Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

This has to one of the most pathetic, predictable and badly acted films I have ever seen. Clint Eastwood has never been worse, never have I seen somebody less convincing on screen. I was laughing at him the whole way through. Then there's this romance kinda thing between him and the gorgeous Rene Russo, which was even more pathetic than the one between Mr.Connery and Ms.Zeta-Jones in Entrapment.<br /><br />One IMDb user posed the question: What's not to like about this film? I'm asking: What is to like about it? And the answer is: John Malkovich. He is an absolute genius and probably the best movie villain ever (He even saved Con Air you know). But that's it. <br /><br />This movie is called In the line of fire, but 'Bodyguard 2: the rip-off' seems to be a more appropriate title. Watch only if you are a die hard John Malkovich fan. Otherwise, avoid at all cost. *1/2(out of five)

In one of the more under-seen films of the late 1980's, at a time when Oliver Stone was riding high with Platoon and Wall Street (and before his opus Born on the Fourth of July), he co-scripted and directed this look at the world of radio, specifically one radio host in the middle of Texas. This man is Barry Champlain, in a once-in-a-career turn from Eric Bogosian, who wrote the original play and also co-wrote the script. Barry is like a mix of Howard Stern and one of those pundits you hear on the radio stations many of us might turn off. He's got ideas on his mind, opinions, and he's not only un-afraid to speak them, but also to stand up against the phone callers. The callers, indeed, are the driving force in the film, as Barry has to combat against the mindless, the obscene, the racist, and the purely absent-minded. As this goes on, he also has to contend with his boss (Alec Baldwin) and a hit or miss deal to go nationwide, outside the confines of the Southern way station he's in.<br /><br />While after seeing the film I felt curious as to see how it would've been done on stage (I'd imagine it was a one-man show, as Bogosian has had several on the side), the direction of the film is phenomenal. Stone has been known, almost typecast, as a director who loves quick cuts, the limitless effects of montage, and effects with the styles of camera-work and other little tricks, that give his films in the 90's a distinctive, almost auteur look. But in the 80's he had this energy and feverish quality to the look of the film, and wasn't as frenzied as the other films. In order to add the proper intensity that is within the studio and head-space of Barry Champlain, he and DP Robert Richardson make the space seem claustrophobic at times, gritty, un-sure, and definitely on edge. The scenes in the middle of the film, when Barry isn't in the studio, are fairly standard, but the style along with the substance in the radio scenes is among the best I've seen from the Stone/Richardson combination.<br /><br />And one cannot miscalculate the performance of Bogosian, who can be obnoxious, offensive, angered, passive, and everything that we love and hate in radio show hosts. There is also a funny, near distracting supporting role for Michael Wincott as Kent/Michael/Joe, who prank calls him one night, and the next gets invited to the studio. These scenes are a little uncomfortable for a viewer, but it does get very much into the subculture head-space of the 80's that Barry is as intrigued as he is critical of. The stoner may not 'get it', but as he says to him "it's your show". Indeed, it's hard to cover everything that goes on within the talk, and there is a lot of it. But it's never boring, and like Champlain himself, it's not easy to ignore. And when Bogosian goes into his climactic tirade on air, with the background panning around in a continuous 360 spin, it becomes intoxicating, and a reason why freedom of speech is so powerful.<br /><br />Stone has been synonymous as a filmmaker of hot-button issues, who takes on subjects that were or still are controversial, and gives them a life-force that isn't always great, but is all his own. Here his skills and ambitions don't get in the way of Bogosian's- it's boosted, if anything, making an extremely skilled vision of what is essentially a near one-man show, which in and of itself is already well-written.

Hubert Selby Jr. gave us the book "Requiem For A Dream" and co-wrote the screenplay to Aronofsky's movie of it. That movie succeeded on every level by delivering an intimate, and unbiased portrait of the horrors of the characters lives and the vices that destroyed them. "Last Exit To Brooklyn" still has the vice and the multiple characters living sad lives, but it hardly does them the same justice Aronofsky did.<br /><br />The film seems laughably anti-gay at times. Especially when in the film homosexuality equals death. One gay character gets stoned, is launched skyward by a speeding car, and lands dead on the pavement. Another is crucified and still more are simply beat up. Another exaggerated piece of shock value, that might actually have been compelling if it were done well, are scenes of the union workers literally doing battle with the strike-breakers. Who'd have thought a drama about Brooklyners would feature action sequences and truck explosions?<br /><br />The director, Uli Edel has a skill level like that of a TV director, but he is far below the cut for real movies. The film is clunky that can't even seem to settle on a genre. Lake is given a useless role that any mannequin could have filled and Baldwin only seems to know how to look stupid in his equally meager part. And then comes Jennifer Jason Leigh as our lead, a loathsome hooker named Tralala (believe it or not, I'm not joking). Her performance is nothing great and the fate of her character is dirty to say the least. Poor use of color and composition make it look cheaper than it is, and also takes the "real" edge off the more provocative bits. A failure.

There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping "tough guy" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity "starred" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain "Concorde" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a "Porky's" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious "Airplane!" the following year brought the whole "Airport" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike. <br /><br />1/10

Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.<br /><br />A poor film on par with the greats like "Gymkata" and "The Pumaman," "No Holds Barred" is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people "professionals" at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?<br /><br />Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an "R." Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an "R," well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.<br /><br />Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled "Battle of the Tough Guys." Marketing genius, this guy.<br /><br />From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase "What's that smell?" "DOOKIE!" "Dookie?"<br /><br />A classic for all time.

Horror spoofs are not just a thing of the 21st century. Way before the 'Scary Movie' series there were a few examples of this genre, mostly in the 80s. But like said franchise most of these films are hit or miss. Some like 'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' mostly rise above that, but other like 'Saturday the 14th' and it's sequel fail to deliver the laughs. But out of all these types of films there is one particularly big offender and that's 'Transylvania 6-5000,' a major waste of time for many reasons.<br /><br />Pros: A great cast that does it's best. Some of the dopey humor is amusing. A corny, but catch theme song. Some good Transylvanian locations.<br /><br />Cons: Threadbare plot. Mostly tedious pacing. Most of the humor just doesn't cut it. The monsters are given little to do and little screen time. I thought this was supposed to be a spoof of monster movies? Lame ending that will likely make viewers angry.<br /><br />Final thoughts: This is a comedy? If it is then why are the really funny bits so few and far in between? Comedies are supposed to make us roll on the floor, not roll our eyes and yawn, aching for it to be over. I can't believe Anchor Bay released this tired junk. I'll admit it's not one of the worst films ever made, but it's not worth anyone's time or money even if you're a fan of any of the actors. See 'Transylvania Twist' instead.<br /><br />My rating: 2/5

An enjoyable game, which offers fun and easy game play and fair replay ability. Staying true to the comic and providing a low learning curve gives this game something not seen in most action cartridges today. Also, the narration and animated scenes used (though lengthy animations are replaced by slide shows on the Nintendo 64 version) use full advantage of the platforms' capabilities.

With Harry Callahan getting up in years, the inevitable `old man with a chip on his shoulder' story had to come into play eventually. Callahan, looking fragile sometimes and out of place, his demeanor still was unwavering. Thankfully, this film took some time off to develop a different type of story, one that might reinvent the Dirty Harry and the whole genre. While the film fell short in doing so, it was still an excellent addition to the series, even if it was getting a little out of place during a time of silly fashion trends and New Wave music.

This is one of the worst movies I have seen this year. You should not see this movie but if you insist on wasting your time you should stop here, there are SPOILERS. Gray Matters centers on Gray and Sam Baldwin (Heather Graham and Tom Cavanagh). Only Gray and Sam are Brother and Sister; living together in everyone else's eyes as man and wife. No sex but just about everything else. Early on, the movie starts with its theme: 'the most absurd thing at the most absurd moment with you guessed it the most absurd reactions'. Gray and Sam decided to check out the dog park with a borrowed pooch. Rather then push her brother to get the skinny on first woman they see for him, she does it and gets to the nitty-gritty questions too. When she signals her brother to come over they start a 3-way date. Charlie (Bridget Moynahan) is the girl of THEIR dreams, like all the right things etc… Sam final hits Gray over the head and the couple finishes the date with a marriage proposal! That Charlie accepts! In one week Charlie, Gray and Sam are to be in Vegas. In the next week Charlie and Gray are off shopping for wedding gowns (apparently Charlie has an off-the-rack figure). Gray is slurping an iced latte when Charlie suggests Gray tries on some gowns as well and picks out a $10,000 frock for her. While Charlie is zipping her in this 'down-payment-on-a-house' gown Gray continues to slurp on the latte (I swear it was like a feed bag). What should happen but 'woops!' latte all over the gown. It is never explained how they got out of Bloomingdale's bridal salon with out a $10,000 mocha colored gown. Back to 'reality' – Caesar's palace Las Vegas. They have the 'high roller room' (Sam is a resident surgeon and Charlie is an intern zoologist – were do they get all this money?) Gray kicks Sam out to the single room down the hall so she and Charlie can have a bachelorette drink-a-thon were, you guessed it - they kiss. Gray remembers everything; Charlie remembers nada. They make it to wedding chapel and right when the Reverend gets to his line "If there is anybody is here who has any objection whatsoever to the union of these two lovebirds" Gray gets the hiccups. Gray excuses herself, for some reason the Reverend must repeat his last line and right on queue again 'hiccups'. Gray gets back to NY and starts dating any man she meets, literally. And of course one is you guessed it again! Gay. The other is a jerk and the third is a taxi cab driver (Alan Cummings) named Gordy. He is smittened with Gray but the feelings are not returned. They become great friends. This is good because when she comes clean with Sam about the kiss. He blows up and kicks her out of their apartment. When Sam comes to his senses he goes to her office. Gray works at an ad agency. This office is smack in the middle of the twilight zone. It has cameras and microphones in all the conference rooms that broadcast to all computer monitors at the agency. Sam gets Gray in one of the conference rooms for a not-so-private conversation and ends up outing her to the entire office. This is where I doubt that there was a gay man or lesbian on the crew: Gordy comes to her rescue and convinces her to go to a lesbian bar. 'Sorry no men' says the bouncer. So Gray and Gordy return with Gordy in drag. Bad drag. He was in a sleeveless black satin-like blouse, a string of pearls, and a grandma's church hat. No lesbian would ever confuse this 'man in a dress' as a drag queen much less a woman. The bar was also the straight man's fantasy of what a lesbian bar is: full of Victoria's Secret models. Everything turns out peachy – she goes home with her firm's client. Gray happens to be on the woman's account and finally does more then kiss. For some reason no one tells Charlie anything and she is oblivious through the whole movie of this kiss with Gray, but that is for the sequel.

Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is a teacher who is about to get married. Then, one of his former students wins an Oscar for a film in which he plays a gay soldier and thanks Howard in his acceptance speech, outing him as being gay too! This film follows the aftermath as reporters descend on Howard's village and he tries to convince everyone that he is straight.<br /><br />I love this movie! Kevin Kline is wonderful, it has some really hilarious moments and it always leaves me feeling great with an enormous grin on my face. Consequently, it's one film that I enjoy watching as often as possible. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out!

His significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case.

Frederick Forsyth's books are always so intricately plotted, with twists and turns, and usually a great surprise ending. This adaptation had none of that.<br /><br />So much of what was great in the book (the history of Monk and the betrayed agents; the plot to influence the outcome of the Russian election) were completely missing in this adaptation. Instead, there's this completely new plot about bio-weapons that was a yawner.<br /><br />Forsyth's protagonists always operated in the shadows, forever just slightly beyond the reach of the antagonists. The joys of his books have always been the machinations of carrying out their mission. This film resigned itself to gunfights and car chases early on.<br /><br />Swayze's Monk might as well have hung a sign around his neck saying "I AM A SECRET AGENT" for all the attention that he called to himself during the film. And with all of that attention, the amount of time that it took the bad guys to catch up to him was surprising.<br /><br />Granted there was some energy to this film, which is why I'm giving it a "3" instead of a "1". It was also great to see some underutilized pros like Patrick Bergin, Ben Cross, Michael York, and Barry Morse.<br /><br />I hope that someday, someone will once again do justice to a Forsyth film adaptation like "Day of the Jackal" did.

"Protocol" is a hit-and-miss picture starring Goldie Hawn as a bubbly cocktail waitress who one night saves the life of a visiting Arab from an assassination attempt. The woman immediately becomes a celebrity, and gets a new job working for the U.S. Government. Will the corridors of power in our nation's capital ever be the same? Hawn is excellent as usual even though "Protocol" isn't as funny as her best film "Private Benjamin". But it's still a good movie, and I did laugh alot.<br /><br />*** (out of four)

I know these types of films sell tickets and make a profit for the film makers but it just won't do as a film about Vietnam. Viet Nam was filled with horrors for the men who lived it day in and day out.<br /><br />This film stars Gene Hackman who is Korean war vet assigned to train a group of rag-tag Viet Nam Vets for a return trip to that country to rescue a group of American POW's held at a camp there. These men include a former tunnel rat, a crazy acid dropping sailor, a blond tanned surfer from California and some inexperienced kid (Patrick Swayze) who just so happens had a dad that was killed in Nam. They train first at some camp in Texas and once in Nam they are found out and lose all their weapons. They are able to find replacement weapons and continue on their way to free the captured men. Most of the men are found and saved but the rag-tag group is mostly wiped out.<br /><br />This movie played like a video game in which you could figure out what was going to happen next and who would pop out of behind what bush, and who was going to die and who was going to live. Viet Nam I'm guessing was not like a video game....

If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.<br /><br />Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100. <br /><br />It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his "honeycomb" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray. <br /><br />If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.

This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this.

In 1932, Humphrey Bogart was a relative unknown--an unproven actor who was starring in one of his first films. And, because he was an unknown, the movie they gave him was clearly a B-movie--a quick film with relatively low expectations. After seeing it, I could see why it would still take Bogart many more years AND another film studio before he became a household name. While the film isn't terrible, it certainly isn't good--making it more of a curiosity than anything else when seen today.<br /><br />Bogart is a pilot who has dreams of building his own aircraft engine company. However, when a vacuous rich playgirl comes his way, his dreams all seem to go on hold. As one of the characters in the film said, the combination of the two is like oil and water--they just don't mix.<br /><br />While Bogart is throwing away his promising career, his sister is going full speed on the Road to Skankville--having met a sleazy guy who convinces her to sleep with rich guys so they can shake them down for tons of cash! Bogey has no idea his sister ISN'T the actress she claims to be and doesn't realize later that the rich woman he loves leaves him for the same guy whose mistress is....Bogart's SISTER!!! All this leads up to a finale that is reasonably enjoyable. However, what follows is one of the dumbest scenes I have watched in a very long time! By now, the rich lady is not going to marry the guy sleeping with Bogey's sister (whew!) but because she's now poor and no good for Bogart, she's about to fly away and kill herself. Bogey finds out, chases the plane on foot, jumps on the plane as it's taking off and crawls up the fuselage to take control of the plane and save her!!! This is so utterly silly and ridiculous, I found myself laughing out loud. Up until then, I might have scored it a 4 or 5--this sunk the movie to a 3 (how one reviewer gave this an 8 is beyond me).<br /><br />The bottom line is that this was a talking and silly film. On top of that, it's all wrong for Bogart, as the action hero at the end and the simpering lover are horrible matches for his persona that was so wonderfully created in the early 40s. Manly and solid better suits the man--one of America's great actors but clearly out of his element here.<br /><br />By the way, those who love Pre-Code films and their very adult sensibilities may want to see this one. Practically everyone in the film believes in and practices pre-marital sex and Bogey curses in the film--things you never would have seen after the toughened and more moralistic Production Code was adopted in 1934.

This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......

Wow. A truly fantastic 'trip' movie that has tons of super-surreal imagery, dark intent and a black, pretty strange sense of how cartoon animals must see the world. It's populated with a very cute off-world bunch of characters that bend and flow with warped backgrounds.As with all cool fantasy, the wandering plot is secondary to the eye-popping visuals and we follow a little cat and his zombie sister as they encounter death, deluge, water elephants, samurai swordsmen and pigs that fish. I'd never heard of it, but now I love it - probably because it reminded me of the surreal pencil-work of American cartoonist; Bill Plympton. It's a demented delight for fans of odd, pretty things and it had me glued to the screen for fear I'd miss something amazing. Simply put, it's 'Hello Kitty' without the 'o'.

The Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, is depicted in this mediocre 3-hour made-for-television film, whose only redeeming value is bringing light and paying homage to Stephen F. Austin, the so-called "Father of Texas" whose life story had long been overshadowed by that of the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is simply the usual "Santa Anna is a tyrant" storyline and with a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective with a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Combined with short low-budget battle scenes, such as the Alamao and San Jacinto, this film is recommended only for real history buffs who who do not come from Mexico. To its credit, the Mexican uniforms look accurate and the romantic subplot (another love triangle) doesn't take up too much screen time. Overall, this movie depicts the violent secession movement by Texas' Anglo-Saxon racial minority to be a positive and just revolution against Mexican tyranny as personified by the general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the so-called "Napoleon of the West".

Others' main criticism of this film--namely that Macy suddenly looks Jewish upon donning his glasses--is misplaced. The glasses are just the little bit of change needed to CONVINCE others he's a Jew. The scene in which he says to his boss, (paraphrasing) "but you KNOW what my background is," along with another discussion with his mother, suggests that he's had to fight this same assumption in the past. The glasses now make him look just Jewish enough to "confirm" his neighbors' and co-workers' existing suspicions. Then there is his new wife's large nose and taste for loud clothes, which OF COURSE means she's Jewish. The whole point of the film is how those little stereotypical nothings become the entire basis for judging others. <br /><br />If he has a lisp, he must be gay. If he has long hair, he smokes dope. If he's Hispanic, he's got a knife...and if he has round black glasses and he's slight of build, he must be Jewish. Those statements all sound equally (im)plausible to me. If the conclusion people were jumping to in Focus was reasonable, the whole point of the story would be lost.

It is hard to judge 'Imaginary Heroes' without referring to the fact that director and script writer Dan Harris is only 25. You can hardly believe seeing this film, which is not only a mature piece of work, professional and deep, but also with some of the defects of routine specific to older directors.<br /><br />The setting is the American suburb, too familiar from 'American Beauty' or 'Desperate Housewives'. As in 'American Beauty'the film turns around a suicide, but here it happens at the beginning of the movie, and we are left watching a mid-class family coping with the death of the gifted sportsman brother and son. Emile Hirsch plays the younger brother, Sigourney Weaver is the mother, both are excellent trying to cope with the loss, to find the reason and motivation to survive. Harris drives his actors with a sure hand, and the first two sections of the film (there are four in total, as the seasons of the year) build a wonderful tension, with credible dilemmas and real questions. It is the second part of the film that disappoints slightly, it looks too tired and conventional, and I suspect that the producers may have interfered in the work of the young script-writer and director, trying to bring him closer to the Hollywood convention. That's how this film fails to be a somber version of 'American Beauty', with a different focus. I am sure however that we will hear a lot about Dan Harris in the coming years.

This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs!

This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.<br /><br />Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.

Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.<br /><br />Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.<br /><br />Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.<br /><br />Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.<br /><br />The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.<br /><br />Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.<br /><br />Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.<br /><br />Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.

I did something a little daring tonight when I watched this movie. I attempted to wean myself from silent movie scores. Sure, when this film originally was distributed, a piano score was probably played with it. Oftentimes, the director would choose the score himself (Charlie Chaplin often composed the scores of his later silent films). But most of the music you hear on VHS tapes over silent films is in no way the same music that was supposed to be played when the film was first released. And, then again, there were plenty of silent films that were played without a score. I do not know the history of Potemkin's score, so I decided to watch it for the medium this piece of art was produced within - film. <br /><br />Soon after I turned the music off, unaided (or should I say unimpeded) by the musical interpretation of the emotions on screen, I became utterly attached to the film. Visually, it is easily one of the most stunning of all films. Eisenstein was a master of composition. The editing, possibly the cinematic technique Eisenstein is most famous for (montage), is extraordinary. The mood of this film is anger, and it stirred my passions violently. <br /><br />It takes a lot of effort to enjoy a silent film, especially a drama, but films like Battleship Potemkin prove that this effort is entirely worth it. Come on! You owe it to yourself to watch this film! Your education is incomplete without it.

Like the beauty of the jungle, Jessica Alba's gorgeous smile and sultry looks loom over the film, but alas they are the only two things worth watching this film for. When in theory we should be watching for the narrative.<br /><br />The plot is thin on the ground, and hard to believe. As beautiful as Jessica Alba is, she doesn't add any of the spark that she injected into the credible 'Dark Angel' series. Since Dark Angel it seems that Alba has been reduced to mere eye candy(but what eye candy!), and is the sole reason for putting her into films.<br /><br />The concept of the sleeping dictionary is daft and implausible, with little character development (or character for that matter) to make us want to undertake the 109 minutes run time with this world. Despite the films short running time, it still manages to feel to long and too laboured.<br /><br />It seems a shame that such talent such as Brenda Blethyn, Emily Mortimer, Bob Hoskins are wasted on a threadbare narrative which barely raises a pulse. This film seriously misses a trick, an exotic setting, a more than capable cast, with lovely cinematography, and a chance to utilise the themes and the dualistic concepts of 'civilisation'. But there is little narrative to speak of, no drama, no sense we are watching a story of love, more a story of lust and woman happy to please men without question. Lets be honest, if Jessica Alba was freely allowing you to sleep with her, do you seriously think you'd be able to concentrate on learning a tribal language? Therein lies the great problem, both in suspension of disbelief, and also what the female characters are limited and reduced to. Take for example the fact that Jessica alba's character undergoes the mental and physical tribulation of pregnancy and birth to her forbidden love, yet all we see is her looking lovely and curvy one minute, then lovely and curvy, with a baby, the next.<br /><br />It's a sorry state of affairs to see a film with promise not live up to anything near it's potential. I could write endlessly of the films flaws, but it pains me to do so. The film looks good, the premise could have been made into a lovely film, but sadly it wasn't to be.

The greatest movie ever.<br /><br />How's that for a contention? However, if we look at it through purely cinematic terms, it is clear that Three Colours Red is a masterpiece. It is not enough to merely say this - Three Colours Red is the masterpiece of world cinema. If you accept that Citizen Kane is not human enough, if you accept that Star Wars is not actually very good, if you accept that Ozu and Mizoguchi both have to take a step back - then Three Colours Red is the foremost masterpiece of all time. As a discussion into human morality, Three Colours Red works on an intensely metaphysical level, with a depth that none can match. Blue went almost as far into the human psyche, but stopped as it was going to pull the rabbit out of the hat. White forced us to reflect on the humanity of equality - this, in retrospect, was better still, but still not quite there. Red, however, is the real thing. What he expresses in this movie, is an expression of what it is to be human. In fact, what he expresses is _how_ it is to feel human. It forces us to examine up to the minutest detail, the very nature of our souls, of our ethical selves. In Red, one may find meaning on one of its several levels. On the first level, Red achieves a high level of verisimilitude - we could have no trouble in calling Red an exceptionally entertaining story. However, the coincidences inherent in the film and its conceits force us to examine the movie as a movie. It is as if Kieslowski is saying: "Ceci n'est pas la réalité". In effect, in pursuing a humanistic goal, Kieslowski can also challenge reality. It is a trick that Kieslowski has been attempting since Le Double Vie de Véronique, but not until this, his final film, did he finally manage to reach this divine intertwining of fate, philosophy and circumstance. The actors and actresses, too, appear to be at the mercy of a greater power. Valentine (Irène Jacob), is aptly name, for she seems to represent an almost pure love. Meanwhile, the idea of first impressions is challenged by Jean-Louis Tritignant's Judge Kern, a cantankerous man, who, by the end, becomes an almost all-knowing observer of events - a character who symbolically seems to possess the power to bring characters together - a power to make people happy, a power which he could only achieve through Valentine.<br /><br />We have a capability to see films as more than just a series of pictures. In fact, films have the potential to possess more meaning than literature. It won't happen, of course, but at least we have the power to view this film, knowing that it gives us the power to achieve the something that we can't define, but all possess. A synopsis of this film read: "A film about a woman who runs over a dog". Well, it is.<br /><br />Isn't it?<br /><br />-Simon Huxtable<br /><br />

A great film! Slow: YES.<br /><br />...but original, deeply atmospheric, dark and horrifying, perfectly SURREAL (feels like a nightmare).<br /><br />I'd compare it to David Lynch (Eraserhead, Inland Empire, Blue Velvet) style maybe with mixed with a little bit of Barton Fink and Naked Lunch (Insects!). Also a bit of Jodorowsky (Fando y Lis)....<br /><br />Add some Night on Earth, Angel Heart and a bit of Begotten, Pi, (would it be wrong to mention Tetsuo?) Jacob's Ladder, Barker's The Forbidden and Salome - that should form together at least the concept of a dark night... NUIT NOIRE.<br /><br />If you're out for avantegardistic and/or surrealistic cinema (like I am) you're gonna like this one. If you're expecting anything else like a movie full of action with some average plot - try your luck with something else.<br /><br />Final words: The plot is very, very strange and unusual and that's probably the #1 reason why most people who don't appreciate this film hate it.

this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together. <br /><br />watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.<br /><br />and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!!

If this documentary had not been made by the famous French director, Louis Malle, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15 minutes, as it was an incredibly dull look at a very ordinary Midwestern American town in 1979. This is not exactly my idea of a fun topic and the film footage closely resembled a collection of home movies. Considering I didn't know any of these people, it was even less interesting.<br /><br />Because it was a rather dull slice of life style documentary, I wondered while watching what was the message they were trying to convey? Perhaps it was that values aren't as conservative as you might think--this was an underlying message through many of the vignettes (such as the Republicans whose son was a draft resister as well as the man and lady who thought sex outside of marriage was just fine). Or, perhaps the meaning was that there was a lot of bigotry underlying the nice home town--as several ugly ideas such as blaming Jews for financial conspiracies, anti-Black bigotry and homophobia all were briefly explored.<br /><br />The small town of 1979 was explored in great depth and an idyllic sort of world was portrayed, but when the film makers returned six years later, the mood was depressed thanks to President Reagan. This seemed very disingenuous for several reasons. First, the 1979 portion was almost 90% of the film and the final 10% only consisted of a few interviews of people that blamed the president for just about everything but acne. What about the rest of the folks of this town? Did they all see Reagan as evil or that their lives had become more negative? With only a few updates, it seemed suspicious. Second, while it is true that the national debt doubled in the intervening years, so did the gross national product. And, while Malle shows 1979 as a very optimistic period, it was far from that, as the period from 1974-1980 featured many shortages (gas, sugar, etc.), strikes, high inflation and general malaise. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan because government growth did NOT slow during his administration, the country, in general, was far more optimistic than it had been in the Ford and Carter years. While many in the media demonized Reagan (a popular sport in the 80s), the economy improved significantly and the documentary seems very one-sided and agenda driven. Had the documentary given a more thorough coverage of 1985 and hadn't seemed too negative to be believed (after all, everyone didn't have their lives get worse--this defies common sense), then I might have thought otherwise.<br /><br />Overall, not the wonderful documentary some have proclaimed it to be--ranging from a dull film in 1979 to an extremely slanted look at 1985.<br /><br />By the way, is it just me, or does the film DROP DEAD GORGEOUS seem to have been inspired, at least in part, by this film? Both are set in similar communities, but the latter film was a hilarious mockumentary without all the serious undertones.

While it's one of two movies on Tales of Voodoo Volume 1, there's no voodoo or anything supernatural in it! The box labels it "Hell Hole" but the screen title is Escape from Hell Hole. The title is confusingly similar to Hell Hole (1978) aka "Escape from Women's Hell Hole" A group of women bathe in a river and seemingly the worst thing they have to worry about is a peeping tom, who they easily overpower. No nudity in this or any other scene, however.<br /><br />A woman named Cardena drives up in a car and seems to be known and liked by all the women. She invites Indri to come and live in the city with her and her uncle M.G. Once they get there, it becomes clear that M.G. wants to take Indri's virginity. M.G. runs some sort of house of prostitution, and he's either in charge of a corrupt branch of the military, or runs a paramilitary outfit, or prefers for his guards to all wear military-style uniforms.<br /><br />The women who refuse him or otherwise make trouble get put into a prison. Indri gets sent there. The women get tortured and sometimes possibly raped by the guards.<br /><br />Various unsuccessful attempts at escape or rescue are made, but inevitably fail despite the obvious advantages the women have: they outnumber the guards vastly, and relatively few of the guards have automatic weapons - most have semi-automatic rifles or handguns.<br /><br />WIP genre enthusiasts may like it, and the fact that it was made in the Philippines gives it some novelty, but otherwise... eh.

I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.<br /><br />However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.<br /><br />Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV.

This flick was the introduction for a lot of us to the works of K Gordon Murray. That's because it was easy to find. It was on every public domain label in the VHS era, and before that, a late night t.v. cult classic, double knee thigh slapper. Besides, HOW do you resist the title?<br /><br />For late comers, a brief explanation of it's merit: Florida wheeler dealer K. Gordon Murray imported Mexican horror films, dubbed them into English, then made a mint with them at the drive in. The Mexican ORIGINALS were weird enough to begin with; American boundaries and accepted horror film conventions were cheerfully disregarded. Great, great set design and lighting were placed beside weird or laughable special effects. NOTHING in Hollywood was as close as these were to out and out strange. Now, mix in Catholic influenced social conventions, Mexican folk lore, and we are not in Kansas anymore. <br /><br />Add to THAT the English scripts they were dubbed into. Most were written by Reuban Guberman, who wanted words to match movements of the actors lips ON SCREEN, not the literal translation. As a result the American soundtracks tended to run from overwrought to down right loopy. There's even a fan web site for Murray that prints the best, most over the top lines for each movie. First time viewers to the films complain about the pacing, the purple prose, the production values and are told it's SUPPOSED to be that way..while the people laugh with enjoyment over things normally considered fatal film flaws. It all must be very confusing if you don't have a taste for it.<br /><br />This one was made back to back in 1957 with the two previous films in the series; THE AZTEC MUMMY and CURSE OF THE AZTEC MUMMY. All three are now available on the 3 disc AZTEC MUMMY COLLECTION (BCI) and it's about time. It has the K Gordon Murray version on one side, the original Mexican production on the other side. The contrast between the two is fascinating. A lot of the times the original Spanish is not much saner.<br /><br />ROBOT/MUMMY starts off with a nice long flashback bringing you up to speed on the previous episodes, sort of..continuity was tossed out the window in number two, and it's downhill from there, logic wise. You don't even get The Angel back, or any mention of him in this final episode. Names, places, even family trees switch between films. After a while, you start LOOKING for the continuity changes. <br /><br />By now, the series villain Doc Krupp is totally pig biting mad, nearly drooling with dementia and STILL wants to steal the Aztec breastplate. Rosita Arenas is sent back to the past with another nice edit of the AZTEC MUMMY floor show, and wanders out into the dark in her nightie to help find that doggone breastplate again. The mummy isn't any happier with this then he was last time.<br /><br />The robot actually has a production credit. It was made by 'Viana & Co S.A.'. I mention this, because it looks like the grips came up with it between takes on a slow afternoon when the real costume went walkabout. Nope.<br /><br />This was PLANNED. <br /><br />Wait until you see the controller it runs from. X box, where WERE you when Krupp NEEDED you??? The Robot LOOKS crushed to death at the end, but actually came back in two more Mexican made movies..it had a FAN BASE.. <br /><br />All in all, a funny quirky finish to a three movie series. Sit back and enjoy.

I caught this little gem totally by accident back in 1980 or '81. I was at a revival theatre to see two old silly sci-fi movies. The theatre was packed full and (with no warning) they showed a bunch of sci-fi short spoofs (to get us in the mood). Most were somewhat amusing but THIS came on and, within seconds, the audience was in hysterics! The biggest laugh came when they showed "Princess Laia" having huge cinnamon buns instead of hair on her head. She looks at the camera, gives a grim smile and nods. That made it even funnier! You gotta see "Chewabacca" played by what looks like a Muppet! It was extremely silly and stupid...but I couldn't stop laughing. Most of the dialogue was drowned out because of all the laughter. Also if you know "Star Wars" pretty well it's even funnier--they deliberately poke fun at some of the dialogue. This REALLY works with an audience! A definite 10!

What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a "big name" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.<br /><br />At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.<br /><br />It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.<br /><br />Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of "spot the Kiwi bit parters"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.

Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?<br /><br />Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clichés & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother.

I have noticed that a lot of films that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater" have received a tons of low ratings on IMDb. However, a few of the films featured on the films weren't that bad and it's not fair to rate a film that's been given the "MST" treatment--with the hosts making funny comments during the film. Now I am NOT saying that "The Girl in Lover's Lane" is a great film, but it's not nearly bad enough to merit its current IMDb score of 2.1.<br /><br />The film begins with Bix and Danny meeting. Bix is a veteran drifter and Danny a younger guy who seems to have no particular reason to be wandering about the country. Once they blow into a small town, Bix needs to rescue Danny again and again because Danny is quite naive--a nice way of saying he has the intellect of a tomato.<br /><br />Along the way, something happens to the self-assured Bix--he finds a nice young lady and finds the lure of staying put pulling at him. And, in an odd subplot, Jack Elam plays a super-creepy sicko who wanders the town scaring the crap out of everyone--yet oddly, the police don't seem to take much notice nor does anyone on their own do anything about him. Ultimately, however, when Elam puts the moves on a girl who Bix is falling for, things come to a full boil.<br /><br />Overall, while not at all a great film, there were many interesting plot elements in this film--enough to merit a score higher than 2.1. The biggest negatives are a simplistic conclusion to the mystery that occurs near the end as well as the total stupidity of Danny one time too often. Considering the minuscule budget, however, it's a watchable little film.

A remarkable film, bringing to the surface all sorts of feelings I had when I was much, much younger. I loved it, and the Elton John music. I remember seeing in in the movies when I was a kid, and for some reason (limited release?) I've never known anyone else who saw this film when it was released.<br /><br />The dreams it inspired in me from decades ago have never left me, and seeing the film again recently brought it all rushing back, I confess, however, that my kids (in their 20's) have not experienced a similar emotional rush. A generational thing?<br /><br />Why is it not on DVD?

I admit I have been a fan of Harrison Ford for many, many years now so it didn't surprise me that I enjoyed his performance here. But I also enjoyed the way the storyline developed and thought the casting was well done. I don't know whether I "buy into" Kristin Scott Thomas as a Congresswoman but she is a fine actress and a beautiful woman. I took notice of her in the first Mission Impossible. Although her part was small she stuck out on the screen.<br /><br />Here her and Ford play people whose spouses are killed in an airplane crash. They are seated together and this is where the plot takes off. Apparently Ford, a police detective in Wash D.C., discovers that his wife was having an affair. He further discovers that the affair was with the husband of a New England Congresswoman.<br /><br />The story takes on many subplots as Ford and Thomas find themselves drawn together by revelations of their marriages, the uncovering of deceipt, and the pure grief and anger over the loss of a loved one.<br /><br />I think the movie is worthwhile either renting or catching on cable.

I had high hopes for this film when I saw the listing and decided to watch it on TV, uninterrupted by commercial breaks. I've liked Lee Van Cleef in many movies but I'm afraid that having the other characters call him Chris repeatedly doesn't turn him into even a reasonable facsimile of Yul Brenner's Chris.<br /><br />I found this movie to be a complete disappointment - the music sound track tried to impart the magnificence portrayed in the original but it too failed to bring the film up the the standard of the original. The rich textures of the characters in the original were mostly missing from this film. I guess if you haven't seen the original it would be okay. Too many clichés and too little depth to the characters. I missed the humanity and compassion and the three dimensional characters of the original.

Pavarotti and the entire cast are superb in this beautifully filmed opera by Giuseppe Verdi, the world's finest composer of operas. The coloratura soprano is particularly spectacular with her perfect pitch. The title role is well-enacted and well-sung. The entire production is as perfect as one could expect.<br /><br />A masterpiece of cinematography!<br /><br />

It seems that all people didn't like Steven Seagal: Just take a look at his nomination list, there are only razzie awards nominations (with one win) for him, but I think he didn't earn anything of it. I saw good movies with Steven Seagal, I saw bad movies with Steven Seagal. And THE PATRIOT (1998) is one of his best movies, nearly as good as UNDER SIEGE (1992) or HARD TO KILL (1990). THE PATRIOT shows his activities to protect nature. Surely, this movie is not a great one, and I must say that there is more violence than I like, and why must Seagal's best friend L. Q. Jones die the death of a victim? The role of Dr. McClaren is one of Seagal's best performances. He has, as always, a very good charisma. And in summary, THE PATRIOT is good entertainment-and with an average rating of only 4 points the most underrated movie of all time.<br /><br />Regards, Hans-Dieter

I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).

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

Mercy the movie, actually starts out as a somewhat decent film, and ellen barkin does give a strong performance. But if you have read the book and actually got to know the characters and cared who done it the movie just does not compare. It is always hard to brink a book onto film and unfortunatley this one ends up failing...... 3 out of 10

As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, "I came for the science." This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming "The Birds" but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.<br /><br />The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of "B" movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.<br /><br />This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.<br /><br />If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.<br /><br />One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, "wait for Tom" as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.<br /><br />As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, "my goal is to evolve the human species" - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about.

This time The Beastmaster(Marc Singer) returns only to face off a new enemy Arklon(Wings Hauser) however due to an annoying teenager(Kari Wuher) they are transported to the future where they then duke it out. Lots of (lame) fish out of water jokes ensue. You honestly don't get sequels this rotten to the core. Beastmaster 2 is a painful movie to behold. The references and "hipness" date the film badly (This was made in 1991) and really who wants to see The Beastmaster in the present times? Also of note is Wings Hauser who's embarrassing performance is easily the film's best asset. Singer looks awkward, Wuher is irritating and the whole 1991 slang just makes the movie downright unwatchable. This is easily one of the worst movies ever made.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4-(Awful)

Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.<br /><br />The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.

This is the most pitiful excuse for a comedy show I've ever seen. I'm confounded that this guy was given his own show. It smells of complete and utter desperation on the part of comedy central, trying to fill the void left by the talented and incomparable Dave Chapelle. He's a tip from Ned's bag of comedy gold: Is a punchline not funny? Need to give it that extra push into hilarity? F***ING YELL IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Simple, no? And as an added bonus....finish half your jokes with...THEN YOU'RE RE-TAH-DED!! or DUH-DU-DUUUUHHHH! Oh man. So....funny. Beaner...hilarious. Wetback....does the laughter ever stop?<br /><br />To illustrate my point in a more cerebral way, i'll cite an example. Mencia jokes about how "retarded" it is to rebuild new orleans, because it's so close to the water. Genius. The line of distinction between a great comedian and a hack has never been drawn so clearly. While a good comedian would find hidden humor in the tragedy, finding subtle ways of weaving a joke into something that we can all laugh at and take solace in, Ned goes for the obvious. Move the city. Great. Wait, is that funny? Ned doesn't have the intellectual capacity to find the deepest meaning of things. The hurricane didn't flood the city, ned. The levee project was underfunded and in serious need of federal dollars...and behold! They broke. I guess that's God's way of telling us we shouldn't be there. After all, he's got a seat in congress. What a fool.<br /><br />Chapelle was a master of turning a tired racial comedic spin on its head. He was effortless at it, and at all points, we were laughing with him. While mencia talks about black people not being able to swim *yawn,* Chapelle took it 300 yards further with the black and blind white supremesist. You don't have to be scathing to be edgy. You have to be original. <br /><br />Mencia and his legions of fans are like that closeted gay dude who laughs all too emphatically at gay jokes, thinking it somehow masks his own insecurities. Except of course, with Ned, he's laughing all too emphatically at the "retards." Du-du-duuuuh.

Halloween is the story of a boy who was misunderstood as a child. He takes out his problems on his older sister, whom he murders at the beginning of the film. This is just the start of things to come from Michael Myers.<br /><br />Donald Pleasance plays the doctor who's been studying Myers for years. He knows that something is different about him, something mysteriously evil. This evil will not be contained, and it cannot be stopped.<br /><br />After an escape from an institution, Myers tracks down his younger sister. If he kills her, there may be an end to the troubles of this misunderstood boy. But he seems to have problems in finishing his sister off as other people get in the way. He manages to take them out while still looking for that one girl he needs.<br /><br />There have been a lot of those horror movies involving teenagers getting hacked to pieces by a masked or gruesome killer. But this one started it all, sort of. If you think about it, most of those horror movies we all remember are the ones that have Freddy Kruger or Jason chasing around half naked girls. Well, if it wasn't for Halloween, those characters wouldn't have haunted our dreams when we were children.<br /><br />Halloween's director, John Carpenter, got a lot out of the horror movies of the '50s and combined everything he knew into one film that scared the hell out of a lot of people back in the late '70s. This films solidified him as a director to watch and also jump started the career of Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays the girl being stalked by the masked killer.<br /><br />This film may seem cliché today, but back then there wasn't much out there like this. It's been copied from and ripped off of, but Halloween will always remain the quintessential teenage horror movie. It still gives you chills listening to Carpenter's thrilling music while we see another victim get chased by that shadowy Michael Myers.

The Muppet movie is an instant classic. I remember the opening scene with the bird's eye view of the swamp and Kermit starting into (in my opinion) the most loved song in the history of songs. At this point my mom would always sing along with Kermit.<br /><br />Watching this title as a young adult it makes me smile. I can still sing along to my heart's desire. Like many Muppet films there are in jokes for adults that are( In my opinion) still funny today. My favorite line of all time is actually from this film, it's the last line spoken by my green, goggle eyed hero Kermit "Life's like a movie , Write your own ending". That's what I intend to do! Thank you Jim Henson.

I'll be honest-- the pimped out purple plane with Snoop Dogg at the helm is an amusing visual gag. It would have been a decent concept for a 30 second commercial, or maybe a 3 minute music video. But the producers have committed the age-old concept comedy sin of stretching 30 seconds of material into an hour and a half of film, and the results are predictably lame. The remainder of the 89 minutes are filled with the typical gamut of racist and sexist humor and fart jokes, offensive and-- worst of all-- painfully unfunny. The threadbare plot screams under the weight of its contrivances. Best to be avoided unless you are drunk or stoned.

Punishment Park is a pseudo-documentary made by Peter Watkins. The premise is that the nation's dissidents (hippies, musicians, protesters, pacifists, etc.) are being rounded up and tried by a tribunal and then given the choice of prison or running the course of Punishment Park. It's a 52 mile grueling trek through the desert to an American flag, with police, National Guard, and various other authority figures in pursuit. The idea is, that if you make it to the flag, you're set free. The tribunal consists of a bunch of conservative types, all condemning any behavior that is not like their own, and there is no result except a prison sentence or the option of "Punishment Park" for any of those on trial. There are a lot of things in this that still ring true today, which is quite disturbing in itself. The people running the course are promised water at the half-way point, which isn't true, and the pursuing officials are mostly a sadistic bunch that are just out for a bit of target practice. This is not a very graphic film but it's more shocking in its ideas and themes than anything else. The scary thing is, it could happen. Not a very upbeat film but definitely worth seeing. Warning: it might make you angry. 9 out of 10.

Let's get one thing straight, this gets an 7 out of 10 not on a normal scale, but out of the bad movie scale. this is the kind of movie you rent on purpose, where you intentionally walk in knowing that it is a horrendous knockoff and shun'd by everyone else. <br /><br />I went in with one promise from the movie, that there will be snakes on a train, and it Delivers! <br /><br />The gore itself is really good, and the characters have awesome roles. Come on, it has everything from stoned train pilots to teenage girls trafficking drugs, even a Electrical Engineer getting his pimp on! You get to see some topless nudity, explosions, snakes, gore, and a Mexican main lead running around curing his girlfriend by hitting his crack pipe and blowing the smoke in her face!! As I mentioned and many others have, the movie pacing is a bit off, but respectable nonetheless. <br /><br />Movies like this keep our group tradition of banding together and all chipping in a buck or two to watch masterpieces such as this. There can be no better time spent then coming together to enjoy a good bad movie. <br /><br />It could learn a thing or two from the likes of other such fine flicks as Alien Lock-down or Boa vs Python, but those are some big shoes to fill. <br /><br />A solid 7 out of 10.

Never viewed this film and enjoyed the singing and dancing by Cagney and the other cast members namely: Dick Powell, (Scott Blair) who had a great tenor voice and Ruby Keeler, (Bea Thorn). James Cagney plays the role as Chester Kent who writes musicals and eventually goes into producing Prologues which are shown in between the feature films shown in movie theater's during the 1930's. Chester has trouble with people trying to steal his ideas for his shows. This is a very entertaining film with lots of comedy and plenty of laughs. Joan Blondell, (Nan Prescott) gave a great supporting role who was also very young and pretty. Dick Powell was great as a singer and dancer and just starting out with his long and successful screen career. Enjoy.

There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.<br /><br />Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.<br /><br />I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.<br /><br />Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even "civilised" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.<br /><br />This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material.

When people think of downtown Chicago they think of Walter Payton, Ditka and "Da Bears", Ryne Sandberg, The White Sox breaking the curse in 2005 or the immortal Michael Jordan and his six championships (and Finals MVP's) with the Chicago Bulls. Rarely in this generation do people think of the struggling side of Chicago, the ghettos, the drug infested streets and life in the urban housing projects during the 1970's.<br /><br />One of television's most formidable shows ever and a groundbreaking sitcom was "Good Times", which I remember vaguely as a small child on CBS, and I enjoy regularly now on TV Land.<br /><br />"Good Times" was another Norman Lear classic, the producer that gave us "The Jeffersons", the best African American sitcom of all time and "All in the Family" the greatest show of all time. "Good Times" brought out the hardships of the ghetto and the urban housing projects, and did so with charm, well written and thoughtful plots, and some wonderful acting especially by the matriarch and patriarch of this struggling ghetto family played by Esther Rolle and John Amos. The children in the supporting cast were also pretty good especially the ever popular Janet Jackson in her early years and Ralph Carter as Florida and James Evans youngest son whose character at a young age realizes that life is unfair, and he has to learn to stand on his own two feet.<br /><br />The eldest of the children J.J. played by Jimmy Walker is somewhat out of place on this show and is there mainly for comic relief. His emotional age is about 11 or 12 even though he looks like a guy in his early twenties. J.J. gets annoying, and it is a credit to the often nasty James Evans (Amos) that he never tells J.J. to get his own life, get a job and get out of the house. J.J. is an aspiring painter but unlike his younger brother is never serious about getting a college degree, or more important to the family getting a job to help support a household that is just above welfare status.<br /><br />Two classic episodes of Good Times was the one where the Janet Jackson character is running a fever of 104, and Florida Evans is desperately seeking good medical help for her can't afford anything but a clinic doctor who is very professional yet doesn't want to give a family from the projects any more attention than she legally has to. The other episode is the one where James Evans can't afford the rent a paltry low $104 a month. The Evans are about to get the largest of family setbacks, being thrown out of the projects with no where to go. Florida Evans goes downtown to the board of social services to try to get either a loan or a grant to help her family. But the government doesn't consider her family poor because they have over $4,200 in assets for a family of five which is unfairly but unfortunately legally over the poverty line. James and the kids want to hustle for the money, but Florida is a person of great moral character and doesn't want to do anything dishonest no matter how dire their predicament is. In the end the family does find a solution to keep their heads above water.<br /><br />"Good Times" a classic show from the 1970's is about keeping you're head above water in a cruel world. James and Florida Evans both work hard in menial jobs to try to bring their children up right and avoid the social stigma of welfare. I was too young to understand the message of the sitcom as a toddler in the 70s in its first airing on CBS, but I really enjoy the reruns on TV Land in 2006. "Good Times" is one of the classic sitcoms from back in the day.

Oh my, I think this may be the single cheesiest movie I've ever seen. I'm serious, this is one of the ultimate b-movies. The first proof is that it isn't a $5 DVD. Oh no, that's too mainstream for this. I got this on VHS, from a bin full of ex-rental videos at my local video store.<br /><br />If I may quote the blurb: "In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan." It then goes on to say "A multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents"<br /><br />I must have seen a different movie. This was no epic, and it certainly wasn't a multi million dollar anything. No, 'Shogun Mayeda' is really just the crazy adventures of the Engrish-speaking Mayeda (Sho Kosugi). He isn't even a Shogun really, but thats not important. What is important, is that he does a really cool impression of John Cleese's repeated charging of the one castle in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', and his ability to go from serious scenes to showing off his samurai mind powers. Awesome.<br /><br />The greatest thing about this movie is Sho Kosugi's Engrish accent. The movie may lack nearly everything that makes a good movie, but makes up for it with some of the cheesiest lines ever, delivered by the coolest Engrish accent ever. And honestly, do you really want anything else? You could fast forward 'Shogun Mayeda' to the end, and replay Kosugi's final line over and over. The tape will probably wear out before you get tired of that one line. Awesome.<br /><br />2/10 - So very very cheesy.

I watched SEA OF DUST at the Rhode Island Horror Film Festival in Providence. It was the Festival's featured film and won Best Picture out of I think a couple hundred entries. The director and a few of the stars answered questions after the showing. One star, Suzy Lorraine, was even hotter in person than in the film, and she was an eye catcher in the movie.<br /><br />This film is independent, yet it has a lot of cinematic touches that give it a quality feel. It even has an original classical style musical score.<br /><br />I am a Savini fan and he's the star villain here, in black cape, he's more of an evil force than a real person I think. He is sucking the souls out of people and using them as soldiers in a twisted attempt to establish his version of the Kingdom of God on Earth. In his view, Christ was all about suffering and Savini intends to make everyone suffer.<br /><br />The main story line that holds your interest is about a young doctor, Stefan, who is sent to investigate the strange events Savini is causing in an isolated town. He proposes to an aristocrat chick on the way but her SOB father tells him to get lost. Then he meets up with a strangely possessed but alluring country girl. I think she falls in love with him, but she also tries to kill him, as do a number of hot women in the film.<br /><br />I found the scenes shot in the woods to be the creepiest and most eye catching, with strange people along the road (the evil little twin girls scared the hell out of me).<br /><br />The film has a lot to it, too much to list. There is a lot of blood, torture and gore. Hot chicks licking blood off of guys' fingers. A terrified girl's head explodes. That was unexpected. Throats get slit. Some brutal stabbings.<br /><br />Then they play it for laughs sometimes, poking a bit of fun at the whole evil black forest genre.<br /><br />If you're a fan of Hammer films and Ingrid Pitt, it is fascinating to see her in this movie. She offs one of the leads by plunging a cross in his skull. Excellent. The guy who played "Multiple Miggs" in Silence of the Lambs is great in an axe fight.<br /><br />The movie is surreal and with the ending, I'm not sure the events happened or if they were in Stefan's head because of his rejection by his would-be fiancée. He returns in vengeance and that scene is brutal.<br /><br />The director also talked about the theme of religion being misused to back wars and killings. I can see that for sure, Savini's view of religion was scary.<br /><br />This was a strangely exceptional movie with some stars like Savini and Pitt, a lot of good supporting cast including hot babes, great gore scenes, action, and all the time you're wondering what the hell is going on and what is going to happen next.<br /><br />This deserves ten stars because it's an excellent independent film effort, I don't think it was low budget but it had to be way less than a big studio budget, and yet they managed to make something really attractive, unique and thought provoking.

The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.<br /><br />Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.

Loved this movie!! Great acting by Carla Gugino. Interesting story about a kidnapping that goes horribly wrong (don't they all?). Some surprising twists and turns in the film and the plot was easy to follow without being so convoluted as to be totally incomprehensible. It was a totally unexpected delight. More "Quentin-ish" than most films try to be.

The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources.

This was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or "thriller" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those "tense" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.<br /><br />There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this "a thinking person's horror film." Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.<br /><br />Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.

Once again, I fell for it, in my roots I crave a fun and gory horror film, even a vampire one. Even if it's stupid, as long as I get my fun gore in the mix, I'm a happy camper, it doesn't take much. So I saw the cover of "Bled" over at Hollywood Video and was kind of curious what it was about, it looked kind of interesting, so I decided to rent it. Why? Why do I always fall for it? Not only did this movie not fulfill the satisfaction I needed for my gore and senseless violence and nudity, but I was bored out of mind. This movie has the kahoonies to say it's a vampire movie and it's really not! I'm so close to going back to the store and begging for money back because this is one of the rare times I actually turned the movie off.<br /><br />An artist meets a vampire, I think, dunno, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck he was but his name was Reinfield, so I'm assuming maybe he's a cockroach eating guy who likes to freak people out? I think, I dunno. Anyways, he thinks the artist has a certain flare for darkness, so he gives her a drug to go into an alternate fantasy where a vampire exists and needs blood to become alive? I think, I dunno. So her friends get excited and decide they wanna try the drug too, I think, I dunno. So after they decide to try the drug, things get weird, the fantasies are real, I think, I dunno, and the vampire is now enjoying the will big breasted girls in scandly clad clothing. I think, I dunno. But a couple of the girls really end up being vampires? I think, I dunno.<br /><br />Sorry for all the "I dunno's", this is possibly one of the worst reviews I'm going to write, but that's because this movie was just awful, boring, and confusing. I love just seeing these wanna be actors who you can tell are waiters looking for that "big break". Not too smart that they fell in the cliché of the horror genre, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in this case, they really should have read the script. Because the movie, the look, the feel, the acting, everything about this movie was just bad, I really recommend that you just pass the movie if you see it at your video store. This possibly could have been an interesting movie with it's concept of a different dimension, but why did they pick this director to display his "creativity" if he even has any? This was a bad movie, just stay away.<br /><br />1/10

I wasn't as "lucky" as some of the others commenting on this film: i have never seen anything else out of the...shall we say... "fecund" mind of Sarno. I agree with many: some of the actresses who spend a lot of time topless and (go-go) dancing are not really that attractive. I kinda liked Fraulein Crank(?)...she was so homely , she was cute! The acting was pretty stale, also, though delivering lines in a second language might have accounted for a lot of that problem. Trying to follow the plot was a major chore: was there one, really? I do heartily agree with one other comment: for a vampire movie, there's not much blood. Yep, if you want GOOD bloodsucking flicks, check out such Hammer classics as "Horror of Dracula" and (my personal favourite) "Brides of Dracula".<br /><br />The most (unintentionally) humorous part is where the lady doctor gets her clothes torn off by a cloud of bats...which you never SEE!...the bats, I mean.<br /><br />Okay as a time-waster if you happen to catch it on cable here in the Great White North but, for heaven's sake, don't rent it!

Although I'm not too much of a religious person, I still had relatively high hopes for this movie, as it does have the amazing Steve Carrell, and its prequel, Bruce Almighty, was actually a creative and clever Christian-themed comedy. However, Evan Almighty comes nowhere near this originality and freshness that the original has, and can't decide whether it's a comedy or a sentimental movie about faith and family values. If it had chosen one clear path of which of these themes to focus on, it could have lived up to its potential, but instead the result of mixing the two is a film that has a very flat and dry sense of humor, cheesy dialogue and motifs that attempt to give the movie profundity, but instead practically insults the intelligence of the audience, and also a very confused and clouded presentation of the movie's opaque message. It was very obvious that Evan Almighty was very poorly written, there are numerous plot holes and elements in the movie that make absolutely no sense. For example, although a large variety of exotic animals from all over the planet swarm to Evan as he builds the ark for their salvation from the flood, is their inclusion really necessary when the only "flood" that happens in the movie is downtown Washington D.C. and a suburban neighborhood, meaning they are at no risk of being wiped out? The filmmakers it seems lacked the originality to modernize the Bible story whatsoever, and instead just had it take place in a present time without changing anything to the plot, leaving many elements that just don't add up such as this and make it obvious of the idiotic motifs and writing within the movie. Overall, this work is tragic in that the acting talent of Steve Carrell and Wanda Sykes isn't exhibited because of the bland characters they portray, and that it was so poorly written that it skews and clouts many of the film's attempted themes, and makes a mockery of the first film. Finally, Evan Almighty also is an insult to the brilliant actors in it and any halfway-intelligent moviegoer, in that it fails both of them miserably.

This is an excellent movie and should be presented every year during the holidays @ Christmas! Beautiful with great acting. John Denver at his best, i,e, sincere, kind, talented, and natural. The town is Georgetown, Colorado and every bit as lovely as in the story.

I viewed this movie in DVD format. My copy may have been affected but I was disappointed with the lack of menu screen for the DVD. I will say that my initial reason for viewing this movie was Claire Forlani. While fun to watch, I feel she didn't live up to my expectations that I have so far found from her other films. I actually was equally pleased to see Arkin turn in a humorous performance. The other two actors I wasn't very familiar with so I can't compare their performance, however they were fairly enjoyable also. The acting is the only endearing quality of this movie in my opinion. The story line, while some could say slightly compelling, lacked direction. I feel that the main problem stems from the script and not the direction of this film. If you enjoy any of these actors to a fair extent then I recommend this film, but otherwise leave it alone.

This is one of the better classic Edgar Wallace movies from the German series - it features all basics for a highly enjoyable Wallace crime flic movie way back from the 60ies: Although his majesty, Mr. Kinski, is missing you still have young Joachim 'Blacky' Fuchsberger, starring once again as the typical clever American 'womanizer', you have young Eddi Arendt in his best (and just as well typical) role ever - the cool, sophisticated British butler - and you have (not so young anymore) Lowitz as the melancholic yet very 'dry' ironic (and thus: highly entertaining) police investigator. Furthermore you'll get offered a freakish and very campy 'evil guy' behind a frog mask (hence the movie's title!), you'll get a crazed-out swinging soundtrack, classic b-movie action scenes, partly filmed out off the wildest perspectives (please remind the time of its origin!), yelling scream queens, and on and on... All those ingredients get shaken well up in a sweet tastin' cocktail of pure German Edgar Wallace campyness - highly recommended!!

Let me start by saying overall I enjoyed The Long Kiss Goodnight. I would give it a 7/10. The Good: 1. Acting: Samuel L Jackson is entertaining in almost any role. In this movie he doesn't play his usual character, the type that is in control, instead Geena Davis is in control and Sam is along for the ride. His timing on his lines are great and he is the high point of the movie. Geena Davis also gives a great preformance as Samantha Caine/Charlie Baltimore. She is a believable action hero and I don't think too many other actresses could pull off the preformance Geena Does. 2. The Action: This is a very action packed movie. Things are pretty much always crashing or blowing up or someone is chasing someone else. The special effects are pretty good especially for being almost 8 years old. I can see some green screen stuff but it doesn't detract too much from the acting.<br /><br />The Bad: 1. Why did it take half of the movie to set up the plot? This film needed to be edited in the script stage so that it didn't run as long as it did. Maybe a drama or something can run this long but people really need to be into the movie the entire time to sustain it. I think that if you can stick out the first half you will be pleseantly suprized the second half. 2. Geena Davis is cold weather and a tank top but she never seems cold. 3. Some things are unrealistic. Sam Jackson flies through a giant sign after he is blasted out of a room and then he lands in a tree and just gets up. When you see this part you will think it's a gag. overall fun movie 7/10

Moon Child is the story of two brothers and a friend trying to make it in a futuristic, economically-unstable Japan. After a cunning disaster gone wrong, someone new enters young Sho's life, a special friend by the name of Kei. Years later they have grown rather close, and have found ways to combine both their talents into one unstoppable team. During another escapade, they encounter a new friend and his mute sister who become part of their band of friends. Before long disaster again strikes and the group falls apart. Alliances turn to enemies and their worlds are all turned upside down. Regrets and hopelessness claim some while power and success take others. Tragedy claims still others. Truths are revealed and lives are forever changed. <br /><br />And you will never see a more beautiful sunrise.<br /><br />This movie is a gripping tale of undying friendships, webs of relationships, and a team that not even death can keep apart for too long. Moon child combines sci-fi, drama, and action with the perfect cast and talent to create the most sensationally moving movie of the time, and great for most audiences. It minimizes the everyday romances and puts more emphasis on the important values we can all relate to such as friendships, loyalty, and believing in yourself. Nothing could possibly compare. I personally have never seen anything quite like it, and I don't suspect I ever will again.<br /><br />It appeals to the wider population in many ways and is a must see for all.

This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them – a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces." <br /><br />The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown – a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. – but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more – a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.<br /><br />The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed – for example – the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.<br /><br />Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind – he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that – when completed – bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.<br /><br />I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!

This movie defines the word "confused". All the actors stay true to the script. More's the pity, because the acting is fine, but the script is a confused pastiche of pseudo-psycho-analytic random ideas. The pacing is mind-numbingly slow, and the soft-focus-lens cinematography gets on the nerves quickly. I give it 4 out of 10.

This is a great film.<br /><br />I agreed to watch a chick flick and some how ended up with this. I had never heard of it or anyone in it (excpet Mike from Friends).<br /><br />But it is great! Eva, Lake and Paul give amazing performances. The humour is consistently dry and witty.<br /><br />Paul Rudd pretty much plays the mike character from Friends (which works great). The other characters are stereotypes and the plot is formulaic (I mean we are not talking 'Apocalypse Now' here) But the characters are likable, the story is engaging, the soundtrack, production and direction all work well.<br /><br />In all a great feel-good film that really deserves a lot more credit than it gets.<br /><br />Everyone has their own tastes but I really don't understand the one star reviews for this.

Tremendous fun both as a film and as an excuse to sit back and play the 'oh, that's whassis name' game. Every star of the golden age of English films seems to be in this one and it was a joy to see them. And the greatest of them all, Richard Wattis, was as tremendous as ever. <br /><br />There is actually a plot that trundles along very nicely, there's also some splendid jokes and comedic moments, but the key to this films triumph is the characters within it. Alastair Sim is magnificent and somehow convinces you that a six foot, big-boned Scotsman could be the headmistress of a girl's boarding school. George Cole, Beryl Reid and Irene Handl all have their moments but, with Alastair and Richard, the star of the show is Joyce Grenfell. She is an absolute one-off and brings a smile whenever she's on the screen...her rolling-walk and plum accent done to perfection. <br /><br />And for those playing the , that's whassis name' game, you can even spot Arthur Mullard, Barbara Windsor and Ronald Searle if you look carefully.

This movie is bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want).

If you don't like Mel Brooks, you won't like this film. That's a given. Why anyone wouldn't like his films is unknown to me, but for those who can't see the light, just avoid it.<br /><br />Everyone else: This is a classic. The entire cast is perfect: Carey Elwes is a dashing, clever, BRITISH Robin Hood, Amy Yasbeck overacts appropriately as Marion, Richard Lewis is his usual distracted, annoyed self, Roger Rees is a brilliant combination of fluster and violence as "Mervyn" the Sheriff of Rottingham, and Dave Chapelle, Eric Allan Kramer, Mark Blankfield, and the sadly underused Matthew Poretta are the perfect Merry Men.<br /><br />There are similarities to Spaceballs, Blazing Saddles...and every other Mel Brooks movie. But why would you want him to change his style when it works so damn well? The pop culture references in this movie are old enough to be funny again...from the view of a 16 year old, at least. It's complete and utter parody, every second a play for a laugh. Some of them don't work, but most do, and well. I discovered new jokes the fifth and sixth time I watched the film!<br /><br />Of course, if being barraged by constant visual and verbal gags isn't your style, you wouldn't like this. This isn't an Academy Award winner, it's Mel Brooks. You know what it is when you're getting into it. If you want nonstop laughter, surprisingly well-developed characters, and catchphrases to last a lifetime, watch this.

I never saw any of John Leguizamo's stand-up before I watched Freak, and after seeing it again on HBO comedy recently it was better, more enlivening and with things that, at the age of 14, I couldn't understand quite before. Spike Lee did a wonderful job directing, keeping the visual angle up to par with Leguizamo's theatrics and the style of personal storytelling; it's substance and style merging together but unobtrusively. We get Leguizamo's rants about race and sex (the bits about sex are classic), but a lot of it is about family, and what sticks still fresh in my mind is about his father. Even when things get dark in some of the stories, there's something fresh or crazy or random that Leguizamo pulls out to get a laugh, and it works more often than not. If something does fall flat (for me at any rate) it might be his personality tics here and there. But overall, it's the kind of fun material that isn't heady, but is so true to itself that it stings. Find it if you can!

This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a little…off balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role – he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses – his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet…

This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast !

It's up there with Where's Poppa, The Groove Tube, Putney Swope. It memorializes the NY city mind set of the period, a wonderfully strange man with a bizarre plan, hoist by by own petard, and at last retreating into the bed of his adoptive parents. Totally absurd, its the life one sees through the magic glasses, seeing things as they "really are"... I don't think it is ever shown anymore. If so, surely someone would Tivo the thing and put it out there. A kidnap goes awry: mixed up in a rain storm, dashing in and out or storefronts, our hero tosses a raincoat over his prey and tossing her into his bicycle powered ice cream wagon spirits her off to his basement apartment in the village. He is amazed, surprised, and incredibly disappointed when the wraps come off: instead of a luscious lady, he has captures a middle ages suburban housewife who talks and talks and talks. The film is full of vignettes of the commuters life, the suburban life, the city officials, and all the attitudes so dearly held. It pushes the limits of comedy, such as magical reality might push a drama, much as Daffy Duck is able to draw on imaginative scenes to demonstrate his plight or desires, all at the very edge of plausibility. All of it is humorous, nobody is mean.

To sum this story up in a few sentences: A teenage girl (Amy) uses her hot body and "supposed" virginity to entice a young troubled guy (Matt) with a potential football scholarship to provide her a "Full Ride" out of town. Come to find out she has quite the reputation & has slept with many football players in the past hoping they would offer her the same deal. Both of these kids have come from troubled & dysfunctional homes. Matt's mothers a alcoholic who repeatedly embarrasses him in front of his friends & Amy's mother had a bad reputation herself & got pregnant with Amy at a a young age. Matt falls in love with Amy & tries to straighten out his life for her. Very predictable ending. The actress that plays "Amy" is actually 33 years old trying to play a teenager!

The movie itself was ok for the kids. But I gotta tell ya that Scratch, the little squirrel, was the funniest character I've ever seen. He makes the movie all by himself. He's the reason I've just love this movie. Congradulations to the crew, it made me laugh out loud and always will!

I remember seeing promos for this show before it appeared back in 1993. I was 8 at the time, and now at the age of 22 it feels weird to have seen this cult show start and end and to look back on it.The 90's all of a sudden seem so far away, what a great decade. Anyway I used to watch MonsterVision all the time, as I am a huge fan of monster flicks and horror films. It was like the 90's version of Chiller Theater. If MST3K can get DVD's why not Joe Bob's show, at least MonsterVision was more interesting and informative. A lot of Joe Bob's comments and info on the films were just hilarious. Most of the movies shown on the show were B or C grade but it showed a lot of A house films as well like the Hammer films from England which are Top notch as well as many with the stop motion majesty of Ray Harryhausen. Many were oddball flicks that you wouldn't see anywhere else like the the Japanese Sci-Fi movies besides of course Godzilla which is familiar to almost everyone and independent movies like Metal Storm and Motel Hell. With the new Decade of film preservation and more independent minded directors, I think MonsterVision would be a good show for IFC to pick up, since they already have a hit with the IFC grind house show. I'm sure this show will be picked up again for nostalgia reasons some day, I guess will have to wait and see. Until then "thats Great Television"!

I must say, I found this movie very disappointing. Yes, I know Maltin gave it 3 1/2 and others think very highly of it. But, well, the opera sequences were god-awful. I take it Jeannete MacDonald is an acquired taste. Yes, in the short sequences I have seen her with Nelson Eddy, she is immensely preferable to him. But on her own...God, I dislike opera and despise operetta, and she is basically intolerable. At one point I had to cover my ears. Gable is just OK, and Tracy is thrown away. The plot is annoying in the JM never simply tells Gable she loves him and the opera and why can't she do both? Instead she suffers silently (or not so) with the compromises she makes. The supporting cast is distinctly unmemorable. Besides the star three and Jack Holt (and I suppose his mother), they all are just background and forgettable. The EQ sequence is the only thing that saves the movie. And just. Yes, it is fairly spectacular and moving. But the "oh God is great" seems very contrived. I immensely prefer "In Old Chicago" as far as old time disaster spectaculars go. Spare yourself on this one.

Synopsis: Andreas (Trond Fausa Aurvaag) finds himself alone on a coach, getting dropped off on a desert land, at what seems the last stop of his journey. He doesn't know how he arrived there, but a welcome sign has been erected for him. After momentarily pondering his whereabouts, he is greeted by a man who takes him to his new life. He then enters a world different to the one he came from. <br /><br />As Andreas is quickly introduced to his new job as an accountant, he senses that his surroundings are a bit too uniformed for his liking. As he takes his first lunch break, he instantly notices that everyone in the city walks around in grey suits. On this same day, he sees a fellow businessman dead on some fencing spikes, of what looks like an act of suicide. The strange thing is, the city folk pay no attention to this horrific act and walk on by as if it never happened. It is quick to see that these people are genetically desensitised, and their ability to distinguish between anything humane or inhumane is absent. <br /><br />To help Andreas settle in, he is invited to go out with his co-workers to a local nightclub. The club appears to be one step away from becoming as exciting as a bingo night..and as Andreas drinks his sorrows aways, he realises that no matter how much he drinks, the alcohol has no effect on him. As he tells these observances to a stranger in the men's room, a man in a toilet cubicle starts to utter words which have been on Andreas' mind all along. Realising that this man is thinking what he is, he follows him to his house, and notes where he lives for future reference. The plot predictably evolves with Andreas wanting an escape. He seeks out the man he once followed...hoping that he could lead him to becoming human again...but is it too late?<br /><br />My thoughts: This norwegian film is something which everyone should see, as it holds the answer to the big question! What is the meaning of life? (well, close enough). The film sketches out the dark realities of what has become of today's working man (or woman). It's sole purpose is making people realise that life is too short to be materialistic. It tries to show that small cliché things, such as the sound of children playing, should not be taken for granted, because the moment you stop hearing that sound, is the moment you're one step away from becoming a robot. The ending of the film reiterates what happens when its too late to escape the mundane routine you've now become used to. You start to adopt the saying of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', and become too comfortable to take a risk of change.<br /><br />Even though this film is not to be taken as a piece of realism...its message is more than real. The lack of empathy conveyed in the film, and that of which Andreas sees, is a bold statement of what life can become. The director, Jens Lien has put together a film, which in any other director's hands would have failed. This is a fine piece of cinematic genius, and i eagerly await to see what he does next.<br /><br />The lead role, played by Trond Fausa Aurvaag is perfectly cast. Representing the average Joe, Trond provides a good catalyst in making this picture darkly humorous. The supporting actors also do an apt job, and for some reason, i feel that Keanu Reeves would have been perfect in this film, as most of the supporting cast required their acting to be emotionless.<br /><br />The score for this film was beautifully composed. The recurring theme was always a delight to listen to, and it provided a very sombre but welcomed feel to the movie.<br /><br />Set for a release date in the UK for 25th May 2007, i will definitely be going to re-live this experience on the big screen. This film has gained its way in my top 10...now quickly becoming my top 20! It has some shocking scenes, and is darkly humorous throughout...A MUST -SEE!!

Nina Foch delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the title character in this fun little Gothic nail-biter. She accepts a position as secretary to a London society dowager (played imperiously by Dame May Witty) and her creepy son (the effete and bothersome George Macready). Before she knows it, she awakens to find herself in a seaside manor she's never seen before, where Witty and Macready are calling her Marian and trying to convince the servants and the nearby townspeople that she's Macready's mad wife. Of course this pair can only be planning dastardly deeds, and even though we know Julia has to eventually escape her trap, director Joseph Lewis builds real suspense in answering the question of just how she'll manage it.<br /><br />"My Name Is Julia Ross" has nothing stylistically to set it apart from any number of films that came out at the same time period, but I was surprised by how well it held together despite its shoe-string budget and B-movie pedigree. There are quite a few moments that just may have you on the edge of your seat, and I found myself really rooting for Julia as she caught on to the scheme underfoot and began to outsmart her captors. In any other Gothic thriller, the heroine would have swooned, screamed and dithered, waiting for her hero to come and save her. So I can't tell you how refreshing it was to have the heroine in this film use her brain and figure out how to save herself.<br /><br />Well done.<br /><br />Grade: B+

As others have commented, I checked this out after Siskel and Ebert listed this as one of their top 10 movies of the year. What a gift. I then went out to buy it, just so that I could loan it out.<br /><br />Best quote? Dwight Yoakum stops his truck when he realizes that someone (Cage) is on top of his cab. When Cage peers down, he apologizes. "I'm sorry if I scared you." Yoakum thrusts his pistol in Cage's face with "Does THIS look like I'm scared?" Great bit of humor after an exciting (and temporary) escape.<br /><br />There really was a sense of fun to this. The constant sighting of the "Welcome to Red Rock" sign elicits a groan and a smiling head shake. The music created a hunting, eerie quality to the film reminiscent of "Twin Peaks". Unlike "Twin Peaks", though, it doesn't spoil things by going too far into the outlandish, needing to "top" itself.<br /><br />I admit watching the credits 15-20 times. You see, they had Yoakum's "Thousand Miles from Nowhere" (perfectly chosen) playing as a freight train curved around down to the desert floor . . with snow-capped mountains in the distance. This was incredible, fluid framing. Further, I've never seen a better unification of sight and sound on film. Also, it totally fit the story.

This HBO original is pretty straightforward and pretty dumb. Armand Assante, once again doing a poor Stallone imitation, is Ray Wellman a ex-con just out on parole. All he wants is his old girlfriend Lacy, played by a young Marcia Gay Harden, back. Unfortunately for Ray, Lacy has hooked up with stalwart Elliot, played by Sam Neill. Further complicating matters is that Ray's old Cell buddies want some favors and they kidnap Lacy to make sure they happen. Ray and Elliot team up, despite mutual dislike.<br /><br />What follows is violent and slow, but Marcia Gay Harden shows us why she would win Oscar in the future, she's not as polished here, but her raw emotion, sincerity and some rather explicit nude scenes almost make this worth watching. Almost.<br /><br />Rent "Fever" (no the title doesn't fit the film) if your a fan of hers, otherwise skip it and be grateful it's stars went on to better things.<br /><br />Note-this is a hard "R" flick for language, violence and nudity.

I saw this movie in 1956 and again on Cable a few days ago. The movie hasn't improved with age. Quite the opposite. It's a true spaghetti epic.<br /><br />The Trojans are heroic and likable; the Greeks are nasty, petty and sneaky.<br /><br />So what if Paris ran off with the King's wife? Hey...love is love.

What do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you don't care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget? Why, you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made! I'm referring, of course, to Domino.<br /><br />Here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie:<br /><br />"Ooh, wow, the storyline is told out of sequence, that hasn't been done a billion times before. And much more skillfully than in this movie."<br /><br />"Wow, look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions! The director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style! It's just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes they're in, and it's also too bad that most of them come across as irritating!"<br /><br />"I've heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"I've seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"This one too!"<br /><br />"Uh, didn't they reveal this 'plot twist' about half an hour ago? Was that supposed to be surprising?"<br /><br />"If this movie is supposed to be showing a 'tough chick' going around kicking ass... when why doesn't she do very much of it?"<br /><br />"I can't believe how unoriginal this dialogue is."<br /><br />"How long is this thing? I feel like I've been watching it for over four hours already."<br /><br />"I have no idea what just happened, but also, I don't particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out."<br /><br />"Is this over yet?"<br /><br />"I want my money back."<br /><br />"The songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here."<br /><br />"It's ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one."<br /><br />"UGH."<br /><br />And, finally: "I might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me."<br /><br />In summation, this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. Avoid watching it at all costs. If your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn't flammable, you should seriously consider being burned alive instead.<br /><br />(If I sound bitter, it's because I just spent over two hours watching this movie and, uh, I didn't enjoy it very much.)

I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America.

I laughed at the movie! The script, the acting please don't we deserve better? But now the filming, some of the camera angles were interesting. I did enjoy the film, but it's not to be taken seriously though. I liked it. If it had a new cast and scriptwritter it would be better than all right. It's worth a look!

This is the best show ever no matter what you say!I have been watching this show since cycle 1.This show is never boring its wonderful how you see peoples dream come true of being a model.Tyra is trying her best to help young women not be ashamed of their bodies and make them believe that they are beautiful in their own way and that you don't have to feel beautiful by being anorexic.And just as Tyra says on the Tyra show so what if your curvy so what if you have a big round booty so what if you have a big nose so what if your not as beautiful as the people in magazines you are beautiful to her.SO WHAT...............................

This rather formulaic swords and flying fists movie is a decent early display of John Woo's talents. The cinematography is excellent and some of the sword work is truly remarkable. Unfortunately the film labours under the burden of a dull story and a glaringly low budget (check some of the setbound fight scenes if you doubt me). Nonetheless, it's worth seeing, especially if you can catch in letterboxed.

I managed to grab a viewing of this with the aid of MST3K, and oh boy, even with the riffing this movie was excruciatingly bad. Imagine someone whose competence with a camera could be out done by a monkey.<br /><br />The highlights (what little there were) came from the special effects, which were "OK". The acting for the most part was also "OK"; though nothing special, it was of a higher quality than other B-Movies I have seen in the past.<br /><br />The rest of this movie is dismally bad, The camera work often looks like they've just put the camera man on roller skates and pushed him along. The story (if it can be called that) is so full of holes it's almost funny, It never really explains why the hell he survived in the first place, or needs human flesh in order to survive. The script is poorly written and the dialogue verges on just plane stupid. The climax to movie (if there is one) is absolutely laughable.<br /><br />If you can't find the MST3K version, avoid this at all costs.

What a tribute to his father! He set out on a quest to learn more about a man whom he knew little of, and by the end of the journey, I believe Nathaniel Kahn is content with what he learned and personally felt. The film is 5 years in the making, and a quarter of a century after his death, Louis I. Kahn's total commitment in his work - consistent strong desire to build buildings that are meaningful to humanity and timeless to the whole world, with insight into his life is proudly depicted by his son Nathaniel in the documentary "My Architect: A Son's Journey".<br /><br />The film is by no means an anthology of Louis' work. There are plenty of books and archived materials that have records of Louis Kahn's projects and buildings. This documentary works like a mystery, writer-director and co-producer Nathaniel Kahn was searching for the man whom he briefly knew as his father. <br /><br />The film is in chapters. In "Heading West," we're at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies at La Jolla, California. It's a sight worth beholding - Kahn's integral concept of building and environment, optimizing light for the scientists at work is amazing. From a former colleague who worked with 'Lou' 35 years ago, we hear about his meticulous attention to detail, also how 'rambunctious' he could be - certainly didn't mince words in his criticism. A memorable scene is when the camera pulled back wide and we see Nathaniel skating around at the plaza area of the Salk Institute - a tiny figure, like a child happily playing in the bowl of his father's hands. <br /><br />The "Immigrant" segment brought us to meet Anne Tyng, the architect who collaboratively worked with 'Lou' and also bore him a daughter, Alex. Now at 80, Tyng's return with Nathaniel's film crew to the Bath House project at Trenton, New Jersey, was nostalgic. In "Go to sea," we get to see the Barge for American Wind Symphony Orchestra - all made of steel, and meeting Robert Boudreau, who was surprised by Nathaniel when he finally told him he's 'Lou's' son. Boudreau was touched, he said he had seen Nathaniel when he was six, with his Mom (Harriet Pattison), and he was not to tell anyone that Lou had a son. It was a 'chokingly' emotional moment of reunion.<br /><br />Like his father "The Nomad," Nathaniel traveled to Jerusalem, and learned about the Synagogue project that his father began but not realized. He visited the wailing wall, and seeing his yarmulke kept falling off/being 'breezed off' his head gave me a sense that he need not be 'totally' Jewish to be his father's son. We continue with sitting down with his two half-sisters at the "Family Matters" segment. We also hear him conversing with his Mom at Maine, and from talking to previous office personnel at his father's office, we come to know how his father intensely worked and practically lived there, sleeping on a carpet on the office floor, weekends and all. <br /><br />"The End of the Journey" brought us to Ahmedabad, India, to the Indian Institute of Management building. Talking with architect B.V. Doshe was a revelation. In the end, Nathaniel found a very much alive Louis Kahn, his father - his spirits live within him. This documentary is very much a tear-jerker for me. I was teary-eyed most of the time - it was very touching and am in awe of the man, the architect and his son, and the women in his life besides his famous works and buildings. Louis I. Kahn wanted to give his love to the 'whole world,' juggling work and three families (you might say he has three women in his life to keep his inspiration going). As Shamsul Wares, the architect at the Capital of Bangladesh complex (completed 9 years after 'Lou's' death) so poignantly noted: Louis Kahn has given the people of Bangladesh a lot, spending time at Bangladesh, understanding the culture of the place and people - as well as giving them democracy through what he has achieved, and for such a dedicated man, usually the people close to him he'd often miss seeing. It seems the price of being great comes with inevitable personal sacrifices. <br /><br />This film reminds me of King Vidor's "The Fountainhead" 1949 (good dramatic story in B/W with music by Max Steiner), based on Ayn Rand's novel, with Gary Cooper as the uncompromising architect who stands by his own ideals, and Patricia Neal as the parallel supportive woman in his life.<br /><br />

...scratch it. Just as African's created rhythms with the jawbone of an ass and Virgin Islanders welded oil drums into ear pleasing steel bands, so did urban DJ's itch to scratch in the pursuit of new methods of creative expression. "Scratch" is a wholly unnarrated documentary which will take you to the heart of the hip-hop/rap movement and explore the genesis of turntablism, the art of scratching vinyl, and the ultimate DJ/MC contempo entertainment expression. The film reveals some surprisingly intelligent and articulate "Scratchers" with startlingly unique abilities in concert and competition where the beat meets the street. Good stuff for anyone interested in grass roots or ghetto gutter movements in sound art. (B)

The emotional powers and characters of Dominick and Eugene are the things that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. This is one of the most emotional, sensitive, and heart-felt movies that I have ever seen! Roy Liotta, Tom Hulce, and supporting actress Jamie Lee Curtis, deliver Oscar Winning caliber performances! There are not enough words to express how great this movie is. Sure, people who are not into sentimental movies may not care as much as the rest of us about Dominick and Eugene, but for the rest of us, this movie goes right to the heart and sole of compassion and humanity. You will never forget this film, EVER!<br /><br />*****SPOILERS BELOW*****<br /><br />The simple yet eloquent story is masterfully told. Eugene is a med-school intern who faces long hours and a demanding work load at the hospital. His fraternal twin brother Dominick (born 12 minutes earlier) is a little slow and awkward because of brain damage due to a victim of abuse by their father. (A heartbreaking moment when this is found out in the film that will leave you in tears!) Eugene (a.k.a "Geno") faces a painful dilemma. He must decide whether to finish medical school, which would mean accepting his residency in another city and leave Dominick (a.k.a "Nicky") behind, or forfeit the rest of his education to take care of him. Nicky helps pay his brother's med-school tuition by working as a trash collector.<br /><br />The questions of ethics, morals, and responsibilities are masterfully blended in this landmark movie. Just when Gino thinks Nicky might be making progress toward independence, Dominick turns around and winds up doing things like helping out a drug dealer, or tying to use a faulty cord that he finds at the dump on an electrical appliance.<br /><br />Larry, is "The Character" and Nicky's partner on his garbage route who fills gullible Dominick's head with all kinds of stories like Geno and Jennifer (his girlfriend, whom he is tutoring in Clinical Pharmacology) going to Atlantic City and gambling away all their money. But deep down, you can see that Larry cares for him. On their rounds, Nicky also befriends a little boy, whom we find out has also been beaten by his father. An end result is also tragic and the pain that you see on Nicky's face when it happens, speaks volumes.<br /><br />The sensitivity that the two brothers share for each other can not be overstated enough. All Nicky wants to do is be loved and look for acceptance in anyway he can. (i.e he goes to church, loves Hulk Hogan) Geno loves Nicky more than anything in the world. But can his brother become independent enough so that Geno can pursue his dream of becoming a doctor? A brilliant film that should have gotten tons more recognition than it deserved, but unfortunately came out around the same time as Rain Man, which dealt with a similar issue. However, I like Dominick and Eugene better because it has a far stronger emotional component. Be forewarned that this movie is aimed right at the tear-ducts, so have Kleenex handy! What a film!!!!