sound quality to go with our poor acting, writing, and directing. A+ for idea, F-- for execution.

The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.<br /><br />First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.<br /><br />The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.<br /><br />Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.<br /><br />Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.<br /><br />I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.

I couldn't help but feel that this could have been a bigger movie than it was. The screenplay is highly intelligent and it just seemed that it could have been opened up in a way more reminiscent of Seven. Not by changing the story - I think mainly through the cinematography. The cinematography was the only thing that I found to be holding back the film. On the other hand, the pacing was absolutely on point. Whoever worked on the editing really did their job well. And I thought Bill Paxton did a great job of directing. Now away from the technical stuff...<br /><br />This movie threw me for a loop. SPOILER AHEAD!!!! All along, I really felt that Bill Paxton was crazy and then when Adam finally took the FBI agent to the Rose Garden to show him where the bodies were buried and revealed who he was, I got thrown for a loop. I had suspected the first part of the twist but what really threw me was when he touches the agent and sees the agent murder his mother and the fact that the agent too (without any words spoken, simply by touch) sees it again with Adam and asks him how he knew. My dilemma was not that it was yet another twist thrown in but the almost ungraspable idea that this man and his father were not crazy but actually picked out 'bad guys' so to speak, knowing their sins and crimes already. I don't endorse an eye for an eye so I didn't leave the film being able to believe that they were doing God's work. Instead I chose to believe that they were both clairvoyant and that the father had gone off the deep end one day from it and through the things that he subjected his sons to, disturbed them permanently also. That was my interpretation but the vexing thing about the film was it's like a house of cards and a never-ending circle and what is the correct interpretation of the disturbing events you've sat through. It's definitely one of those movies where I'd love to be able to meet the writer so I could just ask him what the real meaning was to it all. Were they crazy and psychotic? Were they simply telepathic and took license because of it? Or did they have some sort of appearance from God? And if so, was it God or the Devil disguising himself as God. My friends and I found ourselves talking about it all night trying to figure out what was what and what the filmmakers had thought was the answer when they made this movie.<br /><br />A definitely perplexing and thought invoking film with some very disturbing but certainly not sensationalistic elements to it. It's not a perfect film, but it definitely is it's own thing. Great directorial work and acting by Bill Paxton and the child that played Fenton was extremely good. I hope he doesn't end up relegated to the child actor syndrome as he seems to have a lot of promise. I gave this movie a good vote for the majority of the components that make a film, but I would have voted higher if wasn't for the feeling that something (although I can't pinpoint what) was off and if it hadn't have been, the movie would have gone to an even higher level. Still, a definite recommend, especially for those that are inquisitive.

Everybody knows that Gregory Widen's original "The Prophecy" didn't really require a sequel, but you also don't need a degree in rocket science hanging above your chimney to realize that further cash-ins on this profitable horror concept were inevitable. Part two is a very prototypic example of a straight-to-video sequel, meaning the creative and convoluted plot of the original has been simplified a lot in favor of more action, more witty one-liners and a lot more eerie religious scenery. The only good news is that the producers managed to keep Christopher Walken for the role of Gabriel, and he delivers another gloriously brazen performance that promptly justifies the price of a rental. If it wasn't for Walken's performance (and perhaps a couple of players in the supportive cast like Brittany Murphy and Glenn Danzig), "The Prophecy II" surely would have disappeared into oblivion straight after its release. The movie begins with Gabriel literally getting spat out of hell to proceed with his ongoing War of Heaven here on earth. The purpose of his battle this time is to prevent the baby of nurse Valerie Rosales (Jennifer Beals) from getting born. For you see, her unborn child is the first ever hybrid between a heavenly angel and an earthly "monkey" and the birth of such a superior being would imply the downfall of Gabriel's evil dominion. Thus, just as in the first movie, he engages a suicidal accomplice to assist him and hunts Valerie all the way down to the Eden for the final showdown. "The Prophecy II" is an endurable and occasionally even entertaining movie as long as you don't make comparisons with the original and as long as you manage to overlook the multiple plot holes and errors in continuity. Whenever the storyline becomes too tedious, the makers luckily enough always insert a near-brilliant Christopher Walken moment to distract you. His interactions with the rebellious Izzy and particularly his ignorance regarding modern earthly technologies often result in worthwhile and memorable sequences. On a slightly off-topic note, I often felt like "The Prophecy II" ambitions to look similar to "Terminator II" … Gabriel's resurrection looked somewhat like the teleportation of a futuristic cyborg and the Eden location, where the final battle takes place, looks very similar to the steel factory where "Terminator II" ended as well. Coincidence, I guess? Overall, this is an inferior and passable sequel but still worth checking out in case you're a fan of Christopher Walken's unique acting charisma (and who isn't?).

A tedious yawn of a film that retains nothing of the zing and raciness of its predecessor, "Gold Diggers of 1933." The Production Code was firmly in place by the time of this film's release, so the humour is all of the hokey, wocka-wocka variety and gone are the dry one-liners that sounded so cosmopolitan dripping off the lips of the gorgeous dames from the first film. A cast of second-tier stars and character actors go through the motions here, and the "puttin' on a show" motif seems awfully forced; instead of the make or break world of Broadway, the show here is a charity event hosted by a swanky hotel. Who really cares whether or not the show goes on? The score here is bland too. Of course the movie's big number is "Lullaby of Broadway," which accompanies a long fantasy dance number about a New York socialite's eventual demise from too much partying--doesn't exactly have the same effect as the searing "Forgotten Man" number used as the finale in '33. Busby Berkeley directs as well as choreographs this film, and whatever promise is built up in the film's fluid opening scenes quickly deteriorates. Unfortunately, no one learned any lessons from this, and there was yet another Gold Diggers movie two years later.<br /><br />Grade: C-

Two snipers travel deep in the jungles in search for their targets; a slimy South American drug-lord and a prominent general.<br /><br />Moderately successful at building a brooding atmosphere, Sniper is by most accounts a very solid thriller, taking it's time, establishing it's characters and their plight and climaxing in some good action sequences. Director Llosa isn't always successful at maintaining the sombre mood and could have tightened the story somewhat; some detours here don't add up to much. But this film is far better than his Stallone/Stone travesty The Specialist.<br /><br />Billy Zane, usually incredibly tiresome, does surprisingly well as the inexperienced Sniper teamed up with veteran Berenger. As for Berenger this film proved to be his last good big budget Hollywood venture. He can do these kind of roles in his sleep and he's very convincing here, reprising the role twice more in direct to DVD sequels.

May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.<br /><br />I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.

This sweeping drama has it all: top notch acting, incredible photography, good story. It is often compared to "Braveheart" because both movies take place in historical Scotland. Even though I love Braveheart, I think this is the better of the two films. Jessica Lange gave an incredible performance (should have been nominated for an Oscar). Liam Neeson is fantastic in the title role. Tim Roth plays one of the most evil, despicable, characters in film history (he was nominated for an Oscar). John Hurt is excellent as Lord Montrose, another dislikeable character. I am always amazed at the incredible range of characters that John Hurt can play. This is a story of a dispute over money between Rob Roy and his clan, and Lord Montrose. Rob Roy is a self made man, who will not solve his problems with Montrose if it violates his sense of honor. Montrose, who, inherited his title, has no sense of honor. And that is basically what this story is all about; honor of the common man versus corruption of the nobility. This movie is very entertaining, it should appeal to all. It has romance, action, beautiful scenery, and has a exciting plot. One of my favorite films.

When I watch a short like Boy-Next-Door, I find myself with a kind of bittersweet feeling. On the one hand, I'm happy. I'm watching something that has been well thought out, seamlessly executed and just daring enough to be interesting. On the other hand I find myself lamenting the level of comedy generally produced. TV and films are so consistently packed with easy, condescending crap that we find ourselves judging excellence within a scale of mediocrity. Then you see someone like Davis, who, without the "benefit" of studio notes or substantial budget; can create a really cool little comic gem. Producers and network suits need to turn to the Travis Davis' out there for material and stop awarding deals to people simply because their resume or agent may demand they should. Boy-Next-Door has, hopefully, gained the attention of the right people to facilitate more work from Davis. It's really fun and very well done!

Some movies are just … unlucky. These are the films that obviously thrived on a lot of goodwill and a handful of potentially great ideas, but simply didn't have the budgetary means and/or professional cast and crew members at their disposal to make it happen. "The Strangeness" definitely belongs in this category. You really want to like it, but even the most tolerant and undemanding 80's horror fanatics will have to admit the film barely reaches the level of mediocrity due to its atmosphere of cheapness, clumsy stop-motion effects and impenetrably dark cinematography. "The Strangeness" has a fairly original plot and setting (okay, it's similar to "The Boogens" but I sincerely doubt that director David Michael Hillman intentionally ripped off a fellow insignificant 80's B-movie) and the players deliver enthusiast performances even though they're all miscast. An assembly of amateur speleologists go on an expedition to explore the infamous Gold Spike mine. Many years ago, several miners mysteriously died there and the place has abandoned ever since, but there's supposed to be too much gold hidden there to remain closed forever. Shortly after they descended into the mine, the group members one by one encounter the slimy ruler of the Gold Spike mine; a Lovecraftian monster with tentacles and an incredibly cheesy way of moving forward. Throughout most of its running time, "The Strangeness" is a boring and incompetent mess that is difficult to follow due to the complete lack of lighting. The characters are uninteresting and the mine remains a mystery because the only lighting effects come from the helmets of the speleologists. There's very little action or horror to experience in the first hour, but director Hillman cleverly grasps the viewers' attention by showing bits and pieces of the monster at regular intervals. As soon as you catch the first glimpse of the monster's tentacle, you're doomed to keep watching till the very end. The creature is realized with stop-motion effects, which I usually adore and worship, but here in this case they look extremely weak and pitiable. The person responsible for the special effects should have paid more attention to the work of Ray Harryhousen. The death sequences largely occur off-screen and there's very little suspense throughout the whole movie. A horror flick with a setting like this should benefice from claustrophobic atmosphere and unidentifiable sound effects, but "The Strangeness" lacks all this. The biggest trump of the film is unquestionably the beautiful appearance of blond actress Terri Berland. She resembles a speleologist as much as I resemble Mother Theresa, but she surely looks good in her tight white top and beige pants.

This film is fun, if your a person who likes a good campy feature film every now and then. By no means is this movie fine cinema, but if you dont take things too seriously, and can laugh at yourself once in a while, Elvira is a good frownbuster.

If you are planning to schedule your program for a film festival, do not be misled by what it says in the booklet. This is a complete waste of time and energy. I have watched Bunuel, I have seen Dali, and admired them; but this isn't surrealism, this is not supposed to BE at all. Didn't they ever think about the reputation of human race while taking this picture? After we become extinct by global warming, these will be the remainings of our civilization. What if the aliens sample this as an example of our intellectual capital? With all due respect to the effort put in this, maybe it would be a good idea to terminate all the copies of this film - or whatever it is.

I have loved this movie all of my life. It's such an intelligent story also, with plenty of classical allusions. eg. The ship that went missing decades earlier was called the Bellerophon. Well, in classical mythology this was the man who slew the Chimera, a legendary beast composed of two or more other creatures. In FP, Walter Pidgeon is clearly the chimera- himself and his Id monster. <br /><br />I like movies where the writers have clearly credited their audiences with a modicum of intelligence, unlike most modern blockbusters which spend $150m on special effects, but about $1.50 on a screenplay.<br /><br />Cheers

I LOVE this show, it's sure to be a winner. Jessica Alba does a great job, it's about time we have a kick-ass girl who's not the cutesy type. The entire cast is wonderful and all the episopes have good plots. Everything is layed out well, and thought over. To put it together must have taken a while, because it wasn't someone in a hurry that just slapped something together. It's a GREAT show altogether.

Well, you know... Rutger Hauer and Robert Patrick both are really good actors. But WTF with this movie? The story was lame and the script was just terrible. The poor actors didn't have material to work with!<br /><br />The DVD cover invited you to a flight action flick. You would expect something like Top Gun... Huge disappointment! The flight action in this movie is so cheap that makes you puke. The aerial scenes are clearly taken from documentaries and some other footage sources, not made for this movie. And they didn't even care about the marks or the fighters models, taking for granted the audience will not notice it.<br /><br />As I said the story was lame. With a little effort from the writer and director it could have been very interesting. In short, it seems a B-movie made in the 70's.<br /><br />I feel very sorry for these actors who put their names here. They sure must be ashamed.

I've really enjoyed this adaptation of "Emma".I have seen it many times and am always looking forward to seeing it again.Though it only lasts 107 minutes, most of the novel plot and sub-plots were developed in a satisfactory way. All the characters are well-portrayed. Most of the dialogues come directly from the novel with no silly jokes added as in Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility.<br /><br />As a foreigner, I particularly appreciate the perfect diction of the actors. The setting and costumes were beautiful. I find this version quite on a par with the 1995 miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" but then the producer and screenwriter were the same. Kate Beckinsale did a really good job portraying "Emma" of whom Jane Austen said she would create a heroin no-one but her would love. She is snobbish but has just enough youth and inexperience to be still likable. Mark Strong was also very good at portraying Mr Knightley, not an easy part, I think, though he has not the charisma shown by Colin Firth's Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. Even the end scene (the harvest festival) which does not happen in the novel provides a fitting end except for when it shows Emma being cold and almost unpleasant with Frank Churchill whereas in the novel she was thoroughly reconciled with him, even telling him that she would have enjoyed the duplicity, had she been in his situation. A strange departure from the faithfulness otherwise shown throughout the film. I find the costumes more beautiful and elaborate than in other adaptations from Jane Austen's novels.

"THINGS TO COME" Movie Review by kWRice<br /><br />Here is another wonder filled science fiction film from a different time and place. It is a film I've only seen in truncated parts, but Art should be taken as a whole. I experienced this film as it was designed, in a darkened theatre, on a silver screen, with whirling reels of film and an audience to share it with. That audience and myself were effected by this film! One woman who lived through WW II was choked up by the remembered ravages of war and replenished by the positive, albeit corny, ending.<br /><br />The things that caught my attention from the beginning were the initial credits. The first thing we see is "H.G. Wells" in bold angular block copy much like the "Superman" of yore. It is not the film title, but the creator's title, and then before any other humans, such as actors or production, are listed, the director William Cameron Menzies is up there! Who? You've probably seen his work before, "Around the World in 80 Days," "Pride of the Yankees," and "Gone With the Wind." He did not direct after this Sci-Fi epic opera he and Mr. Wells created, but his film imagery, sets, and design are very recognizable.<br /><br />That imagery is very effecting. I recognized images from many other films, that have paid homage to this classic. The recent "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is obvious, along with Bugs Bunny, "Fantasia," "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow," "Night of the Living Dead" and more that I know of, but which titles escape me. This is real special effects here, scenes now done with CGI are done with actors, big sets, and detailed models. This film was made in 1936, and it's obvious it meant something to the other auteurs. Wells and Menzies also worked with Bliss, doing the music, and Korda, the producer, to create a masterpiece with message, warning, and sermon.<br /><br />The lines the Shakespearean actors Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Richardson and Raymond Massey speak, sometimes sound preachy, but I also heard lines I still hear now. "These toys children have nowadays are nothing like I had when I was child," "It'll help develop their coordination," "What do we need books for, what do we need to read for?", "We don't need cars, there's nowhere to go, we have all we need right here," "There will be no war." But war there is! The naive citizens of "Everytown" refuse to see the literal writing on the wall. The never-ending war explodes Christmas eve. The little boy wanting to be a good soldier like his daddy is an image that will likely always stay with me. This is the world of 1936 that wore blinders to Hitler's appeasement. This war does not end. The poison gas of the aerial wars segues into the second act.<br /><br />It is another dark age. No government, no services, and people carried along and cheering the war that no one remembers anything about. Plague, warlords and bullying to get the planes flying for fuel that no longer exists. Loved ones are shot in the street, before they can carry the plague to another. Midway there is a marvelous vignette about the Rolls Royce, that is a much needed respite mid-way. Into this lands a futuristic plane that heralds the future.<br /><br />That future is the third act. The world has rebuilt itself with the help of that "puny animal, man." Helicopters fly in this film, before they were even invented. The Plumber's Helper has other uses than the Dalek's or Glenn Miller's. Wide screen plasma screens beguiling the masses, and orators inciting the people to tear it all down. "Beware the concussion, you have been warned!", the city father warns the riotous populace. So be warned, this film might hit you like it hit me. There are some cute miscues and miscalculations, but the thought provoking idealism is what is really worth pondering again, and I do want to see this artful film again. Others criticize Mr. Wells vision. It is very easy to work with 20/20 hindsight regarding things, costumes and foley miscues. I believe Mr. Wells' "Things to Come" is not about things, but is actually about concepts, social trends, and philosophical ideals. Besides, we are now just beginning the new millennium and are not in the time still to come. This is not cheap cardboard British Science Fiction, but worthwhile Epic Filmed Opera, sans singing, that as a whole concept overcomes some minor dated shortcomings.

"May contain spoilers" Sadly Lou Costellos' last film has the distinction of being slightly better than Abbott & Costello's last movie together "Dance With Me Henry". This movie isn't all in all outright terrible it is an amusing career misfire. Dorothy Provine is nice to look at and makes the movie somewhat bearable. You can't blame Lou Costello for this because a major studio released it which meant somebody had to give it the "green" light. In my opinion Lou Costello was getting over problems of his own losing his son a few years earlier and the unwarranted attacks from the IRS. If you look at the last 3-4 Abbott & Costello movies you can notice the magic was gone. Check out "Dance With Me Henry" now that's a painful movie to watch.

The first in a new style of films for Lamas- no tattoo's, motorcycles or karate. I, for one, miss them. But this is a serious movie. He plays a FBI profiler who has lived so long with the bad guys in his head that he no longer trusts anyone, including himself. Gary Busey is either a great actor or somebody I wouldn't want to meet in broad daylight on a crowded street. Kristen Cloke pursues Lamas as doggedly as she pursues the serial killer. There is one surprise after another as the story unfolds not the least of which is the ending. It seems to never come - there is always one more layer to the story. Cloke and Lamas start out as the good guys, turn into the bad guys and somehow end up the heroes. But it's definitely worth the rental price. For maximum enjoyment throw in a candy bar,a bag of popcorn and a soft drink. You're going to the MOVIES!

One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.<br /><br />Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.<br /><br />20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.<br /><br />Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.<br /><br />Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).

`AfterLife' is about a somewhat arrogant, reasonably wealthy man who discovers that his mother is dying, and finds himself looking after his sister, who has Down's Syndrome. He can't be bothered with her, and basically just wants to get her off his hands; he has better things to do. At one point he finds that he has to take her, by car (she doesn't like flying) across the country.<br /><br />If that all sounds familiar to you, it is probably because you have seen `Rainman,' a film far superior to its imitator, `AfterLife.' That it copies the basic premise (heck, it nicks a few characters and even scenes too) is not the fundamental problem with the film. The fundamental problem is that I did not care about these characters.<br /><br />The brother, Kenny (Kevin McKidd), is a bit of a womaniser. He has a girlfriend who comes and goes in the story, and who learns to like the Down's Syndrome sister (again, this is taken from `Rainman'). He is a journalist, trying to get an interview with a doctor who is facing a scandal. When he ends up looking after Roberta, the sister, he doesn't have much time for her, and sometimes leaves her alone for a little too long. When she wanders off, he becomes even angrier towards her. Am I spoiling anything by saying that he becomes a nicer, loving person by the end of the film?<br /><br />Roberta is not determined to be 'normal'; she is 'normal,' and wishes people would stop treating her differently. She is played by Paula Sage, an actress who does have Down's Syndrome, and her performance is easily the best thing about the film; why did the screenwriter not explore her character more? Well, probably because that would mean the characters would get in the way of the story. When we surely already know the story anyway, didn't the filmmakers see the problem they were creating?<br /><br />For a film about a dying mother and her handicapped daughter (the father is absent; I think he is dead, but I'm not sure), it is surprising how little impact the film has on the emotions of the viewer. The scenes are performed in such a standard, dull way, with such standard, predictable dialogue, that I found myself rolling my eyes.<br /><br />I have nothing against sentimentality in films, but it only really works if you care about the characters. Here the characters are so uninteresting and two-dimensional that I didn't really think there was much to care about. `Rain Man' has an emotional climax, but that moved me, because I cared about the characters.<br /><br />Talking of climaxes, this film has a stinker. There is sequence at the end of the film that starts off as an unbelievable situation and ends up in even worse territory; an unforgivably cruel trick is played on the audience. The sequence is designed to move the audience, but ends up being horribly manipulative and offending the intelligence of the viewer. Audiences aren't stupid, and they know when the film is cheating. What a cheap shot.<br /><br />There is not one scene in this film that has the impact it should. There are a few sequences that are funny, yes, but when the characters talk to each other, I can practically see the screenplay in front of me, moving predictably and uninterestingly, never hitting anything that touches the mind or the heart. There are those phoney arguments that are reserved especially for the movies, where the other character knows exactly what the reply is. Why don't supposedly 'realistic' films not realise that, in real life, anger can be irrational, and sometimes people can't express their emotions, and they might say things that don't make sense, or not be able to say anything at all? All of the actors in this film deserve better material. This film is not based on fact, but I think a documentary on a family with a Down's Syndrome member would be much more interesting. That way, we might have had truth and emotion. For some reason the characters in this film think that an emotion only involves saying something loudly and making a suitable facial expression.<br /><br />** (out of 5)

This movie is essentially a "how-to" on how to be a well-connected pedophile. I'm amazed that so many people-- especially other gay men-- have seen this movie and read the book and no one has brought up the fact that if Weber was not an influential photographer, he would be in jail, doing time for child abuse. Poor Peter Johnson. Weber took this poor, naive (although incredibly handsome) teenager whom he found at a training camp for high school wrestlers in the Midwest, brought him to live in his home, and took thousands of homoerotic photos of him, many of them full-frontal nudes, all through Johnson's teenage years. That ain't art. It's child abuse. And what's worse, Weber made lots of money off of it, and poor Johnson is going to have serious "issues" the rest of his life. Weber's lecherous love of the boy is downright creepy, as are his ramblings about famous (and not so famous) people he's known, as he tries to complete Johnson's "education." Creepy, and then just plain boring. The only redeeming thing I can say about the movie is that it is a fascinating study of self-deception. But I can't help but wonder why no one ever considered the effect this was having on "Chop Suey" (Weber's nickname for Johnson) himself.

Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.

It's one of the best movies I've seen in the last 2 years (I've seen the premier in Tel-Aviv, Israel in the summer of 2006, exactly when the last war has began...) This problem in communication between the people, that causes wars, is interesting me for a long time, and it doesn't matter who- boys and girls, straight and gays, Jews and Arabs... I've seen the Bubble already 3 times, and it still surprising and exciting me- each character reminds me of one of the many people i know, and the difference between them, like between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem... The last time i saw it- was with my friend, who is a Christian Arab, and it was on the independence day of Israel ( the most symbolic i could ! how ironic) and... he cried in the end!!! - if he's been touched and wasn't embarrassed- everyone would be touched by The Bubble!

I looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his "Cockney" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Beautiful Creatures" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.

"In the Line of Fire" is one of the best thrillers I have seen, it builds and builds to a great climax. This film really draws you in your heart is beating and you are out of breath from the action. The cast turns in strong peformances, particularly Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. This film is expertly directed by suspense master Wolfgang Petersen. Thrillers don't get much better thn this, don't miss it.

Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.<br /><br />Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.<br /><br />For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.<br /><br />This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films. <br /><br />Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****<br /><br />

For every fan of coming of age tales, this 3 hour adaptation of the<br /><br />Sarah Waters novel is pure fun. Cinematic nods to Baz Luhrman's<br /><br />kinetic style, as well as to all those prim and proper period pieces<br /><br />ever present on the BBC (where you're likely to have seen almost<br /><br />every prominent member of this cast). It's rather bawdy and over<br /><br />the top in spots, but that's just what the novel called for. The cast<br /><br />is appealing and, in the cases of Anna Chancellor and Hugh<br /><br />Bonneville, perfect. In the case of Rachel Sterling, as our heroine<br /><br />Nan, you simply must overlook the fact that she's far too pretty to<br /><br />ever be mistaken for a boy and run with it. It's a fantasy, after all. <br /><br />Some fans of the novel may be put out by the various changes in<br /><br />character (particularly that of Jodhi May's character, Florence), but<br /><br />the changes all work toward the greater good of this teleplay and<br /><br />provide an overall high quality entertainment value.

The next time you are at a party and someone asks, "The other day I heard the expression 'Author's will'. Does anyone know what it means?" Tell them to sit through 'Head Above Water'. The only way Diaz could possibly have survived this movie was by means of this literary device commonly used by bad writers. There are some comic scenes and you will have a few laughs. However the film does not stand up to the most minor logical analysis. Why does Keitel tie Diaz's hand in front of her instead of behind? Why so she can do the chainsaw gag of course. For me the best part of this movie was that I saw it on a cable channel instead of spending four bucks at the video shop.

Gundam Wing is a fun show. I appreciate it for getting me into Gundam and anime in general. However, after watching its predecessors, such as Mobile Suit Gundam, Zeta Gundam, and even G Gundam, I find Wing to be Gundam Lite.<br /><br />Characters: An aspect long held by Gundam is to have their characters thrust into difficulties and grow into maturity. This does not happen in Wing. Heero is top dog at the beginning, and he's top dog at the end. Personalities do not change, growth is never achieved. The best character is Zechs, who is for all intents and purposes a hero throughout most of the series. But suddenly the series betrays him and turns him into a villain for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Mecha: Wing has great suit designs. The Gundams are super cool, with the Epyon being my favorite. I even consider a few of the OZ suit designs to be on par with some of the classic Zeon suits. But sweet suit designs doesn't quite save the series from boring characters.<br /><br />Conclusion: In the end, Wing has cool fight scenes, though riddled with recycled animation, but shallow plot and character development. Enjoyable, but not moving like previous Gundam outings.

Ice the Limerick:<br /><br />A virus pulled out of the ice<br /><br />Just didn't know how to play nice.<br /><br />If infected you'll kill<br /><br />Because you are ill.<br /><br />The cure is to be infected twice.<br /><br />Ice is a great episode; one of the greats from season 1 that began shaping the show and if you ask me you really couldn't ask for much better throughout the entire series. It starts out with an awesome teaser which in my opinion is really one of the best teasers of the series also. A group of scientists in Alaska have drilled something out of the ice core which has for some reason caused them to kill each other. Now Mulder and Scully are sent with three other scientists to investigate what happened. As Mulder says this is either because they are brilliant or expendable. I take this to mean that they had better be brilliant or else... The group soon finds out that the cause of mayhem is a small parasite pulled out of the ice core. A little worm that gets into the bloodstream and causes violent behavior. Since the pilot is infected the rest of the show turns to a suspenseful sort of who-done-it paranoiac thriller as the others begin to suspect each other of being infected. This is not helped at all by an overly paranoid doctor Hodge who is un-trusting of anyone which we learn early on by the first thing he asks: to see everyone's credentials to "make sure we are who we say we are". Events lead to finding out the one who is infected and learning how to cure them.<br /><br />There are a number of things I like about the episode and of course certain characters that I want to smack in the face from this episode, as well as a couple loopholes but most can be attributed to heightened caution and not thinking clearly. I like Bear from the moment I first meet him. Its a shame he has to die. I also like the scene shown from the other scientist's point of view as Mulder and Scully argue in the other room. It gives an interesting twist to our typical perception as a viewer and for me seems to say maybe we shouldn't assume that just because someone is government means they know all sorts of conspiracy secrets. As much as Hodges frustrates me in this episode I do think that Mulder was as much to blame for some of the rash actions taken as any. I really like Scully in this episode. First of all she can tackle like a frickin linebacker! Second I really like the focus on her terror of what can happen to them out there and how she tries not to let trust and friendship of Mulder keep her from biasing her judgment. I love the scene when she goes into the room to sleep and first looks as the picture of the previous group all hugging and the birthday presents from them to whoever used to sleep in that room and then how she suddenly freaks out and pushes the dresser in front of the door and in a final touch of subtlety as she sits on the floor with her knees pulled into her chest we see the bottom of a poster on the wall that says "Bosom Buddies". This is such great writing. A way to say without any words that Scully is worried that she may not be able to trust even her very best friend.<br /><br />Unfortunately this heightened suspicion leads the group to believe Mulder to be infected since he discover's Murphy's dead body even though they haven't inspected him at all to find out for sure. That was my main problem with the behavior of the characters is they could easily have solved all the suspicion simply by giving blood. But I guess I probably would have acted rashly in that situation too. But then stupid Hodges decides that he has to assume Mulder is infected even though Mulder willingly surrenders and then is going willingly to be inspected and almost infects Mulder in the process. Luckily he sees that it is really Dasilva that is infected and we finally reach a resolution. At least as much as you can expect from an X-File. The "government" wastes no time in torching the evidence as always happens in these cases and Mulder is left with yet another frustrating "unsolved" case. In closing I give "Ice" and easy 10/10 and I leave you with a haiku.<br /><br />"We're not who we are. It goes no further than this. It ends right here right now."

K-Pax is a very intriguing film. Is Prot (Kevin Spacey) really an alien, or is he a mentally deranged human who just thinks he is an alien? That is the question that Dr. Powell (Jeff Bridges) must answer before the self proclaimed deadline that Prot sets for his departure from Earth.<br /><br />As the film unfolds and more evidence is uncovered, both theories grow in credibility. His ability to map from memory the area of the galaxy where his home planet is located indicates a knowledge that no human could possibly possess. Yet the hypnosis sessions lead us to a real person with a very real and traumatic life, filled with devastating events that could have caused such a personality aberration. The ending seems to give the answer, but is just ambiguous enough to make you wonder if you really know. Normally, I don't like lady or tiger endings, but this one is tantalizing. I have my own theory that fits all the clues, but I don't know that my theory is any more correct than anyone else's.<br /><br />Director Iain Softley (`Wings of the Dove') spins the tale delicately, with great skill. This is a rare example of the director staying in the shadows and inducing outstanding acting performances out of talented actors to let the story dominate. This is not to say that the directing is technically inferior, because it is excellent. However, Softley remains unobtrusive, delivering great power through the use of subtlety, a pleasant change from today's vanguard directors who visually grab and shake the viewer as if to scream, `Look how brilliant I am!'<br /><br />Kevin Spacey once again delivers a marvelous performance as Prot. This is a part that is extraordinarily demanding, requiring Spacey to render the cool and logical Prot one minute, and then switch gears to conjure his tormented alter ego under hypnosis the next. Spacey is so believable as both alien and human, it makes the viewer's task that much more difficult. Jeff Bridges is also terrific as the relentless psychologist who becomes obsessed with learning the truth about Prot.<br /><br />This is inspired storytelling for the thoughtful viewer. I rated it a 9/10. If you must have closure at the end of a film, this movie will be very frustrating. However, if you like a fascinating mystery that keeps you thinking long after the credits, you won't be disappointed.

*minor spoilers*<br /><br />You know, it's getting to the point where Walt Disney Television Animation might just as well be called Walt Disney Sequel Animation. These sequels range from excellent ("Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" and the fantastic "Lion King II: Simba's Pride") to horrible ("The Return of Jafar"). (This is, of course, my personal opinion.) Now Disney brings us their latest sequel. "Scamp's adventure," and while it is flawed, it is still entertaining.<br /><br />The quality of animation is not up to par with Disney Feature Animation; still, the animators do a good job of bringing the characters to life. Lady and Tramp have not aged a day since 1955. Trusty still talks about his sense of smell and "Ol' Reliable," and Jock still gives him grief about it. There's a nice fight between Tramp and a huge dog in the dog pound, and once again we are treated to a spaghetti dinner with the two romantic leads (though it is highly doubtful that this will become a classic scene like its predecessor.)<br /><br />I really don't care for most of the songs (though Roger Bart and Susan Egan--the singing voices of Scamp and Angel--sing their parts very nicely). Both Melissa Manchester and Norman Gimbel have done much better work in the past. Danny Troob's score is okay, but nothing memorable. And some of the junkyard gang seem like excess baggage; that is, they really don't do much.<br /><br />The voice work, on the other hand, is quite good. While I don't like Jeff Bennett as the dogcatcher, he is very good as Tramp. Chazz Palminteri does a nice job as Buster, leader of the junkyard gang, and Alyssa Milano gives what may be her best performance as Angel. Then there is Scamp (who is the spitting image of his dad). He is voiced to PERFECTION by Scott Wolf. Wolf does a superb job of showing Scamp's wild streak and his soft side.<br /><br />All in all, while "Scamp's Adventure" is flawed, it still makes for rather entertaining viewing. It is my hope, however, that Walt Disney Television Animation will turn their attention to more original material for their future releases.<br /><br />

I have been a Hindi movie buff since the age of 4 but never in my life have a watched such a moving and impacting movie, especially as a Hindi film. In the past several years, I had stopped watching contemporary Hindi movies and reverted to watching the classics (Teesri Kasam, Mere Huzoor, Madhumati, Mother India, Sholay, etc.) But this movie changed everything. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I found it not only to be moving but also found it to be very educational for someone who is a first generation Indian woman growing up in America. It helped me to understand my own family history, which was always something very abstract to me. But, to "see" it, feel it and understand it helped me to sympathize with the generations before me and the struggle that Indian people endured. The film helped to put many things into perspective for me, especially considering the current world events. I never thought that a movie could change the way I think like this before... it did. The plot is fantastic, the acting superb and the direction is flawless. Two thumbs up!

Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.<br /><br />This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.<br /><br />Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.<br /><br />If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.<br /><br />Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day.

...If you've been laughing too much for a long time, and need to take a break.<br /><br />After reading about 25 unfavorable reviews of this show, I decided to turn it on and check it out for myself. Everything that each of those people have said about this show is absolutely true. Mind of Mencia is like a half hour version of Mad TV, but with somehow worse jokes.<br /><br />One skit I had the displeasure of watching was "The Second Annual Stereotype Olympics". What's funny about black guy who has trouble swimming, or gay guy named "Sparkles" that wins a banana eating contest? Neither of these concepts is particularly novel, insightful, or amusing. Do we really need a joke about Star Wars every episode? That movie came out like 30 years ago. Mencia's solution to funny things up is toss in some stereotypes about Hispanics and throw a few "beaners" in there; and call it a day to go home to roll around in his pile of money. Pure comedic genius.<br /><br />Then he blatantly ripped off Jeff Foxworthy on a second show I watched, with a "Your gay if..." bit. You could just imagine the roaring laughter he got when he snook in a Ryan-Seacrest-is-gay joke. It's not like either of those has already been done to death.<br /><br />Unless you're a big fan of Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movies, please stay away from this show. Especially when there are authentic comedians like Dave Chappelle out there who can joke about races and racism and still be insightful.

For everyone who expects a traditional superhero-movie it might be an unpleasant surprise. It is definitely more of a drama rather than an action movie. It focuses mainly on emotions and it's a bit like a Greek tragedy - whatever the main character does it always goes wrong somehow.<br /><br />That's because Sasha, like each superhero, takes the law into his own hands and the society doesn't appreciate it. Sasha becomes an outlaw. While on the run, he meets a beautiful girl and falls in love so things get even more complicated for him.<br /><br />As you can see, the plot itself is really dramatic but the movie lacks in dynamics. It reminds me slightly of the narration in the recent movies by Ram Gopal Varma. Everything happens very slowly. However, when there's an action scene it gets so immensely dynamic that before you realize what's going on, it's all over. But the director does not want to impress us with flashy and showy action. What is more important here is the outcome of Sasha's actions, which are mostly very drastic. The score is very scarce, which also makes it more difficult to concentrate on the film. So basically you need to be very patient in order to watch it.<br /><br />Is the film worth it? That is a question really difficult to answer. I don't think that this experience enriched me so very much, but somehow I keep on thinking about this movie and feel like watching it again. Mostly due to the atmosphere, which is really dense, but not suffocating because all the time Sasha and Katya have hope. After all they're young people, who have all their lives to live. So no matter how hard it gets there's always a slight joyous tune when they are together.

A few minutes in: "NOT credible. What idiot wrote this?" <br /><br />But, "What's going on...who's the bad guy...then there's that Rebecca De Mornay." Time passes....<br /><br />THE END.<br /><br />"NOT CREDIBLE. What IDIOT actually watched the whole *@#! thing!"

The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen – believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.

I had no idea what Jane Eyre was before I saw this miniseries. I had read and watched many classics before, and I believed that most classics were boring, over-worded, and overrated stories with moderately interesting plots at best. This Jane Eyre miniseries completely changed my conceptions.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke is a fabulous actress, and she gives a wonderful portrayal of Jane Eyre. Her accent is delightful and her quiet, yet firm nature matches the young governess' character exactly. Timothy Dalton is an amazing Rochester. His passion and energy in the film makes me believe that he was born to play the brooding master of Thornfield Hall. I couldn't sleep at all the night after I had watched this miniseries. The plot is both haunting and inspiring. The characters are masterfully performed, and the story is incredible. This is the best version of Jane Eyre to ever appear on film.<br /><br />I read the book later and was amazed at how closely this miniseries followed Charolette Bronte's writing. Jane Eyre is now my favorite film and book. If you want to see a masterpiece that will change your life, watch the 1983 BBC version of Jane Eyre.

As you all may know, JIGSAW did not make its way to Blackbuster because of a member of Full Moon's own staff, Devin Hamilton. Devin is the one who sells to all of the video chains. He recently released a movie, BLEED, which he was selling to Blackbuster at the same time as JIGSAW. He convinced the Blackbuster buyer not to take any JIGSAW, and double the number of BLEED. The result is that JIGSAW looks like a flop, and BLEED looks like a hit. The major problem with that is that BLEED is one of the worst movies ever, and as we all know, JIGSAW is, well, gold. I urge all of you to go on to the BLEED page on the internet and vote for the movie that wronged JIGSAW, and all of your talents. Likewise, you should go to the JIGSAW page and cast high votes for it (if you already haven't). We need to get JIGSAW up to at least an 8 or 8.5, and BLEED down to around a 2 (thus putting it on the internet's 100 worst movie listing). Also, try to convince friends and family to do the same.<br /><br />Hope you all are doing well, - Matt

"The Journey" is a very good film. Produced in the spring of 1958, in Vienna, and released in 1959, this movie was quite popular in his early years. Despite the political problems, which influenced the movie's success (because the story happens during the Hungarian Revolution, the Cold War), "The Journey" is a very good film, but not well-known. I think it should be released immediately on DVD, because most of the people who have seen it so far want to have it at home. One of the most important qualities of the film is the extraordinary chemistry between Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, their intense relationship. All their scenes together are very important, but they also reveal the strong feelings, the great passion and love between the characters (Major Surov and Diana Ashmore). Another quality is the script, which is very well written. It was even published as a novel, by the screen player George Tabori. The film keeps its tension from the beginning to the end. At first, we didn't know if Diana and the other travelers could leave Hungary, because the Communist Major discovers that Diana's friend, Paul Kedes, is Hungarian and he isn't allowed to leave the country. The Major falls deeply in love with Diana and this is, in fact, the true reason why he doesn't want to let her go. But after he embraces her and gives her one of the most memorable kisses ever seen on screen, and she kisses him, too, he lets her go. And the end of the film is one of the most dramatic endings ever filmed-the Major and Diana say "Goodbye!", she arrives at the frontier with all the travelers, including Paul, while Surov is shot several times by some Hungarians, so he dies. Yul Brynner is very, very handsome and Deborah Kerr is very beautiful, charming, refined, just like an English Lady. Yul and Deborah are perfect together. They are one of the greatest couples of the Golden Hollywood. A true moviegoer should watch this film. "The Journey" has everything that a good film should have-a great, captivating story, interesting characters, a wonderful direction (Anatole Litvak is, in my opinion, at his best). Finally, I want to give a message to Warner Bros. Studios or those who restore and release classic films: Please, release "The Journey" on DVD as soon as possible.

It's a Time Machine all right. It runs in "real time" for 96 minutes but it felt like 96 years. The first 20 minutes were utterly superfluous. Massive amounts of "dead" time throughout. What happened? When will something happen? Who cares? Apparently the film was made on a tight budget, I note for your edification the following: The Morlochs: nothing like saving a little money by reusing the sets and costumes from Lord of the Rings part I, hey? The "scary dude" in charge of controlling the Morlochs... The scariest thing these guys could think of was somebody wearing one of Gene Simmons: (of the band Kiss) old costumes??? Little-known fact: freaks of the future have perfectly manicured nails.<br /><br />Save your money, save your time. Pass on this one.

The movie was watchable while Nicolson was on the screen. However, I had to fight against passing out from boredom when the film depended on Meryl Streep to carry scenes without Jack; she was as bland as could be. The relationship between the characters was nothing special; these characters have been portrayed before -- and much better. It felt like a based-on-real-life scenario in the absolute worst sense: 90% of daily life is boring, and not worth writing about or watching. Why Ephron felt her life and relationship with Carl Bernstein was interesting enough to write about escapes me. Perhaps she wrote it as therapy -- for many writers, putting an episode from their life on paper is cathartic. Fine: but then why anyone in Hollywood felt this story was worth filming remains a mystery to me.

Blue Planet... Wow... Where do I begin? The years of hard work paid off in what is, without question, one of the best documentaries ever created.<br /><br />The sights and sounds presented in Blue Planet, like most documentaries with the Attenborough stamp, are rare and haven't even experienced by most people. That alone should be enough reason to buy this series, especially if you're the curious type who 'wants to know'.<br /><br />Blue Planet is not a perfect documentary, however. It does get a bit repetitive after the 3rd episode. How many ways can different sea creatures swim, kill, poo, mate, and lay eggs, and do all of these ways really need to be explored? But if you have a deep interest in sea life, this repetition shouldn't become a problem for you at all.

If you have been to the east of Europe (or even in their armed forces), you might find this movie interesting. I don't know why calls this a comedy (sure, there are a few funny moments), but it is not a good movie if one of the orderly officers talks for 15 min about the achievements of socialism on a Christmas dinner, and the officers in general act like funny oafs, the soldiers are running of the base to meet their girls at night, and surprise, surprise, one of the girls is the daughter of the commander. The east German army was known for its abusive and humiliating service of its conscripted men, and the comedy was basically not filmed on the facilities or with the equipment to make a good movie of the east German army and their time now gone by. Despite this, some of the actors and actresses tried to act well, but it came out only in the roles they're known for from East German TV and some small films. I would not recommend this movie to anybody, it was basically boring and very cheap made.

Roger Corman has enjoyed his shares of cinematic infamy in his illustrious low-budget career, spanning over 300 movies. While few (if any) would call him great, his films' obscure connections to underground culture (via reference, tribute, or influence) have ensured him a warped legacy of sorts. Throughout his career, he has also developed a bad habit of remaking his own films ("Piranha", "Humanoids from the Deep", "The Black Scorpion", etc.), without improving on them in the slightest. "Raptor", "written" and "directed" by "Jay Andrews" (Jim Wynorski, the man behind one of my favorite cinematic guilty pleasures, "Chopping Mall") takes that practice to a disturbing new low regarding Corman's mid-'90s "Carnosaur" trilogy.<br /><br /> Wynorski's credits are in quotes because "Raptor" isn't a tribute to the "Carnosaur" films, and not even a remake. "Raptor" IS the "Carnosaur" films, or at least the film's dinosaur-induced death scenes, haphazardly spliced together with trace elements of the original plot and some newly shot scenes (many of which consist of "dino's eye view" shots in a lame attempt to make the inserted scenes look less obvious). The "new" material was written around the footage, instead of vice versa, and is totally unremarkable, with huge gaps of logic (e.g. two separate teams are sent in by the military simply so footage from parts 2 and 3, where the soldiers had different uniforms, could be included), which is amazing considering how little logic plays into any of the "Carnosaur" films already. The actors' lack of any feeling in their characters (though in fairness, any character dimension is only presented in the script once, maybe twice) brings to mind the terribly wooden acting in 1950's b-films, and it certainly doesn't make anything between the ripped-off attack scenes worth watching. Even more embarrassing for the actors of the new scenes is when there is an obvious discrepancy in the physical build between the new actor and the actor in the original scene. When the only scene evoking any response in a film is the oldest trick in the horror book, the "spring-loaded animal", something is seriously wrong.<br /><br /> As it stands, this is a despicable practice in two b-grade figures (who need not worry about ruining their reputations, because they haven't got one) ripping off their own material, for the cheapest and quickest of dirty tricks, simply because they can (why else would anyone feel possessed to rip off a series meant to be a rip off of the "Jurassic Park" series?). There isn't much more I can say other than that this film carries my very highest recommendations AGAINST viewing; the only good thing about it (besides gazing at Melissa Braselle's navel) is that now I don't have to see any of the "Carnosaur" movies.

Went to see this movie with my brother and his girlfriend. The place was pretty packed and we all laughed so hard it was easy to miss lines. I knew it looked like it would be good but it was much funnier than I thought it would be. I liked both Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, they seemed really weird just like normal people, if that makes sense. I get sick of movies that show teenagers as being like cookie cutter people, like "jock" or "geek" or "cheerleader"...etc. Both characters were unique but still very human and normal enough to relate to. I will be recommending this movie to all my friends and waiting very eagerly for it to be out on DVD, Go see this movie with your friends who can laugh at the funniest parts of life! I plan to see it again in the theater and I don't go see things more than once very often.

I ran across Yvette McClendon in a film at the Los Angeles Film Festival and thought she was a doll. After writing my review of her film there, I wanted to see more of her! Found this movie, it was pretty bad. Not her fault, she is only in the first few minutes where she is obviously being the person to pull you in to watch this bad movie. BAD directing. Scenes are looped over and over, with all the actresses. Amber Smith has a very bad breast job yet the other actresses looked pretty good. I really like Yvette but, this was obviously a bad choice of hers. I can't believe I rented this trash to look for her. I hope to find her other movies.

With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.

I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close: <br /><br />1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.<br /><br />2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).<br /><br />3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.

This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The acting was just soooo bad. Anthonie Kamerling is usually a fairly good actor, but in this film, he sounded like he was reading his text from a piece of paper. Especially his voice over was extremely wooden. Beau van Erven Dorens was completely over the top as frat boy Fraser, although this probably had more to do with the crappy dialogue. 'Ik ook van jou' is an adaptation of a book, and it seem like the makers of the film forgot that film dialogue follows different rules than literary dialogue. It all sounded way to bookish.<br /><br />Some of the situations were very badly visualized. Example: somewhere at the beginning of the film there is a scene where a canoe goes over in a rapid. This bit is just too incredible to be true. You see an obviously rather shallow bit of river, with a lot of rocks right beneath the surface (hence the rapid). We hear some suspenseful music to warn us that there's danger ahead. A canoe with to girls goes over in that rather shallow rapid. Our hero then dives several meters below the surface to rescue one of the girl. Girl swoons in his arms and utters the words 'You saved me...' Vomit!<br /><br />It actually was so bad, that it became funny. This is sad, because it really wasn't intended. At the intermission I overheard some guy behind me say 'O god, there's another part!' My feelings exactly. What scares me is that the end credits of 'Ik ook van jou' were in English. Does this mean that it will be released abroad? Just when the Netherlands were starting to get a good reputation after films like 'Antonia' (Antonia's line) and 'Karakter' (Character)...

THE CHOKE (aka AXE in the UK) is a slasher produced supposedly as a straight-to-DVD movie. I say "supposedly" because the title of the movie does not have the "V" in brackets to indicate that it was a made for DVD movie (even though it does have the appearance of one).<br /><br />The plot is simple – a band is holding a gig in a former meatpacking factory and they are killed one by one.<br /><br />I think most would agree that the movie was never going to be a masterpiece, but this does not excuse the faults here. Even straight-to-DVD movies such as BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE (which has a very low IMDb rating) have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes come off as being one of the so-called "so bad, they're good" movies. However, THE CHOKE falls far short of being either a serious slasher (such as HALLOWEEN) or being a "so bad it's good" movie (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE).<br /><br />The movie does start off good with a character killed using a drill. The blood effects were very cheesy but understandable given the very low budget. But, from there onwards, it's downhill all the way.<br /><br />There are so many faults in THE CHOKE that I could spend all day talking about them. But, a few obvious ones stand out and I'll go into them.<br /><br />The aforementioned gig that the band holds seems to start off with around 50 people present but after the music stops, there seems to be only around 8 people left (and yet they're all meant to be locked in!).<br /><br />The characters in this movie are not likable at all. Most of the band members are aggressive foul-mouthed morons or just downright weird. No one really cares about what happens to them, and even their supposed friends forget about them when they've been dispatched. The highlight of the movie is the presence of a homeless man who seems to regard the meatpacking factory as some kind of church (seriously!). He spouts some really funny lines for no apparent reason. But sadly, even his presence can't save the movie.<br /><br />There are too many scenes of people walking around and talking without any characterisation. Around 65 minutes of the film is spent watching characters walk around talking. Characters disappear for long periods of time without explanation. As in other straight-to-DVD movies such as CROCODILE and GRIM WEEKEND, the characters spend a lot of time swearing at each other aggressively without any provocation at all. There are plenty of over-the-top outbursts (mainly from the male characters) and one nearly results in a full-blown fight. In fact, the format could be said to go as follows: characters walk around--murder takes place--characters walk around--murder takes place. You get the idea.<br /><br />The dialogue is terrible and it seems that few lines are spoken without the f-word being used. Perhaps this was meant to be funny, but it just comes off as sad. And more to the point, we have all seen this done a thousand times before (usually to much greater effect).<br /><br />The movie is totally devoid of any suspense at all. The dead bodies serve to provide the only indication that the characters are in danger. A maniac is running around loose and yet the characters just behave like total morons. They make little attempt to get out of the factory or find a weapon with which to protect themselves. And much of the time, they don't even pretend to be scared.<br /><br />In the same vein as DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, the killer is not seen at the time the murders are being committed (with the exception of the final murder when the killer's identity is revealed). A random weapon appears out of nowhere to kill the victim in question. There is no one seen stalking the characters at any time. In DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, this served to make the film funny (unintentionally of course), but here it is not funny at all.<br /><br />And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the soundtrack includes music that is very bad, even for those who like punk rock. The extras look uncomfortable dancing to it. The score (at the end, there is no music at the beginning!) consists of a band of Sugarbabe wannabes singing some very bad song that is completely unrelated to the movie.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand the points made in this review. This reviewer likes bad movies (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE) as much as the classics (such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH). But, it seems that THE CHOKE tried too hard to fit into one of those categories without fitting into either. And even as straight-to-DVD movies go, this is a poor effort.<br /><br />On a positive note, the film does contain some fairly good gory murder scenes. But, when the surviving characters do not take the situation seriously, these scenes lose their importance quickly as the intensity they provide disappears into oblivion.<br /><br />Fans of the traditional 1980s B-movie slashers should take steps to avoid this movie. And fans of the classics such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH should do everything in their power to avoid it!

There's not much anyone can say about this flick....the plot is quite simple: Two police officers (who also happen to be lovers) are using a brothel as a stakeout in order to catch a criminal, with the help of the "lady of the house", played by hardcore pornstar Chloe. As anyone can guess, there's a few plot twists and some blurred alliances, but the writing was just horrible, even for a softcore movie.<br /><br />I've read some previous posts about Nicole Hilbig's accent (she plays the female cop). Yes, it's hard to understand what she's saying at times, but I think I've placed it. I did some sniffing around....I think she's from Germany, hence her odd-sounding accent. She makes an impression even without speaking, however...she's got a great looking body.<br /><br />There were a couple of "from behind" sex scenes in this movie that were quite graphic for a softcore film....excellent work there. The three-way scene toward the end wasn't bad either.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT*<br /><br />I kinda knew the female cop was gonna turn into a part-time call girl at the end. She enjoyed her three-way WAY too much.<br /><br />*END SPOILER*<br /><br />I'm not gonna nitpick about the story TOO much, seeing as this is a low-budget, direct-to-video softcore flick. However, it just seems like I've seen way too many movies in this genre with a similar type of storyline.<br /><br />Women: B (Chloe and Hilbig were okay as the eye-candy) Sex: B+ (scenes were kinda short, but good) Story: C (a recycled plot, but whatever works, eh?) Overall: B-