Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

As a young teen when this came out, I completely related to it. As an adult in the present sex- obsessed American culture, it doesn't have enough nudity to be called tame. <br /><br />If you are looking for American Pie-type lewdness, vulgarity or fart and feces jokes, Meatballs will disappoint with impunity and a guarantee. <br /><br />If you like Bill Murray, and you like good clean fun, you will probably like and enjoy this film very much. Similarly with Stripes, Ghostbusters, Caddy Shack, etc. <br /><br />Enough said, just go watch it, and stop intellectualizing it. It's Meatballs, for crying out loud! Why read a review? Just enjoy it and have fun. And ignore the trash talk by others. Films, like so many other things in life, are subjective. To each his own. <br /><br />Always beware the 'expert' who diminishes others' taste.

***SPOILERS*** A hot and sexy Linda Blair as the Witch Amelia Reynolds is very upset with her friend and rival Witch across town Erica Barens, Julie Strain. Amelia getting her husband Hal, Edward Albert, to get a promotion at his job at the Giger & Greengrass law-firm over the more deserving Larry Barnes, Larry Poindexter, who happens to be married to Erica has her cast a spell on Hal causing him to lose control of his car and end up almost killing himself.<br /><br />Larry finding out about Erica's attempt on his best friend Larry's life has a violent fight with her causing Erica to fall from the balcony to her death. It's when Larry goes back to his ex-wife Carol, Rochelle Sanson, that things begin to really heat up, emotional and sexually. The wicked Amelia tries to have the dead spirit of Erica take over Carol's body and end up murdering Larry who she holds as being responsible for her husband Hal's injury that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.<br /><br />Not much of a story but lot's of cheese and soft-core action with poor Larry getting manipulated by Amelia through the resurrection of Erica who plans to kill him the first chance he turns his back on her. Amelia is a bit whacked out herself not exactly knowing who is and who isn't a threat to her. Amelia even gets her poor and innocent gardener Stan, Michael Parks to first lose him family in a bloody house invasion break-in, then his mind, by being accused by the police as being the murderer, and finally is life, by getting blasted by Ameila herself. As he's made to runs into the Reynolds' house, under her control, as mad as a hatter trying to murder both her and the crippled Hal. <br /><br />Larry Parks looked and acted so weird that you had the feeling that he accidentally walked onto the set of "Sorceress" and ended up being in the cast playing his part as Stan. Without the help or benefit of a script he improvised his way through and then slowly realized just how god-awful bad the movie really is. Stan getting killed off early in the film was a big plus for him since he didn't have to suffer,like those of us watching, through the entire brainless and mind-numbing movie.<br /><br />It becomes evident to you as well as it did to the makers of "Sorceress" that all this shenanigan's on the screen has to come to some kind of hopeful and successful conclusion and a trick ending is put in to finally end the movie. The ending is about the best thing, besides Miss Blair and the rest of the very well-endowed woman cast, that one can say about the film.

Man, I think people have forgotten how to watch a movie. Everyone thinks they're a critic. They comment on things that the average movie goer doesn't even know or think about.<br /><br />I enjoyed the film. It was what I was expecting therefore was not disappointed. Steven gets a bad rap for putting his views into his films but that's also a reason to watch. What's even more funny is the people that complain about his films, say he's the worst and that we shouldn't watch his films, yet watch his movies anyway. All so they can comment on how bad they are. Who's the dummy? If you don't like his work, don't watch it. Then you won't have to subject yourself to this supposedly painful event.<br /><br />Stop comparing movies to other movies and watch a movie on an individual basis and you may begin to enjoy films again.

NO SPOILERS.<br /><br />I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.<br /><br />Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.<br /><br />Terrible.

Henry Fonda brilliantly captures what we have long believed Abraham Lincoln was like. It is a fooler. Through Fonda's performance we are led to believe (on the surface) that Abraham Lincoln was a country bumpkin. But, through his confrontation with the lynch mob and especially during the court proceedings, you can see that beneath the exterior posturings is a brilliant man who has a very good command of what is going on around him and how to influence the people around him. <br /><br />In this movie Henry Fonda shows that he has a very good grasp of how to present humor. It is an aspect of him that has been lost over the years. When he is telling stories and jokes he has the timing down perfect. There is a sequence in the trial that had me laughing quite hard. He shows this gift again in The Lady Eve in 1940.<br /><br />The ending by John Ford is absolutely brilliant with Henry Fonda going to the top of a hill and in the distance a tremendous storm symbolic of the Civil War. He goes forward into history. The movie is fiction but the insight into Lincoln is tremendous. Definitely worth seeing again.

I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of "Blackboard Jungle"). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - "Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies"!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film "Hell Drivers"). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.<br /><br />Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the "Firefly". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!<br /><br />Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!<br /><br />I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.<br /><br />Highly Recommended.

The One and only was a great film. I had just finished viewing it on EncoreW on DirecTV. I am an independent professional wrestler, and I thought this was a good portray of what life is like as a professional wrestler. Now this film was made 4 years before I was born, but I don't think the rigors of professional wrestling traveling has changed all that much. Sad, funny, and all around GREAT!!! **** 10+

I remember seeing this in a the Salem movie theater (where I used to attend "Kiddie Matinée"s almost every Saturday) in Dayton, Ohio when I was a young boy and have never forgotten it. It simply amazed me and my friends. I do wish there were some way I could see it again! I have tried to find some compilation of shorts or something like that to no avail. I only recently discovered that it was a Cousteau film and that blew my mind even more. How the heck he accomplished this is beyond my understanding. The fish is ACTUALLY IN THE CAT'S MOUTH at one point, if I remember correctly! If anyone could help me find a way to see it again I would be extremely grateful!

I'm really not going to waste my time with in depth analysis, i'm just going to say that i'm extremely disappointed that Catherine Zeta-Jones made the mistake of being in the main role in this absurd, nonsense, in this full of clichés boring to death thoughtless pathetic try in film-making! There is no point in trying to find the positive sides of this movie, because as a whole it is poor in every single way, and the saddest thing is that Zeta-Jones is dragged so uncompromisingly into the clichés, that she has absolutely no chance of showing even 1% of her talent!<br /><br />Avoid this movie even at the opportunity of spending the night at home starring at the wall!!!

Only one word can describe MR MAGOO - slapstick. Unfortunately this isn't no AIRPLANE. Looks can decieve, and that's exactly what MR MAGOO does. Based on the old cartoon, Leslie Nielson plays Magoo, a bumbling near blind man whop stumbles upon a pair of jewel thieves. Now he must hunt them down using...blindness basically. And that's all this film plays off. The blindness of MR MAGOO. Now maybe if they had some funny jokes involving this, but pretty much it's just one of those " droopy dumb grin on your face because you're too ashamed to admit you payed to see this" films.<br /><br /> But MR MAGOO isn't as bad as it's hacked up to be. It's at least got some funny jokes, and it's good wholesome fun for the whole family (Nielson tried to make a "NAKED GUN" for families in MAGOO, but it's no where near as good as that). So see it once, you might hate it, you might love it, whatever. I personally didn't hate it, but I sure didn't like it, or even rate it "okay." 2/5 stars for MR MAGOO-<br /><br />JOHN ULMER

On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal.

One of the most famous of all movie serials! Still interesting today although it does have an "old movie" look to it. The second serial looks better but simply does not equal this one. Actors have a good time , especially Middleton and Lipson. Great editing by the Universal expert crew. The musical score was tracked in from Universal's "Destination Unknown", "The Invisible Man", "The Black Cat", and "Werewolf of London". And what great action music it was! If there was a choice for all-time best serial, this (arguably) should be #1.

The best part about this movie is that you can watch it over and over again n still not be content of watching it. I have watched this movie least 10 times over the past 12 years and still it makes me laugh as if i was watching it for the first time. I have great liking for good comics like the Orgazmo,Cheech n chong, Monty Python series and many others but this one in Hindi is one of my favorite outstanding movies. Some of them recently in Hindi are Golmaal,Munnabhai series and Herapheri series. SO all i can say is Hind comedy is finally evolving. But Andaaz Apna Apna is pretty different from the movies i have said above. Its what i call the Hindi stoned comedy and very few of the kind found around 1994 in Hindi cinema.Cheers to Rajkumar Santoshi for the brilliant movie.

This is the Australian TV series. It is a classic. The stories and actors are excellent. Who can forget Picker and his gramophone or Chet being ambushed? This is cult TV. The Australian actors in the series were the best of their day and have immortality in The Outsiders. What can I say timeless adventure. The music and song just fantastic. The closing credits starting with the close up of the wheel, then Keir sleeping n being jostled around and then the long shot just cannot get much better than that. All 13 episodes are equally solid in the portrayal of the Australian myth and I think this is what this series has.It does not matter that the two main characters were from overseas, I think that is the key to the series and why it is so good.

As a recent convert to Curb Your Enthusiasm, which prompted my viewing of all season's episodes, I expected more, much more from Jeff's efforts.<br /><br />When I view a film offering a slice of an average 'Joe's' life I need reasons to be interested, to care, to feel and believe. And with Jeff Garlin at the helm I also expected a bevy of shining comedic moments. This film failed me time and again.<br /><br />Jeff plays a living with mom, plump sad sack who is a social disaster. He has not had a relationships, real or even casual, for many years. He appears to be mostly unemployed and, as noted, shacks with his mommy dearest. Can things get worse? Sure. In short order he gets sacked by everyone around him including Silverman, Second City (his comedy workshop) and his agent. All reinforce his 'loser' status. Silverman's 'fatty' experiment was as cruel as it was absurd. His obsession with the role of "Marty," as the means of his career's salvation, also hits a big dead end.<br /><br />While the film's final moments offer a glimpse of better things to come the cinematic 'journey,' albeit with occasional golden glimmers, was sadly lacking.

I can't believe some of the scores this film is getting on the IMDb website! Have I been issued with the Special Edition naff version? Edited by Dewhurst, produced by Bernard Matthews, this film should be housed in Battersea. I'm sorry for all the UK-centric references but if you're elsewhere and you've got no toenails to cut or you haven't got a beer mat collection to catalogue then this film might just be worth 90 mins of your remaining lifespan (as long as you haven't got any paint to watch drying). The plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings and the direction and editing is astonishingly ham fisted. What on earth is Irons doing in this film?

I saw this on TCM recently and, through the IMDb I found that there were seven "Crime Doctor" movies with Warner Baxter as the psychiatrist-detective. Baxter is a bit long in the tooth compared to his stolid performance in 42nd Street a decade earlier. Not noir, and a bit campy today, the movie also has a touch of the possible supernatural. The plot, black and white cinematography and characters are far more complex than those of the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan series. There are subplots, unexpected twists and appearances by a number of B movie stalwartly we all should recognize immediately (none ever made it to the A status). It is a wonderfully unpredictable 70 minutes.<br /><br />I would love to see a boxed DVD series of these films.

There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.

Golden Boy is ecchi humor (bordering on hentai) in the guise of "educational moments." The main character, Kintaro, wanders around getting himself into the silliest situations involving women... It's just that he's shy on the surface but analyses everything until he can learn something from it. The most striking feature of the series are the circumstances surrounding his "education", which are outright embarrassing, yet funny at the same time.

From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.<br /><br />In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.<br /><br />Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.

If the screenwriter and director intended to open hearts with the movie as the musician wanted to do with his music, they succeeded with me. Commonplace human situations became original, personal and immediate so that I personally felt touched by each situation. I believe I would credit the power of music combined with the point of view of the person writing the movie. Without spoiling, I can say that I was very moved by the movie's approach to living. Haven't actually cried out of-what- joy? empathy? just deep emotion? in a very long time. I would love to find a way to show it to others. Saw it at Seattle International Film Festival.

Yikes.<br /><br />I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.<br /><br />The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.<br /><br />This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.<br /><br />So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.

Ten out of ten stars is no exaggeration. This documentary provides the viewers with unique footage about the 2003 coup in Venezuela. This great film is now the minimum knowledge requirement if you want to express a competent opinion about Venezuela or Hugo Chavez.<br /><br />The dramatic, electrified atmosphere, the unique footage will allow you to experience a true historic moment. You'll feel like you're in the middle of the situation. <br /><br />The film will help you gain unique insight in the happenings of 2003 and will help you hear a side you will rarely hear on TV. It's something you shouldn't miss.

First of all, Blythe Danner doesn't look anywhere NEAR old enough to play Capshaw's daughter (and in fact she isn't -- only ten years apart).<br /><br />I understand this is supposed to be one of those magical, Moonstruck type supernatural romances but this is beyond the pale. Very, very weak in terms of acting, script and direction. <br /><br />The only one who really shines here is Ellen DeGeneres, who makes this film watchable -- if not really believable herself as she's cast as a bit of a heterosexual sex hound. But endearing nonetheless. Actually, DeGeneres and the skin shots of the young guy Capshaw dallies with together make this watchable. But no one can really tell if Capshaw is really in love with the young guy or not; neither the script nor her acting pull it together for us and we're left to wonder how she really feels.

"Meatballs" is an ode to summer camp. Those of us who got to go to camp will see many of the scenes as we remember or wish they could have been.<br /><br />Bill Murray plays senior boys counselor Tripper Harrison, who really runs the camp. He reminds us of the funny cool staff member who everyone loves. Young campers gravitate toward him and if he speaks to you, you feel like you are family. This is one of Murray's best roles. He drives the film with his one liners and ad-libs.<br /><br />Chris Makepeace plays Rudy, the loner camper who is taken under Tripper's wing and breaks out of his shell.<br /><br />The rest of the campers and staff in the film were excellent as well.<br /><br />The overall theme of the movie is the underdog overcoming obstacles to finally win. From Rudy to Spaz to the Camp and even to Tripper himself, the underdogs of the film are the stars. The movie has heart.<br /><br />The film is fun and funny without being cruel or oversexed as some teen movies are today. The cast look and act like real people.<br /><br />The comedy and heart draw you in to the point that at the end, just like at camp, you are sad to leave.<br /><br />In my summer camp experience we had underwear run up flag poles, mystery meat, trying to sneak a peek into the girls cabin, the lunatic-with-the hook stories around the camp fire, and moving sleeping people out of their cabins and putting them elsewhere. But we also had a dedicated camp staff guiding us to be the best we could be.<br /><br />My favorite scene is the CIT overnight when they are canoeing across the lake singing a goofy song. The one line that cracks me up every time is when Tripper is announcing light outs the evening before Parent's Day and he ends "Tomorrow is parents day, and you must look rested or Morty will be sent to the state penitentiary."

I wouldn't be so quick to look at all the good reviews and say this might be a good show..This show is only good if you don't know what "talent" is..I won't even say how offensive it is (I know it can be offensive to a lot of people) because thats not really what bothers me about the show.. What bothers me is that people watch this and think it's funny..It makes me feel like our generation is getting to stupid and I'm actually scared that it will one day be run by people who watch this garbage..<br /><br />Basically the plot is simple..it's about an offensive,self centered,spoiled women(Sarah Silvermen) getting through everyday life..<br /><br />Thats it..Like that hasn't been done a million times..In fact almost every joke either has been done or is racist..<br /><br />Sarah also likes to sing..I like her voice..thats it..not the lyrics..The lyrics are dreadful..which she likes to sing about a lot of things..<br /><br />If you like to see a hot women put everyone else down and make them feel like crap while at the same time farting and saying crap about every race then this show is for you..

Everything about this show is terrible. Its premise even sets itself up to get cheap laughs with bad writing. A "disfunctional family"-theme has already been used too many times, most notably by the Simpsons, which is an excellent show with great writing and many laughs. Meanwhile, Family Guy has about five minutes of story in each episode, with tons of celebrity jokes and random flashbacks thrown in. Now, if this was original or funny, sure, I'd think it was clever. But no, it's not funny at all. In fact, the only reason the episodes are like this is because it is the easiest way to effortlessly crank out episode after episode of this junk. Much of this show is unoriginal, and what is original is just lame. It is also amazingly crude and irreverent, which again can be fine if it's still intelligent. Animation isn't everything either, but from an artistic point of view, this show fails also, proving yet again that Family Guy strives for as many cheap jokes and easy shortcuts as possible. People enjoy this show, and I don't really care, because people can enjoy anything they want, no matter how much it aims for the lowest common denominator. But no, I don't recommend this, especially for anyone who wants to someday study film or become a writer. This is cheap entertainment that aims low and has found success in this. The fact that this is so successful says bad things about America.

This movie just was not very funny. There's not much else to say, other than that it was kind of embarrassing for Laurence Fishburne and David Hyde Pierce, both of whom deserve much better than this. Also, I don't understand why, after this movie completely and utterly bombed, WB insisted on making it into a TV show.

first real movie in this year. amazing long shots, sometimes with fix camera, so specific for Nordic cinema (let aside Dogma). A true auteur film I find it. Athmospherique :-) It simply delighted all my senses and keep in mind how the image goes violent and painful during the scenes when he's trying to kill himself. That's the point I don't think it stands up in the whole plot. Why, if this was an ideal world, couldn't you die but still you were keeping your conscience ? Either was the real world with "tailored" rules or was a "fantastic" world but in this case no accidents like people remembering how it was before can happen.<br /><br />It reminded me of Kafka and maybe more, of Huxley's Brave New World, especially in that part where sex was actually available to everyone, since it was viewed like a right to pleasure. It lacked a plot but I think it was better like this, since you realized and sensed the whole strange behavior of everyone, the absurdity and the lack of real sensations in this "happy" world.<br /><br />I think also that the end was brilliant. true world is indeed a homo homini lupus, you're eaten if you are not strong enough.

I went it to see this film with caution. A suicidal "comedy" didn't seem consistent. Having a brother who is has attempted suicide and seeing the devastation that has caused our whole family, I know first hand how crushing it can be to deal with this issue. I must say - This film deals with it in a way that allows the viewer "inside" someone who is suffering and simply doesn't know why, or how to stop it. While the film is not perfect, it respects the subject matter and more importantly makes it accessible for the masses. I know for our family, humor has helped us through a lot of the pain. And, Max and Grace is just what it portends to be - a suicidal COMEDY. It's funny - And, I also felt that characters were real and vibrant. It's also extremely intelligent, yet simple. It cuts to the chase and I appreciate that! I give it a 9 and will recommend it.

"The Yoke's on Me" is undoubtedly the most controversial film in the Stooges' 23 years of shorts. The reason is understandable; by today's standards, this film can be considered racist. For this reason, it is rarely shown, if ever, on television.<br /><br />Let me just state that, for the record, the Japanese seen in the film were not soldiers; they were Japanese-Americans sent to a relocation center during World War II. They were treated and shown as the evil enemy in this film. By all accounts - including the US government, who made an apology and reparations in the 1980s - Japanese-Americans during World War II were as loyal and hardworking as any American. Their imprisonment during this time is a dark blot in American history.<br /><br />There are some Stooge laughs in this film, but the memories of how Japanese-Americans were treated during this time sullies the entertainment value. Let's not confuse the loyal Japanese-Americans with their representation in this film as evildoers. Loyal Japanese-Americans and the World War II-era evil empire of Japan are not synonymous. 2 out of 10.

OK, I don't want to upset anyone who enjoyed this film but it was a really bad movie. Just the way the scenes were edited and the acting, it made me cringe at some points. I really tried to enjoy it but it was like a student film, they must have had the smallest budget. I really liked the story line to an extent and the characters were likable but the film on a whole was just awful. Also, why is it that in almost every film with lesbian characters one of them has to either commit suicide or die or turn straight?!?! This is so sending a wrong and unrealistic message. I gave it 3 stars and everything considered I think that was very kind of me. Only watch this film if you want to laugh at how bad it is.

Okay, When I bought this flick I though this gotta be the ultimate b-movie, space monkey landing to the Earth and starts right away to kill people! <br /><br />Well, It was almost everything what I expected, typical low-budget scifi movie from the 60's. Acting has to be the worst I've ever seen, especially the girl playing the lead role and the girl that played the waitress made me laughing my ass off. <br /><br />So why 'Night Fright' doesn't fall in to category 'so bad that it's good'? Reason why is that some of the scenes were just too long and boring. For example the scene were the police officers are searching clues in the woods it was just minutes of walking without purpose. And then the grand finale, the people's waiting for the monster about 5 minutes and when the space monkey appears it get wack'd in 20 second, end of film.<br /><br />Yeah, 'Night Fright' is boring, but it got couple of funny moments. I can recommend this movie to all who liked films like 'Zontar, the Thing from Venus' or 'Curse of the Swamp Creature'.<br /><br />I give 'Night Fright' 4 Space Monkey slaps out of 10..<br /><br />-Rob Gruesome-

Dare Rudd (John Wayne) and sidekick Dink Hooley (Syd Saylor) are itinerant cowpunchers who can't seem to stay in one place very long. In "Helltown", the boys are headed to Montana, where they meet up with Rudd's cousin Tom Fillmore (Johnny Mack Brown), who offers them a job. It's a hoot to see the boys wearing aprons as they start out as cooks with the herd, although Dare becomes self conscious when Miss Judith (Marsha Hunt) rides into camp. Judy is Tom's girl, but the attraction between her and Dare is evident early on.<br /><br />Fillmore has a cattle herd to move, and promotes Dare to running the drive, partly to prove to Judy that he may not be up to the task. Meanwhile, bad guy Bart Hammond (Monte Blue) has his eyes on Fillmore's cattle, but when his henchmen fail to rustle the herd, he figures it's easier to win the money that Dare was paid at the end of the trail. Conning Dare into a rigged card game with his man Brady (James Craig), Dare's money begins to evaporate hand after hand. It's only when Dare fails to show up back at Fillmore's ranch that Tom goes out to find his cousin. Exposing the cheats, Tom, Dare and Dink high tail it before the bad guys can get their revenge.<br /><br />"Helltown", also known as "Born to the West", was released in 1937 by Favorite Films Corporation, a couple of years after Wayne's series of Westerns for Lone Star Productions. It only slightly alters the Lone Star formula; Wayne does get the girl at the end of the film, but here he was trying. There's a great runaway horse scene where Wayne rescues Marsha Hunt, in which Johnny Mack Brown's horse does a complete somersault spill. Syd Saylor does a nice job as the comic relief pal, doing his best to sell lightning rods to unsuspecting victims. He replaces familiar faces George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt here, staples of the Lone Star films. John Wayne's charisma is beginning to develop here, preparing him for the leap to super star status that he eventually achieved. <br /><br />"Helltown" was based on a novel by legendary Western author Zane Grey. If you're looking for more films based on Grey's stories, try "Fighting Caravans" with Gary Cooper, "The Light of Western Stars" with Victor Jory, "Drift Fence" with Buster Crabbe, and "Heritage of the Desert" with Randolph Scott.

As an ancient movie fan, I had heard much about the controversial movie CALIGULA assessed ambiguously as one of the most realistic epics by some and as one of the most disgusting porn movies by others. I decided to see it in the entire uncut version to evaluate it myself hoping to find something positive that would make justice to the many accusations towards the film. I sat down in my chair one autumn evening and started to watch. The beginning quotation from the New Testament shocked me a bit and raised the first controversy in me...why to entail a sentence from the Gospel by Mark in the movie about pagan Rome? But the prelude pastoral scene with a young half naked couple (Caligula and Drusilla) running hopelessly through meadows seemed quite sentimental. The music which sounded memorably whilst the credits also provoked me in the positive sense. Yet, the negative feelings raised in me quite soon, particularly at the death of Tiberius. The cruelty seemed very intense and sexuality exaggerated. However, it was not that horrific to the middle. During the second half of the film, I felt as if I watched no historical epic but an extremely disgusting porn. In the end, I said to myself "This is one of the movies that one may really hate" ... I am aware that a movie may be controversial but I had never expected that CALIGULA would go that far in removing all limits of taste. I hate this film due to many reasons, but particularly one.<br /><br />CALIGULA does not serve a purpose of an ancient epic (which it claims to be), but Bob Guccione, the director and the founder of Penthouse pornographic magazine, aims at combining film art with porn. That is, I think, the most serious matter the film may be accused of. Movie is an art that should be reigned by taste, by message, by some feeling of epic grandeur whereas this movie kills all limits of good taste. CALIGULA shows the most bestial side of human being in the most wicked, decadent manner. Some scenes are so disgusting that I don't think there are any people whose psyches will not be affected by them. Some say that the Rome under Caligula's reign was so brutal. Yes, it is true. Corruption bloomed at that time, various sexual deviances were preferable to Roman citizens. Yet, I do not think that it is right to focus on these deviations so strictly and make it constitute an emphasis of an ancient epic. I believe that it rather proves the bizarre psyches of the producers and their strange tendencies... <br /><br />HUGE HISTORICAL MISTAKES: The screenplay by Gore Vidal is notorious for inaccuracies. It is noticeable, for instance, with the figure of Proculus (Donato Placido), a historic Roman senator. Yet, the film shows him as a simple soldier on whom Caligula forces his most decadent ways of tortures and rapes. Moreover, Livia was not Proculus wife raped by Caesar on her wedding. What lies behind changing the stories of historical characters into the stories filled with unbelievable vulgarity and violence? Another example of historical travesty is the figure of Caesonia portrayed by Helen Mirren. She is presented as Caligula's wife together with Drusilla, his sister. In fact, Caligula married Caesonia long after the death of his sister. The sexual abuse on his new wife in the temple is a hilarious scene with no historical bases. I also hated the moment with the killing machine - a pure imagination of the director that has nothing to do with historical facts. <br /><br />TECHNICAL ASPECT AND CAST: From the technical point of view, the film is nothing special. The cinematography cannot boast to be exceptionally fine and the sets together with costumes are as well nothing outstanding. Yet, the only strong point of the movie are the performances, particularly the one by Malcolm McDowall as Caligula. He does a perfect job in the main role portraying madness and cruelty of the emperor. McDowall raises the value of the film. If everything bothers you in CALIGULA, you may at least admire his performance. I also fancied Helen Mirren as Caesonia and Teresa Ann Savoy as Drusilla (yet the film is based on a gossip by Suetonius that Caligula made love to his sister). Sir John Gielgud as Nerva and Peter O'Toole as old Tiberius are also memorable. O'Toole does his finest piece of acting in the Capri Grotto sequence portraying the decadence and the exhaust of the old emperor. Yes, I admit that THE ONLY THING I like about CALIGULA are the performances. Therefore, I don't rate the movie 1/10.<br /><br />LAME CONTINUITY: The historical inaccuracy of the film also goes in pairs with poor continuity. Let us analyze just the beginning: Caligula comes to Capri Grotto where he sees the awful pleasures of old Tiberius. Then, after about 15 minutes, the action moves to Rome where a black bird near Drusilla and Caligula's bed constitutes a bad omen. And immediately the characters are again in Capri where Nerva (John Gielgud) is dying...? <br /><br />All in all, I don't recommend to see CALIGULA to anyone. If you want to know the story, read Robert Graves' gorgeous novel I, CLAUDIUS and CLAUDIUS THE GOD or watch Herbert Wise's mini series with the magnificent performance by Derek Jacobi. CALIGULA is a sick film the most serious crime of which is the destruction of art. It is, in its most part, a porn movie that should never be called an epic.<br /><br />There are movies that are truly artistic and sharpen people's taste of beauty,<br /><br />there are movies that are average entertainment; yet they have something to offer,<br /><br />there are movies that show extreme violence; yet they still convey some moral,<br /><br />there are, however, movies that show sickness and decadence for their own sake and consequently harm people's minds,<br /><br />CALIGULA unfortunately belongs to the latest group

This "remake" is a complete disgrace: so mediocre, cheap and prosaic, it wouldn't deserve more than a couple of spiteful lines.<br /><br />It's also a cheat, with a laughable script served by such contrived and amateurish "acting", you're always aware there's a set, a camera, a fake, no direction, no suspended reality whatsoever to allow you delve into the story.<br /><br />The claustrophobic, stifling tension of the small spaces and rooms in the original Japanese masterpieces (Ju-On 1 & 2) is all but lost here in overblown sets and spaces.<br /><br />But worst of all, the moral enormity and unbearable suffering, which both imparted a ruthless logic to the original mother and child victims turned into relentlessly vindictive ghouls, is completely ruined by utter nonsense and hollow boogie-man style scares.<br /><br />If American audiences aren't willing to read subtitles and rise above the lowest common denominator, preferring to swallow this kind of patronizing hogwash instead, they fully deserve this pathetic curse: the movie itself.

My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it.

I swore I would never allow myself to devolve into to the bogus authority figures of the sixties who told me things were better in the "good old days" – the current Australian Prime Minister is a sordid example of just such a mind set.<br /><br />But I switched over to "A Decade Under the Influence" because I found watching the much-heralded "Sneakers" documentary on the other channel such a dispiriting experience. I found the values expressed by the "Sneakers" interviewees too ugly to accept as reasonable. So materialistic! So devoid of any sense of outrage at a society that can countenance killing someone to steal his very ugly shoes! So lacking in any worthwhile purpose that they can report without distaste the exploitation an audience by haranguing them to hold those shoes above their heads to lock in a sponsorship deal for themselves with a company of cobblers was just too much to continue watching.<br /><br />"A Decade Under the Influence" depicted a completely different response to the fruit of stupidity, corruption and concupiscence in high (and low) places.<br /><br />I have noted the change in film-making that accompanied the exposure of America's disastrous foreign policy debacles in Vietnam and so many less reported places in my www.peterhenderson.com.au website. "A Decade Under the Influence" documents the precise moment at which that change took place.<br /><br />Before the seventies, the armed forces were depicted in American films as an invincible fighting force comprised of decent human beings who transmogrified into conquering heroes on the battlefield. After the seventies they are generally portrayed as a dispirited rabble misled by a bunch of bureaucrat clowns in the Pentagon Before the seventies, the FBI agent and the honest cop tended to be depicted as your friend and protector. After the seventies, the FBI agents were all incompetent and the best a cop could aspire to was to ignore their foolishness and his superior's corruption and uphold justice in his own idiosyncratic manner.<br /><br />Before the seventies, the archetypical American "little guy", the "average Joe", the Jimmy Stewart type would face down the problems encountered and thereby gain some insight into underlying wisdom of his elected leaders and justice of the "American Way". After the seventies, Kevin Costner usurps that role, but now he is the voice of one crying out in the wilderness for evil to be exposed, or accepting his lot and making out the best he can.<br /><br />And now those "old time religion" mindsets have been stripped of any honesty and righteousness and portrayed (with a certain amount of justification) as sanctimonious bigotry and self-serving hypocrisy.<br /><br />"A Decade Under the Influence" tells it like it was. "A Decade Under the Influence" tells it like it is now. It depicts the redemption of the American film industry from the hands of the artistically, morally and intellectually bankrupt studio moguls. It shows the storming of the Hollywood Bastille by the independent film makers who promised to get a disillusioned and tired audience back into the cinemas. The fact that their failures were numerous, and at times disastrous, merely underlines the greatness of their achievement. An achievement reflected in the adventurous and questioning attitudes of the big box office stars such as Clooney, Daman, Affleck etc and the directors and producers who provide the vehicles for their talent.

Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack

Just came out of a sneak preview for this film. It had me laughing every 30 secs. The ending was so funny that tears were rolling down my face and it had me wishing I hadn't bought that large coke. There are definitely some lulls, but, overall, highly entertaining. The movie lets Steve Carell have a chance to shine after stealing the spotlight from both Jim Carrey in "Bruce Almighty" and Will Ferrell "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgendy" in their movies. Paul Rudd is hilarious as always. I love that he can be so funny in these broad comedies and continues to work in indie dramas (like P.S.). I think that Seth Rogen should be getting more work, because he so freaking talented and engaging. Leslie Mann also had some incredibly funny moments. I highly recommend it for those who just want to laugh like a maniac. However, if you're easily offended, don't see this movie. If you're a rabid feminist, don't see this movie. And, please, not matter what, even if you think you're one of those "hip" parents, don't take your kids to this movie. Sure, you should let your teens go see this movie, just don't watch it with them. It would make for some incredibly awkward moments.

First off, I Hate Sci Fi Stuff, And Although This Movie got a little Sci Fi at times, That's Allright, Because At Least It Focused On Andre Toulon. In the last 3, Andre seemed to have kind of been Mentioned, but the Stories Never really focused on him, which made me mad. What also makes me mad is The Amount of 0's it Got on the Voting Chart. Give It a Rest People. If you saw this Movie and Liked it, Please vote for it. Please. What I Loved About this Movie is that It went back to Where it all started. When Andre first learned the Secret to Life. I would Recommend Renting this if you Have seen a Puppet Master Movie before and liked it. But not renting it if this is your First Time viewing one from the PM Collection, Mainly Because you might think all the Puppet Masters are as "Dull" as this one.

New Yorkers contemporaneous with this film will recall how reflective of its time it is and how well cast and crew captured America, New York City of that era.<br /><br />Norman Wexler's script delineates the different worlds the various sub groupings live in and Avildsen's direction brings out phenomenal performances all around. Peter Boyle's prodigious talent is on display as never before nor since. Clearly it is the best character portrayal the always likable Dennis Patrick ever accomplished.<br /><br />What I will always remember about JOE is the feeling of having been in a virtual state of shock coming out of the theater. Knowing that what the screen portrayed was seething under the surface in neighborhoods throughout the five boroughs of the City of New York.<br /><br />This film needs to be remembered.

I really don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.<br /><br />The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.<br /><br />The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.

The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.

This film is definitely up there with the worst films I've ever seen, probably in my top 5 of worst films. I laughed once and that was when:<br /><br />EVAN: "im building something" Evan's Secretary: "i hope its a barber shop"<br /><br />That was literally the only time i laughed in this 'comedy', awful compared to Bruce almighty which as a big Jim carrey fan...wasn't even that great! <br /><br />This movie lacked the humour of having God's powers and was more about family bonding. Id class it solely as a family movie, definitely not a family comedy. <br /><br />Seeing a bird poo on someone's shirt is not hilarious, neither is a beard that grows back instant!<br /><br />I didn't even think the special effects were great, the animals looked really stuck on, it was like watching a film which hadn't been 'glued' together properly<br /><br />2/10 film - avoid!

"Blind Spot" one of my festival favorites. I was totally intrigued by the idea of three strangers searching for a mysterious man who has loved and betrayed each of them in different ways. The cast is great. James Franco is particularly amazing as the broken-hearted boy from Los Angeles. His journal entries, which we hear in voice-over-narration, work well with the visuals and are quite intense. The film has a powerful style. It pushes elements like the road movie and revenge-drama in new directions. It also plays with time and perspective in ways that capture the frightening ambiance of lost love. There is a dreamlike quality to several sequences and the images are saturated with an eerie sense of tension. Strange. Suspenseful. Beautiful to look at. Definitely worth seeing. I really would like to see it again. Periodically I check to see if Blind Spot has been distributed. I can't wait to see the film again in the cinema or on DVD.<br /><br />Davide Pepe 13/08/2005 Bologna - Italy

It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars.

I was fortunate enough to see The Last Stop here where I live at the Moving Pictures Film Festival (for those of you that don't know, the Moving Pictures Film Festival is a tour of Canadian made film in Canada). I was told just before the movie started that it was the world premiere and that it was on the verge of getting an American distribution deal which added to my excitement.<br /><br />I'm a big horror movie fan, and yes, I love the Scream trilogy as well. So when I found out that Rose McGowan was doing a Ten Little Indians type of movie I knew that I was in for a treat. Rose McGowan was the biggest name actor/actress at the entire festival.<br /><br />The best way I can describe it without giving away too much of the plot is that it's not quite like Scream. And it certainly is worth seeing. It's set in the middle of a snowstorm (it was filmed in Vancouver, B.C., Canada) at a mountaintop motel, which adds to the suspense. Rose McGowan puts in a great performance as the-girl-next-door(?!) along with the rest of the cast. And as for what happens at the end, well, the only thing I'll say is that you'll never guess the ending.<br /><br />Sadly, it probably won't make it into mainstream North American theatres because the only decent money maker in it is Rose McGowan. But if you get the chance to see it I would recommend you do. And if worse comes to worst, there's always video.<br /><br />I gave it a 9 out of 10.

For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.<br /><br />This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.<br /><br />If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.

From the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.<br /><br />

House of games has a strong story where obsession and illusion play a big part. A psychologist offers to help a patient with his gambling debts and gets caught at the game.<br /><br />Have you ever felt fascination for something that was both dangerous and wrong? Watch what happens if you pursue this urge and go all the way. Sit on the edge of your chair as tricksters are being tricked and victims turn into perpetrators. You're never sure of who is exactly who in this movie.<br /><br />This is both a quality and a drawback of the script. As the movie ends you feel that the story lacks a bit of consistency. But all this is largely compensated by the excellent psychological development.<br /><br />This is definitely one of the best movies about gambling.

Story of the creation of Underdog and adventures battling Simon Bar Sinister in a live action format. First we have Showshine picked up off the street and brought to a science experiment lab where Simon Bar Sinister works. He fights back when Sinister tries to inject him with a chemical and accident occurs, he gets superpowers and the lab blows up wounding Sinister. On the street Shoeshine runs afoul of Riff Raff, another dog and gets picked up by Jim Belushi who was a guard at the lab. Belushi's son discovers that Shoeshine has all these powers and eventually Shoeshine becomes Underdog, who will once again battle Sinister.<br /><br />Once you decided that under dog was going to be a real dog you've sort of limited yourself as to whether the film was going to work or not. For me the film half works and half doesn't. The part that doesn't is all of the stuff where you see Shoeshine, the dog, as a dog with his master. Some of the repartee is funny, but it just drags on and on as we get introduced to Sweet Polly and her mistress and we go through all the typical lets see what you can do stuff. Its a deadly 20 or 25 minutes and effectively kills the film. Its painfully dull and feels like it takes forever to get through it, which considering the film is say 75 minutes sans credits, is something you don't want to do.<br /><br />The parts that are good are anything with Simon Bar Sinister (Peter Dinklage is a blast) and anything where Underdog goes into action. Some how somewhere they managed to find a way to be both twistedly true to the spirit of the cartoon and to update it. Of course I could be wrong since the middle section is so dull, but I think not, since I do look forward to catching the end of this again on cable.<br /><br />As a whole its probably as awful as some people have said, but if you can wait for cable where you can stumble on the good parts, this is an okay cartoon to film adaption. (But wait for cable-really)

Based on a fairly bland "best seller," this film - like most other Lifetime movies - played out more like a reenactment than an actual movie. The only difference here was that Meredith Baxter wasn't in it. The women in this don't age even over a span of like 20 years and the acting in general is pretty bad.<br /><br />The characters in this were all cliché and one-dimensional. The story was of the cheesy nature. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's the kind of thing that people who loved the book and people who watch that network all the time will think is great. I only watched it because my girlfriend wanted to see it so she wouldn't have to read the book her sister loaned to her. It wasn't made for someone like me - my girlfriend cried a little at the end though, so she didn't think it was as terrible as I did.

No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.<br /><br />I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.<br /><br />Not so Royal Flash.<br /><br />I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).<br /><br />What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).<br /><br />None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.<br /><br />Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.<br /><br />If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.<br /><br />A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.<br /><br />My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.<br /><br />If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.

POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2<br /><br />I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either – in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.<br /><br />Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot – Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.

Yes, I'm sentimental & schmaltzy!! But this movie (and it's theme song) remain one of my all time greats!! Robert Downey Jr. does such justice to the role of "Louis Jeffries" reincarnated and the storyline (although far-fetched) is romantic & makes one believe in happy endings!!

This movie is not great, but it is a good and enjoyable one. It feels like an indie film made out of a play script. Morgan Freeman basically plays himself, although the director swears the script was not written for him. And there is the small irony of the actor that goes in a supermarket to do research for a film that he hasn't committed to yet. I mean, he actually made the film in the end and we are watching it :)<br /><br />I found the dialogue a bit too positive for my taste, but refreshing nonetheless. This is a film that inspires the viewer to take a look at their own lives and choose the direction in which to go. A bit too much emphasis on appearance, if you ask me.<br /><br />Bottom line: a nice little film, made in two weeks, with basically two actors and a few extras, dialogue driven, makes Morgan Freeman look good :)

Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" <br /><br />My Grade: C

This movie had lots of potential, beautiful women, cute guys, a beach, beer, a hot tub, a mansion on the beach, a swimming pool, a sexy maid who hates her job, and really nice cars. However, the movie had one thing that doomed it to failure... a full length script and a bunch of sexy women who want to give acting a try because they think it would be a cool idea.<br /><br />Let's put it this way...<br /><br />If you find yourself at a party and you have a choice between watching this movie or a childs potty training video from the 70s, choose the potty training video.

Considering all the teen films like "the Breakfast Club" and "Pretty In Pink" that are lionized. It is surprising that this one is so ignored.<br /><br />There is no sex in it, but sex is thought of, including the idea that it may matter what others think about it. The kids do not always get along with their parents, but neither the parents or the kids are seen as always right or wrong, and the parents are not seen as monsters.<br /><br />It deals with hero-worship. How one girl does a dangerous thing, which could have lead to real dustier, before realizing that she was wrong.<br /><br />The movie is kind of ahead of its' time. One kid asks another kid what birth control she uses. She says she is doing nothing to need birth control. She replies (wrongly) "oral sex".

This film is worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs.

Every time the supposed explorers and we , the audience, is primed to set its first sights one of the wonderous new worlds, for some ungodly reason, the filmmakers decided to distract with an "emergency" or some false alarm or some bit of artificial dramatic suspense. <br /><br />So instead of calmly enjoying the surface of Io, or standing over the rings of Saturn or concentrating on the magic of flying by a comet or an asteroid, we are distracted into worrying about the wellbeing and survival of the characters. Big let down !!!!<br /><br />The filmmakers seem to be unsure what they want. A documentary of the natural wonders in our solar system, or a suspense thriller in which the viewer cares more about the characters than the subject matter. Come on. <br /><br />Hello. If I wanted suspense and tension I'd watch a real Narrative sci-fi movie. <br /><br />Sure it's a docu-drama. But the characters and their survival here (the risks of such a mission - should be secondary to the subject matter ). Wait. Yes the risks of such a mission are an important part of the subject matter - since essentially this is a film about a space mission , not just about the solar system. But it was overplayed and distracted strongly from the discovery of new worlds we were supposed to be enjoying. <br /><br />Otherwise, the film was remarkable in giving a very realistic feel for the human elements of a space mission , the squabbles, the tensions, the weight of responsibility, the near-fatal mistakes, the sacrifices , etc. Also it would fit very well in the hard-sci-fi subgenre - in fact it would be one of the best , because here the science was almost closely adhered to. <br /><br />But the distractions were awful. <br /><br />Otherwise, I missed showing the effects of being in space for several years on the astronauts AFTER landing on Earth. Also not

I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.<br /><br />Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.<br /><br />Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...<br /><br />On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.<br /><br />Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.<br /><br />It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.

It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.

Comparing Oceans Twelve to the 2001 Oceans Eleven, did anyone else notice all the things that stayed the same?<br /><br />- All the stars returned for Twelve, and Zeta-Jones was added;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same director;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same producers;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same production designer;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same music director;<br /><br />- Twelve had the same film editor.<br /><br />Did anyone notice the things than changed once the "Oceans" franchise was established?<br /><br />- Twelve's budget was $25 million (30%) greater;<br /><br />- Eleven got great reviews, but Twelve largely got panned;<br /><br />- Eleven made $450 million but Twelve dropped to $362 million;<br /><br />- Domestic box office for Twelve dropped 32%;<br /><br />- Soderbergh teamed with a different screenwriter.<br /><br />Movies are a director's medium, of course. I almost forgot.

As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better.

Well I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.<br /><br />Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.<br /><br />The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.

It's strange what fate does to some people. While looking in the discount bin at a DVD retailer, I came across a copy of Deadly Instincts. Being a collector of any film that is either sci-fi, horror or featuring alien monsters, I decided to buy it (not to mention the fact that it cost five dollars – a bargain, believe me). After viewing it, I came to the opinion that it was nothing special. But after doing some research on the Internet, I discovered that the film was actually called Breeders & was a remake of the Tim Kincaid horror flick that menaced video stores in the mid-1980s. Which I've already seen. My appreciation of "Deadly Instincts" grew following that discovery.<br /><br />A meteorite crashes on the lawn next to a private girls' college. The sole teacher there, Ashley (played by Todd Jensen – that's right, the guy who gets turned into a cyborg in the cult flick CYBORG COP four years earlier), notices that some of the students are beginning to disappear, while encountering a black-haired woman with a scarred face & wearing a kinky leather outfit. His investigation reveals that an alien creature had hitched a ride on the meteorite & had come to Earth to breed using the local womenfolk. Along with a local detective who believes him to be responsible for the disappearances, Ashley tries to stop the monster.<br /><br />The original BREEDERS, directed by Tim Kincaid (who would leave the genre to make gay porn), was a sci-fi / horror film which was actually a thinly-veiled soft-core porn film designed to take skin flicks to genre fans. It is, in my belief, one of the worst films made in the 1980s. Why anyone would want to remake it is quite a mystery.<br /><br />This remake is actually a better effort than its low-budget source. The film, which takes the basic concept of an alien monster trying to interbreed with human women, eliminates any pornographic elements. In fact, the film is actually very tame. There are no sex scenes, no nudity (even during the shower scene), swearing & violence are kept to a minimal level & there is no gore (which may cheat gorehounds). This makes the remake a film safe for the whole family, that is if the kids aren't scared by alien monsters (which brings me to the film's M 15+ rating, which seems a bit much).<br /><br />Tameness of subject matter aside, the film does have some faults. The script, while featuring some good characterizations, has a number of holes so big you can crash a meteor through.<br /><br />What? You're mad at me for that? Come on, this review needed a bad pun so it will remain interesting.<br /><br />Anyway, the film's setting is one problem the script failed to fix – the film is set in Boston but the buildings don't look like they belong in Boston. Something about the architecture ain't right. Another thing is the college itself, with a rather large building housing about twenty students (all female, of course) & only having one class – art. The only teacher there has a relationship with a student (& so does the janitor!), which somehow escapes the attention of the principal. Not to mention the cops, who are so one-dimensional (& stupid) that the real Boston PD would have a good case if they ever decided to sue. Oh, & the meteor… well the chance that a meteor which is sent from Saturn (check the opening credits) reaches Earth with no onboard propulsion is astronomical. That doesn't include the chances that any passengers in the meteor will survive the landing.<br /><br />As far as the acting goes, Todd Jensen gives a dependable performance as the heroic teacher while the late Kadamba Simmons (who was murdered by her boyfriend shortly before the film came out) cuts a striking figure in that leather outfit, as well as proving she can act. The visual effects are run-of-the-mill, with credits due to the filmmakers for bringing us a cool-looking monster.

Neatly skipping over everything from the coup in Cuba to his undercover entry into Bolivia, part two of Soderbergh's portrayal of Che Guevara is that of the tragic hero. As with Che – Part One, this rather rambling guerrilla warfare escapade through the colourful mountains of Bolivia is probably destined to disappoint more people than it will satisfy, so why was the film (and particularly Benicio Del Toro's performance) so loudly praised at Cannes?<br /><br />James Rocchi, for instance, called it, a work of art that's, "not just the story of a revolutionary," but, "a revolution in and of itself." The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw called it a "flawed masterpiece." I return to my original contention for Part One – that the value lies particularly in depiction of a hero figure. And in an age when there is a surfeit of poor hero role-models, could it not be salutary to see a strongly honourable one, even if stripped of some of the less endearing episodes of his life? This is the psychological hero enshrined by the great Scottish essayist, Thomas Carlyle, in his seminal book, Heroes and Hero Worship. Heroes can be real or imaginary (or somewhere in-between). But should genuinely inspire us to higher goals, a higher purpose. Compare this with the unrealistic 'heroes' of standard Western storytelling: where a person undergoes trials and tribulations before obtaining a barely-believable reward – usually everlasting love or material wealth – as if by divine studio intervention. Real heroes have an excess of moral courage – not Lost Ark dare-devilishness or James Bond super-toys. They rise, and empower others to rise, to be the best that they can be. In Part One, Che succeeds. In Part Two, he fails. It is not for want of moral courage but since a) not all good plans can succeed and b) being human, mistakes are inevitable.<br /><br />Guevara's intellectual clarity is flawed when he equates conditions that justify armed struggle with conditions that make that armed struggle able to succeed. It is a serious miscalculation.<br /><br />High in the mountains from La Paz, the colours are breathtaking. There is an air of mise-en-scene authenticity that was occasionally lacking in Che - Part One (The U.S. would not allow Soderbergh to film in Cuba.) Visual treats are heightened by maximising natural light and the extreme flexibility and realism offered with groundbreaking RED cameras. This is a high performance digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and the convenience of pure digital. Designed for flexibility and functionality, the package weighs a mere 9 lbs. "Shooting with RED is like hearing the Beatles for the first time," says Soderbergh. "RED sees the way I see . . . so organic, so beautifully attuned to that most natural of phenomena – light." If Che had stopped with the successful Cuban revolution it would have enshrouded him with an almost mystical invincibility. That he fails in Bolivia shows not only that he has human limitations but that it is his moral virtues that are remembered, not the political triumph. Critics will say – and with some justification - that his armed struggle inspired much less noble characters to achieve tin-pot dictatorships. His development of guerrilla fighting tactics are not good or bad in themselves (and have since been used for both).<br /><br />But for all its praiseworthiness, the film often seems to lack dramatic and narrative tension. We stumble from one escapade to another, knowing that he will eventually meet his death. I found myself glancing at my watch and thinking it could have been shorter. But the work that has gone into this – interviews with people from all sides and even getting one of Guevara's ex-comrades to coach actors on the minutiae of the Bolivian operations – make the film a commendable achievement. It might not be top-flight entertainment, but it demonstrates integrity in documenting a significant slice of history.<br /><br />There is also another very important point in the Che 'hero' figure here. It's about failure. That if you try your utmost, even if you fail, your effort will not have been in vain because it may give others hope and moral courage. One could cynically call it a 'martyr' complex, and it is found, of course, in many religious figures as well. But Che does not 'sacrifice' himself. He does what he does best, to the best of his not inconsiderate ability, and so provides an example. Success or failure in any particular instance become mere details.<br /><br />With the U.S.'s longstanding and illegal blockade of Cuba (all in the name of 'freedom'), I am tempted to write that Che Parts 1 & 2 are too good to be wasted on the U.S. But that would be to invite a contention that the film has sought so earnestly to avoid. One must hope that many viewers will have the skill to view Che without politics and the bias that inevitably engenders. Whatever its faults, it rehabilitates Soderbergh from the populist nonsense of Oceans 11.<br /><br />But if you haven't heard of Che Guevara or seen Part One, or if you can't get past the phrase 'murderous Marxist' without frothing at the mouth, I might struggle to imagine what you would get from this film. The same can be said for many who have, and can.

If you as I have a very close and long relationship with the world of Tintin....do yourself a favor and watch this beautiful documentary about Hergé and his life creating Tintin. I'ts so brilliant and a very cool production. The whole background story about Hergé and the people and also very much the many different situations he was influenced by, for good and worse is amazing. There is a very fine and obvious connection between the comic books and just this. I will for sure be in my basement digging up the Tintin albums again. Also, the movie itself are very well told and has a great ambient sound to it. I really do hope people will find this as intriguing as I did!

I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. "It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it," she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.<br /><br />*****SPOILER*****<br /><br />Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.<br /><br />*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.

surely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.<br /><br />i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.<br /><br />finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.<br /><br />no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...

I LOVE Don Knotts, let me just say that up-front! He is an enormous talent and the best at what he does, which is portray a nervous, lovably befuddled loser thrown into a position of authority. He is fabulous in this role as Roy Fleming, the Reluctant Astronaut, but the film is pretty dull, really, even though as a kid my brother and I delighted in watching this and his other films. It's still worth watching but really it's a film that is best enjoyed by children. I'd categorize it as 100% family-friendly and something you could sit down and watch with your kids on a family night.<br /><br />As with all of Knotts' films, there's a great cast of beloved character actors and you can't help but smile when Knotts gives one of his shaky, open-mouthed stares, no matter how old and jaded you are.<br /><br />From an adult perspective, one thing I think that is great about this film is how it captures NASA in the 1960s -- all the new modern buildings, the hope, the optimism, the future! And I was surprised at how suave and studly Leslie Neilsen was back then. Only complaint about the story is Roy's love interest, a rather threadbare, unlikeable woman who can't give him the time of day until he becomes a big shot -- if you're like me, you'll be hoping that he gives her the shove-off at the end. Beware -- you'll be whistling the theme tune for days after watching, it's that catchy.

This movie has recieved horrible ratings from just about everyone who has voted here but i am here to say if you like movies like Dude Wheres my Car and Dumb and Dumber this movie is for you. If your into movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca id have to sugest you in a different angle. Yet i still love this movie and everything about it even if it is kind of "kiddy" this is one of the few movies me and my freinds have been able to keep watching over the years and quote whenever possible. GREAT MOVIE. This movie should the AFIs number 1 because its so friggin' high class. The only problem with this movie is you may have trouble seeing it because it was a made for tv movie on a channel that no longer exists. So i dont know how to get this movie, id like to buy it for dvd but i cant find it anywhere. I still have it taped from when it was first on, you can come over if you want and watch it bute i might be sleeping. this movie rocks and thats basicly all you need to know.

As Ben Elton once observed, nothing goes quicker out of style than comedy. Steve Martin's latest offering - 'The Pink Panther 2' - recently opened to bad reviews and dismal box-office grosses, while Mike Myers' 'The Love Guru' seems to have won few admirers.<br /><br />In 1970, it was Jerry Lewis' turn to feel the pain of rejection ( ironically, his character in this film experiences a funny turn whenever anyone uses that word in his presence ) when 'Which Way To The Front?' effectively drove him off the big screen for almost a decade.<br /><br />In this World War Two comedy, he plays 'Brendan Byers 111', the richest man in the world, who wants to join the army to do his patriotic duty ( and also because he is bored with being successful ) but is rejected as he is medically unfit. He then decides to start his own privately funded army, recruiting other 4-F's.<br /><br />Decked out with ludicrous uniforms that look like those worn by 'International Rescue' in 'Thunderbirds', they go into training. Some good visual gags here. When they fire rocket launchers, they look pleased with themselves, until they learn they have just destroyed a Texaco oil station! Wishing to learn German, Brendan plays a long-playing record called 'Songs To Mein Kampf By'. When this army sits down to eat, instead of being in a draughty mess hall, they are in an opulent room decked out with a chandelier.<br /><br />John Wood is very funny as 'Finkel', Byers' ever-so English butler. His best scene is when he blackmails a Mafia-type gangster into teaching Byers' brigade to kill.<br /><br />The script was not by Jerry himself, but by Gerald Gardiner and Dee Caruso, author of a number of episodes of 'The Monkees'. 'Front' often has the look and feel of a television sitcom, indeed at times you almost expect to hear a laugh-track.<br /><br />Where it goes badly wrong is in the last thirty minutes when Byers replaces a top Nazi commander and, after ordering the Germans to withdraw from the front, gets involved in the plot to kill Hitler ( and Tom Cruise is nowhere in sight! ). As the commander, Jerry delivers a performance of such mind-numbing ineptitude as to defy description. He gives Brian Blessed a run for his money in the 'loudest man alive' stakes. It comes as a relief when the end credits appear.<br /><br />Perhaps the timing was just wrong - bringing out a war comedy when the Vietnam conflict was raging was not a good idea. Or the public simply had had enough of Jerry ( that beard probably did not help! ). What he needed here was a good producer, someone to take him in hand and say: "That gag stinks. Throw it out!". 'Don't Raise The Bridge, Lower The River' is a masterpiece by comparison with this picture.<br /><br />As the '70's got underway, the new comedy icons would be Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Monty Python - fresher, more biting and in Allen's case, more human styles of comedy replaced Jerry's brand of slapstick. It would not be until 1982 that he would make anything like a successful comeback - as the conceited talk-show host 'Jerry Langford' in Martin Scorcese's brilliant 'The King Of Comedy'.

I couldn't spoil this piece of crap if I wanted to. After watching Dark Harvest 1 I thought "this has got to be the worse movie ever made" then I watched Dark Harvest 2 and that made 1 seem a little better. Then I watched Dark Harvest 3 or tried too. The only thing I have to say is "when is this going to end?" Very bad acting and really bad special effects the only good thing about this movie was the boob shot. Don't waste your time of money on this piece of crap... And now I have to write 3 more lines to get this to submit. I was going to sing a song but I can't think of any right now. But the movie finally ended (though it had an ending that might mean they are going to make another one of these)

In 2004, I wrote the following statements on an IMDb message board when a user wondered if The Best Years of Our Lives was a forgotten movie: <br /><br />***** To me watching this movie is like opening up a time capsule. I think in many ways "The Best Years of Our Lives" is probably one of the more fascinating character studies and it holds up extremely well as a look at life in the US in the mid-1940s after WWII. I believe "Coming Home" and "The Deer Hunter", both released in 1978, were the most recent films that were closest in capturing the numerous issues of military men returning from war that were brought up in "The Best Years of Our Lives".<br /><br />What really impressed me was watching the movie in its entirety when I was in college around 1980-81 and many if not all of the college students applauded at the end of the movie.<br /><br />This movie still packs a wallop and I'm very happy to read in other posts other users feeling of a movie that will definitely stand the test of time. *****<br /><br />I'm very happy to see the movie ranked near the top 100 movies on IMDb and AFI. Also, though it was in competition with what eventually became a Christmas classic, It's a Wonderful Life, arguably, The Best Years of Our Lives' Oscar wins, including Best Picture, were very well-deserved. <br /><br />I've just seen the film again in 2005 and after almost 60 years, The Best Years of Our Lives is still a powerful, beautifully acted and well-crafted motion picture.

I have to tell you I've been a fan of Star Trek TNG since i was a kid.<br /><br />Well, sometime ago i gave a friend of mine some DS9 episodes and i asked him<br /><br />"hey man, what are you watching lately because I'm done watching all TNG episodes" He said. "Well, i got these episodes of Farscape". I said: "Ok, let me try it" I was pretty sure at that time that i wont like it because i was just finised watching TNG and found it great."<br /><br />I had 3 episodes, viewed those but the show didn't impressed me very much, i found it childish initially and i thought its just another TV show, nice adventures but regular. Music was a little bit different, neat special effects though and i had the vague impression that the actors didn't fully get into the characters skin.<br /><br />I watched another 3 episodes thinking that 3 eps were not enough to decide i like or not since. Then the show started to get me, i got a good grasp of the action and wanted to see what happened next to the poor Crichton....the rest is history. <br /><br />I think i mostly like the freedom of the characters in the context of the action unlike Star Trek where everybody slept when they were supposed to do and way too much high tech bullshit. <br /><br />The show got better with each episode, very interesting story line.....what can i say, this movie its like poetry. <br /><br />I highly recommend it!!!

What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.<br /><br />The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.

This movie starts out promisingly, with an early scene in which Frank Morgan advises against Gary Cooper's marriage to his daughter, Anita Louise. Frank Morgan, playing an unabashed gold-digger, loudly complains to Cooper about his perceived penury at the hands of his family - including his daughter, Anita Louise. I am a fan of all 3 actors. Frank Morgan is (to my mind) a Hollywood treasure, Cooper a legend, and Louise a very lovely, versatile and under-appreciated actress seldom seen in the leading role. I also have nothing against Teresa Wright, and while not blessed with great range, she usually delivers heart-warming performances.<br /><br />From a promising opening, the story slides downhill all the way to the end. I found nothing humorous about burning down the home of Cooper's would-be in-laws. The butler in such a fastidious, non-smoking household would never just blithely walk away, allowing Cooper to continue smoking, or alternatively he would certainly supply him with some means of disposing of his ill-timed cigarette. Moreover, nobody with any common sense would permit himself to be left holding a lit cigarette without asking for some means of disposing of it. And finally, nobody in his right mind crushes out a cigarette in a handkerchief and sticks it in his pocket! This whole sequence just made Cooper seem foolish and gauche. It is a poor contrivance - ill conceived and filmed in a way that induces ridicule not laughter. <br /><br />The forced medical examination of Cooper is equally contrived. Nobody lets himself undergo a complete medical examination without his being advised of its purpose or giving his consent! That Cooper did so is too removed from reality to be funny - it's absurd! Stealing babies from hospitals is a serious legal offense, and that, too, is nothing to laugh about. Finally, the scenes of Cooper's overly fastidious, neurotic attention to his baby's feeding and weight may have struck a nerve with a few people who have experienced anxiety over their own newborn babies. But to me they just seem tedious and slow. The wardrobe and prop departments went over the top in those scenes, while paradoxically, the script writer went to sleep.<br /><br />The lines are just not in the script to generate humor. They just miss on all cylinders. The laughs come not a mile-a-minute, but more like a light year-a-minute. The only time the movie has any energy or humor is when Frank Morgan is on camera.<br /><br />The scene that is totally wasted is when both of Cooper's love interests and their respective fathers are cooped up in the same hotel room together. There is probably a rich vein of humor somewhere in that mine, but none of it was extracted.<br /><br />In the end, one of the two very likable girls is going to get hurt. Predictably, it is the Anita Louise character, who gets jilted on her would-be-wedding night! While it is not on camera, that is her fate, and it is not particularly funny - even as a loose end. She hadn't done anything in this film to make me unsympathetic (unlike Gail Patrick, say, in My Favorite Wife). Consequently, I was expecting (perhaps "hoping" is a better word in the context of the film!) for Anita Louise to enjoy a happy ending, too. The fact that such a nice character is essentially wiped out at the movie's end really undermines the effect of the "happy ending" for Cooper and Wright.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen, for the witty dialog so characteristic of movies of the era... And it never delivered. A good performance by Frank Morgan in a slightly different role is totally wasted here.

We saw La Spettatrice at the Syracuse International Film & Video Festival & liked it.<br /><br />This film delved into the fear we all have. Fear of rejection, fear of intimacy and most importantly fear of our own inadequacies.<br /><br />The three lead actors, Barbora Bobulova as Valeria, Brigitte Catillon as Flavia, Andrea Renzi as Massimo are match well to their roles and are excellent. It was a joy to witness the dynamic between the three of them as it seemed real.<br /><br />I believe Barbora Bobulova is a stand out. I hope we see much more of her in the coming years.<br /><br />This film doesn't take the easy way out. Thumbs up to the Italian team who put this film together. Highly recommended.

"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.<br /><br />Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.<br /><br />The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. <br /><br />The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.<br /><br />Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.<br /><br />Grade: C-

This movie was fun, if all over the board.<br /><br />It essentially follows the comedic romp of two grave-robbers in 19th century England, who move from conventional body snatching to trafficking in vampires, zombies and dead Roswell aliens. (I have no idea what the Roswell alien was doing in there, and neither did the producers, I think.) <br /><br />But was it funny? You bet. Even Ron Perlman, who is often the kiss of Direct to DVD Death was pretty good in this one as a priest who turns out to be the ringleader of a rival gang of body-snatchers.<br /><br />A real joy to watch this hilarious little film, and a good example of what you can do when you don't have larger than life egos on either side of the camera.

This is a really cool movie! I remember first seeing it when I was really young and I used to watch it all the time like once a week...Shadow was my favorite character in the movie. Homeward Bound is really funny and its really cool how they train the animals to do all those things. Parts of the movie are sad though (such as when Sassy, the cat, falls down the waterfall, and when Shadow falls in the hole at the end.) I have seen the second Homeward Bound but I gotta say its not as good as the first. Shadow is the smart one, Sassy is, well, Sassy, and Chance is the funny idiot. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedies, or talking animals. This is one of my top ten favorite movies!

I believe anyone who enjoyed Eisentein's Ivan the Terrible movies would enjoy this well crafted movie. This movie played out like "Lord of the Ring: Return of the King", but without the special effect but as good and better drama.<br /><br />We have the German, who dressed like KKK, conquered Novgorod of Russia. The Russian summoned Nevsky to lead them to fight the German to save Russia. Nikolai Cherkasov, who played Ivan in the Ivan the Terrible films, was charismatic as Nevsky. The first 10 min how he handled the passing by Mongol was captivating.<br /><br />Many of the scenes were beautiful even in black and white. The anticipation of War did not require any dialogue such as "how many enemy we will be killing", etc. Except for a few speeches, the film can basically be played out as a silent film. The fighting scene can hold up to those of the Civil War fighting scene of The Birth of a Nation.<br /><br />Another strength of the movie is the great musical score, by Sergei Prokofiev. The music gave an epic feel to the movie in those scenes without dialogue.

When I saw LAUREN BACALL do CACTUS FLOWER on Broadway, I never dreamed that one day I would see an actress like INGRID BERGMAN playing the Bacall role on screen. But here Ingrid really lets her hair down for some good comedy moments as the dental nurse pretending to be WALTER MATTHAU's wife so he can go on with the fib he's told GOLDIE HAWN.<br /><br />It's a story played for laughs from beginning to end, good-humored stuff that never runs out of dry humor and wit throughout its running time. There are plenty of one-liners or gags that are way above the usual situation comedy stuff one hears on TV--the lines ring true because they blend so well with the characters and their motives.<br /><br />As the daffy girl who contemplates (in the beginning) committing suicide over her unhappy affair with Matthau, GOLDIE HAWN (fresh from her days as a star on TV's "Laugh In") does a dumb blonde role to perfection. Easy to see why she won that Supporting Actress Oscar.<br /><br />Ingrid is surprisingly fetching in a rare comedy role, although there are times when she seems just a bit too matronly for the part. At any rate, she's a surprising choice to play the nurse who puts on a freeze act at the office but is considerably warmer off duty.<br /><br />As Goldie's next door neighbor, Igor, Rick Lenz acquits himself admirably, and makes a suitable match for her in that final scene.<br /><br />Matthau plays the kind of character that became his stock in trade in all those Neil Simon roles he had--a lovable cad who gets caught up in his own messes when he tells lie after lie.<br /><br />It's the kind of rib-tickling comedy that'll have you laughing out loud at some of the amusing lines that Abe Burrows and I.A.L. Diamond have managed to scrap together, based on a French farce.

well after watching this i can say that it ain't the worst movie ever made,, yes folks there is worse than this,, there are some good points to the movie,, you get to watch drunken teenagers, have horrible deaths,, and cute looking rats eating some science experiment, and getting grotesquely huge,, the drunk janitor,, the cranky doctor,, and yes a girl in thong underwear that has absolutely no shame,, dumb jocks,, i could'nt personally wait for the rat to eat these drunken fools,, i was rooting for the rat the e ntire time,, it had a good premise,, the first part of the movie,, was interesting though with the scientific explantation about the rats,, and the little back story,, but i think that it ruined when the dumb drunken horny teenagers come into play,, the rat in my opinion, the one that get's lost,, her name is Brenda, was so fake,, must have been a cGi rat,, looked like a guy dressed up in a beaver suit,, this was pretty schlocky, lame,, but not totally horribble,,

This noisy, dizzying football film from director Oliver Stone seems to have everyone in the cast - well, everyone except William H. Macy, who could have tackled the role played by Mr. Stone, the team doctors, or the "fruitcake" selling cereal. If you're a fan of the foul-mouthed, there are some great, profanity-laden knock-down, drag-out, put-down phrases you can try-out on two-faced friends and way-ward lovers. The film is sometimes good as lively background party atmosphere, especially during the first two hours; it even features some MTV-styled music video scenes.<br /><br />** Any Given Sunday (12/16/99) Oliver Stone ~ Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid

This sequel to "In the Heat of the Night" will suffer in inevitable comparisons to its infinitely better predecessor. Instead of looking like a theatrical movie edited for television, "Mister Tibbs" looks suspiciously like a TV movie edited for theatrical release, with grainy photography, cheesy opening titles, and sets that look like they're made of plywood. The murder sequence has a glaring continuity error: the camera shows two hands choking the girl, then a shot of a hand reaching for a statuette, then a shot of the girl being choked with two hands again, and finally the statuette coming down for the fatal blow. Solving the case should be easy: find the only guy with three hands! But the shoddy production values can't completely obscure this film's considerable merits: namely, Sidney Poitier's performance as the cool detective determined to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, even if it implicates a friend. Martin Landau is also convincing as the do-gooder preacher-activist suspected of brutally murdering his prostitute girlfriend. In addition to being haunted by the case, Tibbs is conflicted about his home life, but the issues of race and Tibbs' barely concealed sense of social outrage are absent here. So is the complex murder mystery that made "In the Heat of the Night" so compelling.

There's no denying the first Azumi film was a commercial product; it was an adaptation of a popular manga and had cast of young, attractive actors and certainly wasn't lacking in the budget department. Yet it more than entertained for what it was, and I can't deny I enjoyed it immensely.<br /><br />"Azumi 2" lacks just about everything that made the original so wonderful. The first thing that should set alarm bells ringing is the absence of the superb Ryuhei Kitamura at the helm. With him, he seemed to take not only his own visual flair and kinetics, but the originals style, beauty and most importantly, its heart. While the first had a simple "hitlist" plot, this one has a corkscrew mess of a story, with too many dull characters stabbing each other in the back so many times the potential for any sympathy or pathos is obliterated. Gone is the effective interplay between the lead characters; Azumi and her cohorts are often reduced to a bunch of stroppy teenagers arguing in a forest. Characterisation is non existent; if anyone watching actually cares who lives and who dies, I'll be shocked. The same applies to the villains here. The final battle - in fact all the battles - are completely devoid of any sort of tension. The fact that they are poorly choreographed and abysmally directed - not to mention few and far between - is made a sideline by their own sheer pointlessness. The villains themselves try far too hard to be campy, and even if they were all combined, they don't come within a country mile of the Pete Burnsian antics of Jo Odagiri in the original.<br /><br />####Major Spoiler at end of paragraph!##### <br /><br />Aya Ueto tries her best it has to be said, and she also managed to keep her hair in good condition between the films. Azumi is now a fully fledged assassin, meaning she can wave her sword around in slow motion; unfortunately, now the character is instilled with a sort of Man With No Name style mysteriousness, Ueto's model looks become even more inappropriate. I know this is supposed to be the point, but this combined with the ineffectiveness of everyone else in the film, the stupidity of the plot and the general ineptness of the film in general means it is downright impossible to get behind her character this time around. The less said about Chiaki "Remember me from Kill Bill" Kuriyama's performance the better; it suffices to say her "turn" from good to evil is about as subtle as napalm.<br /><br />Overall, this was just a colossal disappointment. Any merits is does have were done ten times better in the first film. A lazy, unsatisfying - and generally downright boring - mess.

Some aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.

What if Marylin Monroe, Albert Einstein, Joe Dimaggio and Senator McCarthy were to come together in a mind-bending evening of relativity?<br /><br />This delightful roman à clef never uses the actual names of the characters it so thinly veils and scathingly exposes not only for the individuals they must have been, but also for what they came to represent over time. If you are confused by allegory, or if you like your movies served up predigested and mushy, you won't like this film. It is a demanding opus that rewards on many levels the viewer with the intelligence to appreciate it. <br /><br />Dropping, for the time being, the rigorous avoidance of using the real names of the characters, we see Einstein, about to deliver a pacifist speech to a United Nations hell-bent for nukes, being visited by Marylin Monroe, after filming the notorious Seven Year Itch scene that some say led to the end of her marriage with Joe Dimaggio. They have a lovely interplay in which Einstein stumbles with suitable professorial clumsiness around the innocence of perhaps the greatest sex symbol of modern times. <br /><br />Enter Senator McCarthy who thinks Einstein is a Red. He is determined to extract Einstein's assurance that he will support the activities of the House Unamerican Activities Committee while delivering the ultimate weapon in the name of peace. Add Joe, a surprisingly fragile and vulnerable person perhaps not perfectly cast as Gary Busey, who hates Marylin's exhibitionism and believes Einstein has become her lover, even though Marylin only wants to show Einstein that she understands the Special Theory of Relativity. <br /><br />But there's more. <br /><br />Just like each of us, these characters have their deepest fears, which they reveal one by one in haunting flashbacks. It is these weaknesses, ultimately, that lend humanity to figures we cannot help but see almost exclusively in the abstract today. Finally, we see the shocking terror of Einstein's vision, and the statement of the movie becomes clear. It is a powerful and memorable moment.<br /><br />Insignificance is one of my top five movies of all time. It is utterly amazing.

It's a little disconcerting to have a character named Gig Young in a movie...played by Gig Young. But this film is where Gig got his name and also a nice career boost after playing small parts under another name.<br /><br />I'm going to go against the majority of the other comments and state that I really enjoyed this film, mainly because of the vibrant performance of Barbara Stanwyck as Fiona. She was funny, angry, vulnerable, caring, and feisty as the oldest of three daughters whose mother died on the Lusitania, and whose father was later killed during Woar War I. <br /><br />As the "man" of the house, Fiona has stood steadfast for years against settling her father's will which would therefore allow a Donald Trump type named Charles Barclay to get the family home. But Fiona's keeping a secret as to why she hates Barclay so much. Geraldine Fitzgerald is the middle, flirty sister, who is married to an Englishman but craves her youngest sister's boyfriend (Gig Young).<br /><br />If you're a Stanwyck fan, this is a no miss.

This interesting lost film (written by Terence Malick) stars Stacy Keach and Frederic Forrest as two wacky, Southern brothers on a quest to open a seafood restaurant. Margot Kidder was never prettier and Forrest should have been nominated. Originally titled The Dion Brothers, this light-hearted flick with a violent ending is a pure joy! <br /><br />Where is this film? I've been searching for it for 30 years. Keach was still great back then and I'm surprised it doesn't have more of a cult following (maybe it does). These guys are a crack-up with more ambition than brains, but totally lovable dudes!. A 7 out of 10. If you can dig it up somewhere, you'll have fun.

sdiner82 had clearly not seen the film in decades, and his memory is appalling. His attempts to paint the Mark Lester shaving scene as suspect are utterly erroneous, as are his incorrect comments about the bad guy "sneaking peeks at the kid's body". Lester is clothed for the entire time the man is in the room, and the man barely gives him a glance.<br /><br />The scene is a crude attempt to show Lester's innocent curiosity about the man's body.<br /><br />Like everything in this film, it's badly done, but nothing more.<br /><br />Even sdiner82's comments about Savalas' character who "casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff" is nonsense (it was a single woman, she was already dead, and she was in a car).<br /><br />I suggest that sdiner82's review says far, far more about his own, far from liberal mindset, than it does about this valueless film.<br /><br />The only reason I even bothered to look it up, was out of curiosity to see if it was made before or after Kojak.<br /><br />The film is a worthless piece of 70's trash, but sdiner82's review of it is the worst kind of slander. He wraps up his review in pseudo-intellectual "facts", but the only fact is that he is plain wrong on almost every "factual" matter he discusses.<br /><br />I can only assume that sdiner82 saw exactly what he looked for, which is disturbing. Now he can return to burning copies of Catcher in the Rye.

Never when I was a child did I love any movie more then this one. I would love to own it. I watched it every Sunday they played it on the Family Film Festival. It is an enjoyable film suitable for the whole family and the songs are wonderful.

Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet" hits all the marks. The acting is magnificent, the 70mm cinematography is gorgeous, the Oscar-nominated costumes and sets are stunning, and Patrick Doyle's score (also Oscar-nominated) is sensitive and moving. Oh yeah - the screenplay, by some guy named Will S., isn't too bad either. Film critics ribbed Branagh for receiving the films' fourth Oscar nod for "adapting" the screenplay, but his decision to use the full text was a gutsy one. I can't think of many better ways to make four hours fly by.<br /><br />Nearly every decision Branagh makes works brilliantly: the use of England's Blenheim Palace for exteriors, the Edwardian dress, and the staging of "To be or not to be" in a hall of mirrors, to name a few. The casting of Hollywood luminaries such as Robin Williams, Billy Crystal and Jack Lemmon in minor parts can be distracting, but that's nitpicking. The principal cast excels: Derek Jacobi captures the conflicted nature of Claudius; Kate Winslet acutely depicts Ophelia's descent into madness; Julie Christie brings passion to her portrayal of Gertrude; Richard Briers is pitch-perfect as the conniving Polonius; and Nicholas Farrell elevates the potentially thankless role of Horatio to the apotheosis of true friendship. Every speech, every line, every word is delivered with passion and conviction; there isn't a wasted moment in the entire film. The final scenes magnify the extent of Shakespeare's tragedy in a way not possible with theatrical adaptations.<br /><br />Branagh's "Hamlet" is a bold, ambitious, and ultimately successful attempt to match the grandeur and poetry of Shakespeare's language with equally eloquent imagery. It's arguably the greatest Shakespearean adaptation ever filmed – strong praise, but well deserved.

I think that most people would agree with me if I were to say that the movie Alien pretty much set the bar for atmosphere. I've seen quite a few movies match that bar but none have ever exceeded Alien's eerie tunnels and darkened halls. The Cave is a film that tries very hard to reset the bar. I believe the trailer even mentioned something about being as scary as Alien yet not once throughout the movie did I ever feel even the slightest bit scared, or thrilled for that matter.<br /><br />So now that we got the ball of negativity rolling I might as well explain why the Cave's main hook (the atmosphere in case you weren't paying attention) fizzled into a waste of my time. I'll say right now that most of the sets were gorgeous and nicely lit but what we hear and what we know is there tend to ruin what we see. The music for one is terrible. We either get corny rock music or over exaggerated haunted house music. Okay maybe that's pushing it a bit but I couldn't bear it. The many underwater scenes were bad enough (it's a well-known fact that underwater scenes are always boring as hell) I didn't need rock music blaring in my ears while they were simply swimming through a cave. This actually produced a lot of unintentional laughter that was then amplified by the following watercraft crash scene.<br /><br />Anyway as I already mentioned, it wasn't just the music that killed the atmosphere, heck no. The creatures hiding amongst the darkness are supposed to invoke horror. I'm supposed to be worried that they are going to appear and merely a glimpse of them is supposed to make my blood turn cold. The Cave does wisely take a page from the alien handbook by not showing the entire creature for very long and leading up to the reveal with only glimpses but it just doesn't work because the creatures are so lame. I guess it would be rude to spoil the specifics but they are basically the aliens with wings.<br /><br />I guess you get the point by now. Atmosphere ruined. Yet I know plenty of people who will still see a movie if it's exciting. I'd like to say that about the Cave but I'd be lying. This movie is slow to get to the action and once we get there we sort of wonder when the thing is going to finally call it a day. We've seen all this done better before with the exception of a few neat scenes (the guy impaled on stalactites, the eel and the rapids) so you really don't get any thrills from watching people running from uninspired alien knockoffs in endless tunnels.<br /><br />Ah but no the pain doesn't end there. We must also take the characters and acting into account. Well I can't remember a single line of dialogue other than "run!" and the only character's name I can remember is Jack but that's only because it's placed in almost every other line near the end of the movie. Perhaps the actors were capable but the script didn't allow them to do anything other then run and argue. They had almost no background and whenever somebody died they simply shrugged it off. It's pretty sad when you consider that the CGI eel puts on the best performance in the film.<br /><br />Speaking of CGI; there's plenty of it, most of which is terrible. I do commend them on using suits (at least I THINK they were suits) but nothing truly meshes with the environment and as a result most of the effects end up looking pretty hokey.<br /><br />So I guess to wrap it up, the Cave is bad and has very little going for it. Had the film been a SciFi channel premiere movie or low budget direct to video release I might have a bit more love for it but this film was a theatrical release. With more wit and talent this might have been a frighteningly fun movie but as it stands this film is about as scary as going into the basement and that's not very good.<br /><br />My review from Frider Waves: http://friderwaves.com/index.php?page=cave

I've always loved horror flicks. From some of the usual well-known like "The Exorcist" to some of the more underrated like "Black Christmas" or "Just Before Dawn". But who are people kidding,even calling this trash a b-movie. It's straight up bottom-of-the-barrel Z-grade. The acting is the worst ever on film. Really,I've seen better on an episode of the "Young and the Restless"...SPOILER...Lookout for when the woman comes to tell them about the legend of Jack-o. She pauses sometimes for a matter of seconds as if someone is flashing her cue cards and she's struggling to read her lines. A RIOT! <br /><br />Oh,and besides the bad acting,absolutely no gore or F/X. And Jack-o looked like a plastic lit pumpkin. Watch Linnea Quigley in "Night of the Demons",or "Silent Night,Deadly Night",far superior flicks.

This movie is excellent!Angel is beautiful and Scamp is adorable!His little yelps when hes scared,and the funniest parts are when:Scamp is caught under the curtain and when Angel and Scamp are singing 'Ive Never Had This Feeling Before'.I totally recommend this movie,its coming out on special edition on June 20.The cover has scamp on a garbage can and Angel underneath the lid.<br /><br />I just cant explain this movie more than romantic,charming,hilarious,and adorable.The junkyard scenes are funny,all the junkyard dogs have something special.Too funny i laughed,kids will LOVE it.Buy it when it comes out,it has new features!