Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

I saw this film on September 1st, 2005 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival that screens films for their Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture "...explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that award to this film.<br /><br />This is a story of golf in the early part of the 20th century. At that time, it was the game of upper class and rich "gentlemen", and working people could only participate by being caddies at country clubs. With this backdrop, this based-on-a-true-story unfolds with a young, working class boy who takes on the golf establishment and the greatest golfer in the world, Harry Vardon.<br /><br />And the story is inspirational. Against all odds, Francis Ouimet (played by Shia LaBeouf of "Holes") gets to compete against the greatest golfers of the U.S. and Great Britain at the 1913 U.S. Open. Francis is ill-prepared, and has a child for a caddy. (The caddy is hilarious and motivational and steals every scene he appears in.) But despite these handicaps, Francis displays courage, spirit, heroism, and humility at this world class event.<br /><br />And, we learn a lot about the early years of golf; for example, the use of small wooden clubs, the layout of the short holes, the manual scoreboard, the golfers swinging with pipes in their mouths, the terrible conditions of the greens and fairways, and the play not being canceled even in torrential rain.<br /><br />This film has stunning cinematography and art direction and editing. And with no big movie stars, the story is somehow more believable.<br /><br />This adds to the inventory of great sports movies in the vein of "Miracle" and "Remember the Titans."<br /><br />FYI - There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past winners going back 70 years.

SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)?

I wanted to watch this, to get a inside look at the show. It told the story more of Robin Williams, then Mork & Mindy. Still, thought it was great. We got to see, Robin always being 'on', no matter what. The performance of Diamontopolous was awesome.<br /><br />The introductions of the main players, seem so real to me. Roebuck as Garry Marshall was wonderful. He was so charming in this, which helped me get through all the Williams energy. The little behind the scenes pieces of his other shows (Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley), was enlightening. I also thought Richmond-Peck's Harvey was also a nice rock in the pond. (This is a good thing).<br /><br />This movie told the age old story of Hollywood folks, going through the ups and downs of stardom. It kept me glued to my TV, and I learned to love Robin, well hell, mostly everybody seem to be the super people I sometimes think Hollywood is. Go figure.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder why the network people are always played to be idiots. We never saw the head of ABC. Just heard him, like Charlie from Charlie Angels (I wonder if this way planed?). It seems so sad, that a show at number 1, could be so destroy by their own network.<br /><br />I think this story could be told about anyone's life, as they climb the ladder of any job. Movie, and TV stars are always loved or hated by so many people, that you grew up with, you just want to reach back in their past, to remember your own past. I Remember watching the show, and always wondering what does happen in their personal lives.<br /><br />Mork and Mindy, will always be part of me, and I got to see part of them. It may not all be the truth, it's also all not a lie, but in the end, it told me a wonderful sad, happy story.

people, get a clue! I mean, the writers dont have one, so I would expect you to...this show is SUCH a pale imitation of the '60 show that you can laugh at it! and the sixties show is the one with the cheap special effects, and is in B&W fer Chrissakes! Yet the mood and the writing on the old show is MILES ahead of this drivel. Get HiP kids! if 98 Degrees or Brittany told you to watch it, you would! You know it! Just bypass them and tell all your friends you were 'IN' with the 'scene' BEFORE it became too cool!

Just got out of an advance screening, and wow was this movie hilarious. Possibly better than the first one, but at least its equal. If you don't like jackass, or really unnecessary amounts of male nudity(way more than in the first) then stay far, far away. But if you dig the whole Jackass thing, then this movie will not disappoint. Toro Totter is the greatest invention ever. OK. so my review wasn't long enough... All else i have to say is poor, poor Dunn, they really kick the crap out of him in this. So if you enjoy masochistic humor, and prolific male nudity, and by far the most disgusting female nudity ever (John Waters is involved, need i say more?) then this movie will keep you in stitches for it entirety. I never stopped laughing, and actually came out drenched in sweat.

"Batman: The Mystery of the Batwoman" is about as entertaining as animated Batman movies get.<br /><br />While still true to the feeling of the comic books, the animation is done with a lighter spirit than in the animated series. Bruce Wayne looks much like he has before, but now he appears somewhat less imposing. The Dick Grayson Robin has been replaced by the less edgy, more youthful Tim Drake Robin.<br /><br />Kevin Conroy, as usual, invokes the voice of Batman better than most live action actors.<br /><br />Kelly Ripa did a much more decent voice-acting job than I was expecting.<br /><br />As in the live action Batman films, the movie lives or dies based on the quality of the villains. My all-time favorite, the Penguin, is here. His design is sleeker than it has appeared before, hearkening more to the Burgess Meredith portrayal of the '60's than the Danny DeVito portrayal of "Batman Returns." David Ogden Stiers is the perfect choice for the Penguin's voice. The Penguin is finally portrayed as a cunning sophisticate, just as he most commonly appears in the comics. Hector Elizondo's voice creates a Bane who's much more memorable than the forgettable version in "Batman & Robin." And finally, Batman has a descent mystery to solve, putting the "Detective" back in "Detective Comics" (that is what "DC" stands for, after all.) The revolution to the mystery is a delightfully sneaky twist.<br /><br />The score adds to the mysterious ambiance of the movie. It sounds like a mix between the score from "Poirot" and the score from "Mission: Impossible." All in all, it's more entertaining than your average cartoon.

Michael Caine usually appears in either very good ("Blame It On Rio", "Sleuth", "Without A Clue", "Gambit", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") or truly bad comedies ("Noises Off", "Death Becomes Her", "Harry & Walter Go To NY"). This falls into the latter category.<br /><br />TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.<br /><br />I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say "if you're a Moron fan you'll love this" bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.<br /><br />If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.<br /><br />The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In "Little Miss Sunshine" we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.

Craig Brewer is now officially a writer/director for whom I will see any film by, no matter how bad it may look. His debut, Hustle and Flow, was one of my favorites from that year, with its emotionally charged storyline and realistic, fallible characters. I wasn't quite sure what I would end up thinking after seeing this sophomore effort. The cast seemed great, the trailer used music effectively, however, it seemed like there was a good chance it would cross into absurdity, and fast. Fortunately, Black Snake Moan hits all its marks dead-on. The acting is astonishing, the writing superb, and the editing style, as well as juxtaposed music, riveting the whole way. Brewer seems to be a master at getting his characters to have the right mix of both compassion and malice as they set forward on their paths toward redemption.<br /><br />The first moment I knew I was in for a treat was during the abbreviated credit sequence at the beginning. Like he did with Hustle and Flow, Brewer lays the music over the widescreen shots perfectly with simply titled fonts coming up statically. The 70's aesthetic was welcome and helped show that this would be another great character piece in the vain of those from that decade of some of cinema's best. From here we continued on with the short snippets into the lives of both Lazarus and Rae, each vignette mirroring the other while they journey to the fateful moment their paths finally cross. The editing between them was fluid and relevant rather than abruptly cutting before the scene felt finished with its purpose. Rae's boyfriend leaves for duty in the service and Laz's wife leaves him for his brother. Each feels the loneliness and reverts to what they know in that situation—Rae to sex and Laz to the bottle. Only when Rae is left for dead at the side of the road and her savior comes from his farm to take her in does the reasoning for their actions finally start to become clear.<br /><br />Samuel L. Jackson is fantastic as the older bluesman farmer trying to reconcile his life with God and that of the flesh and the pain it has brought him. There are the moments of stoic sternness as well as those of kindheartedness with his captive/patient. You never really look at the setup as comical or unrealistic because he sells what he is doing so well. Also, the character of Rae is not chained up for very long, despite what the trailers would have you believe. The situation starts a bit awkward until we see that the chaining was for her own good and is actually used for only a day or two. As for that chained girl, Christina Ricci really shines. I never really saw her as anything special, but this role is a true breakthrough for her. This girl is so troubled that her past sexual abuse has scarred her very deep down. Any time she is away from her love she starts seeing flashes of the man who took her childhood innocence away and itches to be touched by any man available to let the image go away. Her nymphomania is not for pleasure, but rather for survival from the haunting nightmares always hiding behind her eyelids. Ricci fully inhabits the role and shows all the emotional trauma to great effect and realism. Mention must also be made of Justin Timberlake, again showing some real acting talent. Where this guy came from I have no clue, but hopefully he will continue taking more films and steer away from the mostly crap music he churns out.<br /><br />While not as solid and consistent as Hustle and Flow, Moan still ranks equally to it, in my mind, because when it is on, it is spectacular. Towards the end we have a truly enthralling sequence with "This Little Light of Mine" singing out, and earlier, the interaction between captive and captor, when the chain is first introduced, shows some top-notch work. The truly magical moment, though, is when Jackson sings (yes that is him throughout, like it was Terrence Howard in Hustle) the titular song while a thunderstorm roars and the lights flicker. If I don't see a more beautifully shot sequence all year, I won't be surprised. What these two people do for each other is wonderful and shows what humanity is capable of. One thing I think I really enjoy with Brewer's work is the fact that he doesn't show sinners becoming redeemed heroes. Instead he shows us that no matter how bad you have been, or how bad life has been, everyone can strive for redemption and to be better people. We don't have saints here, but fallible people looking to right their ship. If the course stays true or if it falls back into darkness, no one really knows, but at least they can say that they tried as hard as they could.

I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the "best movies of the century" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.<br /><br />'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.<br /><br />This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).<br /><br />Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time.

As you may remember I have seem all three of the trilogy of trash and the first movie is the only one even remotely close to be watchable. Part two was low grade sewage and this installment is slightly better then two, but still one steaming pile of something I removed from my backyard last Monday. The premise doesn't make sense, why did the moonshiners murder that poor old lady and even in 1921 I think someone would notice a bunch of oily guys where a sweet little old lady once lived. Second, that scarecrow is pathetic compared to how cool they looked in the first movie. It's just old clothes and a burlap sack. Let's face it, the series is garbage and should be forgotten about. THE NOOSE!

I love watching Australian movies but this steaming pile of crap was just plain embarrassing. The DVD cover looked promising but you know what they say, don't judge a DVD by it's cover. <br /><br />I also noticed that it won Best Actor for an award but the competition must have been really bad because the acting in this film is pathetic. It just seemed that the director thought he had enough talent to direct and act when he should really focus on one part of film-making and get it right before spreading himself too thin. The music was pretty ordinary. The story really didn't go anywhere. It was just a sequence of fights strung together with poor script and cheesy dialogue.<br /><br />I will say this to all aspiring filmmakers though. Watch this film. It will give you hope that your film will win something at some festival.<br /><br />However, good on them for getting in there and having a go. Hope they learned some lessons and their next venture is a little better.

Hey, its great not to have to wait for the next Star-Trek convention to see hick-trek! Its a cheesy film by a bunch of treckies with no budget, but a good way to spend an hour. They got most of the special effects right, the dialog is classic trek and it just feels right for a trek-knockoff.

When it comes to political movies I usually come out feeling empty. They generally take up some moralistic stance and you have a clear good vs bad story line as if it is some sort of Batman movie.<br /><br />But with Lumumba it is the first movie I've seen that showed politics for what it is, and the real issues of trying to rule a country of broken people who have known no other rule but violence. There were no good or bad there were just interests and conflicts of interest. This is the only political movie in my opinion that one can come out of it truly learning something. Especially for anyone with their eye on politics as a career this movie shows you, you cannot rule on what you want for a country, but what the country wants from you.<br /><br />That's why I disagree with a lot of reviews that say everyone comes of bad, I think they come of too idealistic, (the Belgians want the perfect colony, Lumumba wants a perfect Unity Congo, Tshombe wants wealth and riches, America wants the perfect ally against communism, Russia wants the perfect aide for Communism). And the Congolese? They come off used and abused, ( best example in the movie when Général Janssens tells his black troops your government lied to you and it leaves them all in an uproar) they are always being pulled and pushed into supporting this person or another.<br /><br />This movie shows in politics a mistake can cost you dearly and this movie everyone makes mistake after mistake until it escalates and ends up destroying the country. Their intentions might be good (or at least in the characters opinion), but it's everyone's mistakes that lead to the downfall of Congo. I don't think anyone is bad in this film, I just think they want too much from people sick of giving and want to start taking.<br /><br />Overall, it's not just the best political film, it is a great film in general. Acting is fabulous (Eriq Ebouaney as Lumumba was perfect casting I really believe him) script flawless, editing perfect pace, and production value higher than I expected for a central African film. A must watch.

I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.<br /><br />My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!

I saw this originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an added narration by Roy Scheider ("we're going to need a bigger boat!"). This ruined the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me, the film is much better for it!<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Damian

As with some of the best films and series, I stumbled across this quite by accident. It was late, a storm was in full force outside and I was sitting comfortably on the sofa when I flicked past a channel that was just about to show one of the episodes. I intended merely to watch a couple of minutes while waiting for the commercials to be finished on another channel before switching back to some or other sitcom. About an hour and a half later I remembered my resolve and was so happy that I hadn't done that. Needless to say I made sure I saw all the other episodes.<br /><br />John Hannah has been brilliant in almost everything I have seen him in and he does not let down here either. All other cast members do a stellar job too. My personal favourite (aside from John Hannah, of course) is Gerard Murphy.<br /><br />The only negative side to this series are the limited amount of episodes. Only 8 with JH himself and an additional 1 with someone else. I would love to see McCallum back on the screens, though it would have to be with JH!

I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.

I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how "the good old days" may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)<br /><br />{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}

Nothing short of magnificent photography/cinematography in this film. The fact that you keep seeking and hoping for more flying sequences, tells you that they have just enough. The acting is fantastic, the stories are seamlessly woven together, and the dogs are splendid.............<br /><br />A must rent, view, or see.<br /><br />Don't be afraid of subtitles........<br /><br />its worth a little aversion therapy<br /><br />10/10<br /><br />

"The Core" meets "Crack in the World" (1965 made for TV). The acting is stock, the suspense predictable. Once you subtract all of the plot ripped off from "The Core" - basically the manned drilling machine - you end up with the plot of "Crack in the World". "Crack" was a truly excellent movie starring Dana Andrews. His team of scientists, working in South Africa, drilled down to the crust and "punched through" with a nuclear device in order to provide a steady source of geothermic energy. One of his subordinates, also a brilliant scientist disagrees. He believes that the blast will not drill a simple hole, but will instead form cracks in the crust. (Possible spoiler) He is right. In order to stop the resultant crack from destroying the earth they must place another nuclear device in the path of the crack. <br /><br />Although I have placed a spoiler warning, i don't know if I really spoiled anything for either movie. And since "Crack in the World is only available in very rare VHS format if at all my decision not to reveal whether or not the counter-blast works is probably academic.<br /><br />All in all, I rate "Descent' just below average.

If Christopher Nolan had made Memento before Following, then all of the flaws in Following would have been corrected. In Memento, Nolan constructed the switches in time perfectly. We were able to tell when it was the past, when it's current, etc. However, Nolan experimented with it a little, and it just doesn't work. Although he had a small budget and couldn't use color (which is one way Memento worked), it was just too hard to distinguish between time. On the DVD is a feature that allows you to play the scenes in chronological order. I intended to write my review after watching it, so hopefully it would make more sense, but, of course, it wasn't working.<br /><br />You can't blame Nolan for not coming up with original ideas. A young man, Bill (Jeremy Theobald), is bored, so he decides to follow random people on the street. He finds one, Cobb (Alex Haw), that particularly interests him. Soon, Bill becomes friends with Cobb and goes with him as he breaks into houses and robs them. Then, a saucy young blond (Lucy Russell) enters, and the movie becomes even weirder from there.<br /><br />The ending of Following is one of the most shocking endings I've seen. Sure, Fight Club had an amazing ending, but the way that Following's ending played out was amazing. I felt like someone had smacked me on the head and given me a concussion. Nolan has a thing for making good endings (well, maybe not, I could guess Insomnia's from a mile away), and can really construct a great story. Following may not be the easiest to follow or look at, but it's such a finely crafted, original story with a shocker ending that you'll probably want to watch all of its 70 minutes again.<br /><br />My rating: 7/10<br /><br />Rated R for language and some violence.

Brad Pitt sticks his index finger in Diane Kruger's leg wound and keeps it there until he gets what he wants. Funny, horribly so. The invented yarn takes "The Dirty Dozen" for a ride and sometimes abandons it to pay tribute to other movies. Lots of fun. Even "Paris when it sizzles" is mentioned in a delightfully organic piece of dialog. I was thrilled by Christoph Waltzer's character and by his sensational performance. Brad Pitt creates a true original. I love the actor's lack of vanity. There's a quirk in the character that is pure Brad Pitt. Tarantino visits a new universe but. fortunately, his hand. his brain and his heart are visible all over the place.

I first read about the Left Behind series a few months ago and made a mental note to check it out since I have an interest in the way religion is used to control people in our ever more hate filled world, so imagine my surprise and joy when I found a copy of Left Behind : World at War in my local library, nestling innocently among the big budget action movies.<br /><br />Now as a movie it's extremely poor. The acting is straight out of an elementary school production and the "special effects" would have looked dated in the early 90's. Being the third part of a series the story would be unintelligible to anyone who hadn't seen or read about the other Left Behind movies, and even with my prior knowledge it was still pretty laughable.<br /><br />On the religious front, I don't think anyone who wasn't already filled with the spirit of the lord would find anything in the movie to convince them to change their ways. How are you supposed to fear the Antichrist when he's got a comedy Russian accent, and the worst of his powers are some pitiful CGI?<br /><br />However, my main problem with this movie is the blatant attempt to try and dupe people into believing that it's a big budget action movie. Upon picking up the box and reading the spiel I immediately noticed something odd...nowhere on the packaging was there a mention of the true nature of this film. To someone not in the know it would appear for all intents and purposed that Left Behind : World at War was no different from the latest Tom Clancey. Nor, on the copy that I rented did it say anything about it being the third in a series.<br /><br />Considering the whole premise of the series is that the Antichrist has deceived the whole world, I find it extremely hypocritical that the film makers tried to deceive me TWICE before I even got the to counter! If you're so firm in your beliefs then why not be honest about it?<br /><br />The simple fact is, had this not been a "Christian" movie with the built in fan base that goes with it, I seriously doubt it would ever have seen the light of day. If Cloud Ten were hoping that I'd see the error of my ways and give myself to God, I'm afraid to say I would have died of boredom and/or laughed myself to death before I ever had the chance.

Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.<br /><br />The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.<br /><br />And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.<br /><br />Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.<br /><br />The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through? <br /><br />R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else.

I saw this film on television and fascinated by the beauty of Jennifer Mccomb. It was a neat film and you can watch it for the beauty of Africa and of course Mccomb. At that time I was thrilled watching this movie and from then onwards I am trying for VCD of this film but I am unable to find it. Huge African lions makes appearance int his film and we will be spell bounded simply by the size of those animals and grace of them. All section of audience can watch this movie particularly children will enjoy this film. But some scenes involving Mccomb forces parental guidance for this film. It is a enjoyable holiday movie for one and all.

What starts out as generational conflict in this movie, ends in understanding, solemnity and grace. The movie meanders through Europe with the father and the young son cramped in a car over 3000 miles. The cramping forces lifestyles, beliefs and life skills to collide. There's really no clear winner. It all adds up in the end as experience, experience of multiple layers of life. For those interested in understanding Islam, this movie offers a generous and gentle outlook, without being pushy about the agenda. It's a coming of age story for the young son, his dismissive and rebellious nature turning to openness for receiving more ways of life.

"The Vindicator" is a weird little Canadian B-Movie. At first glance it would appear to be just another cheap (extremely cheap!) "Terminator" knockoff, but strangely enough it also shares some qualities with the original "RoboCop," which hadn't even been released yet when "Vindicator" appeared (1986). Coincidence? Who knows? Anyway, the story is thus: scientist Carl Lehman seems to be a pretty nice guy who works for a super duper secret government high-tech research lab, reporting to a sleazy boss named Whyte, whom he butts heads with about project funding early in the movie. Carl's got a loving wife at home and a baby on the way, which makes it all the more tragic when he is suddenly killed in a "lab accident." But wait! Carl's not really dead after all! Whyte has extracted Carl's brain and inserted it into his pet project, some sort of experimental bio-mechanical space suit. When Carl wakes up inside his new body, he understandably goes a little nuts, trashes the lab, and escapes. This is a problem because Whyte (for reasons known only to himself) has programmed the mechanical suit with a "Rage Reaction" program, which will cause Carl to kill anybody who touches him for any reason. In hindsight, that little addition to Carl's psyche was probably not the best idea.<br /><br />So Robo-Carl wanders aimlessly through the movie for a while, killing a couple of random muggers and other assorted background characters, till he returns to his home and contacts his wife (this scene is supposed to be heartbreakingly touching, I guess, but turns out comical because Carl's robot voice is so heavily synthesized that you can barely understand a word he says). He of course tells her to leave the city and never come back because she's in danger, but she wants to stay and help him, yadda yadda yadda. Eventually Whyte hires a gang of commando thugs led by "Hunter," an apparent ninja assassin played by Pam Grier (!)to hunt down and destroy his runaway creation, using Carl's wife as bait, and predictable (but laughably cheap looking) mayhem ensues.<br /><br />I'm a B-Movie kind of guy but "The Vindicator" was so half-assed that it turned into high comedy pretty quickly. I'm assuming that a good hunk of the budget went into Stan Winston's robo-Carl suit design, because that actually looks pretty cool, but the rest of the movie suffers from a cheap, made-for-TV kind of look. The script could've used a LOT more work, but then maybe the filmmakers had gotten wind of "RoboCop" going into production and rushed to get "Vindicator" out so they couldn't be accused of ripping them off. Either way, judging by the other comments here on IMDb, I'm not the only one who's noticed the parallels between "Vindicator" and "RoboCop," and obviously "Robo" is the superior film, so there's no need to waste your time sitting through this piece of nonsense unless you want to see a film that can best be described, at best, as a rough draft of "RoboCop" if it were made by an 8th grader.

To my surprise I quite enjoyed 'Spacecamp', i remember seeing it about 13 years ago, and recently I hired it again. I was quite impressed. Obviously the special effects in todays space films such as Armageddon and Deep Impact are far superior to those in SpaceCamp. However, this film had a story- a very stereotypical eighties story where you could almost recite the next line of dialogue before hearing it. But thats what I liked about it- they don't make films like this anymore, so it was a refreshing change. It was interesting to see Kelly Preston, Leaf Phoenix and Lea Thomson in early roles, with Tom Skerrit and Kate Capshaw to add substance to the light & fluffy plot. Absolutely loved the robot named Jinx, it was very cute, but it unfortunately had more emotion than some of the main characters. The film was almost inspirational in its own way, and it was interesting to note that it was filmed at the NASA Spacecamp in Alabama (i think).

Sure, Titanic was a good movie, the first time you see it, but you really should see it a second time and your opinion of the film will definetly change. The first time you see the movie you see the underlying love-story and think: ooh, how romantic. The second time (and I am not the only one to think this) it is just annoying and you just sit there watching the movie thinking, When is this d**n ship going to sink??? And even this is not as impressive when you see it several times. The acting in this film is not bad, but definetly not great either. Was I glad DiCaprio did not win an oscar for that film, I mean who does he think he is, Anthony Hopkins or Denzel Washington? He does 1 half-good movie and won't do a film for less than $20 million. And then everyone is suprised that there are hardly any films with him in it. But enough about, in my eyes, the worst character of the film. Kate Winslet's performance on the other hand was wonderful. I also tink that the director is very talented to put a film of such a magnitude together. There is one lesson to be learned about this movie: there are too many love-stories as it is, filmmakers shouldn't try to add a crummy romance in to every single movie!!! Out of a possible 100% I give this film a mere 71%.

This movie is a remake of two movies that were a lot better. The last one, Heaven Can Wait, was great, I suggest you see that one. This one is not so great. The last third of the movie is not so bad and Chris Rock starts to show some of the comic fun that got him to where he is today. However, I don't know what happened to the first two parts of this movie. It plays like some really bad "B" movie where people sound like they are in some bad TV sit-com. The situations are forced and it is like they are just trying to get the story over so they can start the real movie. It all seems real fake and the editing is just bad. I don't know how they could release this movie like that. Anyway, the last part isn't to bad, so wait for the video and see it then.

*THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS... OR MAYBE NOT. THE WARNING IS THE SAME FOR ALL*<br /><br />Dang it. Just when I thought that SCIFI Channel had used all of its ridiculous ideas for movies, they give us THIS. Actually, the plot itself it's nothing we haven't seen in movies like Snakes On A Plane, Deep Blue Sea, etc... That means, a monster/animal/menace of some kind is lurking in a close environment threatening a bunch of people. In this case, an alien in a train. Wow.<br /><br />I must say that, when I first saw this thing on cable, I couldn't stop laughing. No SCIFI film had prepared me for this; it was so incredibly pathetic I couldn't believe it! The actors are all a bunch of stereotypical-genre characters. But since they're not so famous (to say the least), I wasn't expecting much of them. Except Diamond Phillips. No comments there, but I think the guy was desperate to find a job. The problem was something called 'special effects', horrible even for SCIFI Channel standards. That model/toy they made us believe it was a real train (not to mention the model/toy helicopter, bigger than a train's wagon), the meteor coming HORIZONTALLY from space, the 'baby' alien (a sock puppet, and I ain't kiddin'), the regular aliens who looked pretty ugly... while they were static; when they started "moving", it was awful, the explosions (the terrorist blew up LITERALLY! And what about the exploding helicopter! Just how many barrels of gas was that thing carrying?), the insane mathematics used (they couldn't even solve a school problem right!)... And I won't talk about that doomsday-like ending, by that time I didn't know if to keep laughing or to start crying. If I remember right, I did both.<br /><br />It's an ideal movie to have a good laugh, alone or with friends. But be warned; it's so ridiculous at SO MANY levels... and you need a heck of a lot of suspension of disbelief...

I like this episode quite a bit, Ruth Gordon is good if not a little hammy as she always was. As has been stated, the music is very good, and it has a moodiness that doesn't exist in all episodes.<br /><br />But one major plot hole exists, so wide you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. It is established that the light doesn't work in the vault. Don't you think that the very intelligent Columbo or the rest of the police would have thought to check if the light bulb worked? You'd think in pretty short order they would have unscrewed the bulb and so found the note. Granted this is TV whodunit fiction, and various holes will always be found, but this seems much too glaring.<br /><br />It really doesn't make Columbo out to be the hidden genius when the light doesn't work but the "death bed" testimony goes on unfound, apparently for days.

Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.<br /><br />Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".<br /><br />If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.<br /><br />The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.<br /><br />The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.<br /><br />There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.

A trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought "this cant be bad"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the "not so scary" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking "Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about.

Is this the movie??? Is this what Indians are trying to show?? I think this is one more effort from a sick-minded director to turn down Pakistani soldiers and in fact country....but what we Pakistani's know that we are always ahead of India in every part of our lives...not only in armed counters.<br /><br />Well...this is bad filmed as that of Border in early 1997...and director and writer just tried to overcome a shame of defeat in Kargil by Pakistani armed forces, by creating films like these..<br /><br />One thing is very clear...Whenever there will be an encounter between Pakistan and India....we will win....!!! So Mr. Dutta try to make some good movies instead of Nonsense movies like this

Suzumiya Haruhi no yûutsu (The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya) might at a first glance make you think that this is just another animated school comedy/drama. Well, it's not! The setting just happen to be a school environment. This is a comedy alright, but a very smart one with a lot of sarcasm. And the characters does have a psychological sublimeness which is almost in the same class that can be found in the works of Ingmar Bergman. The episodes is aired, as it seems, out of order, i.e. the pilot is in fact episode 11. This makes it possible to present small clues to upcoming episodes. The show is an adaption of Nagaru Tanigawa's popular novel series about Haruhi Suzumiya.<br /><br />What about the story then? Like in all the episodes does the story revolves Haruhi Suzumiya, who tries to ease her own boredom by embarking in adventures. Haruhi her self has no interest in ordinary humans, and actively searches for aliens, time travelers and espers (persons with supernatural forces). To find this sort of people she has formed a club which she calls the SOS-Brigade (Save the world by Overloading it with fun: Haruhi Suzumiyas Brigade). Except for Haruhi, the other members of the SOS-brigade is Kyon. He is the real protagonist of the show. It's trough his point of view that we follow the story. He just happen to sit in front in class when Haruhi came up with the idea to form the SOS-Brigade. He is quite sceptical to most club activities and tags along just to ensure that Haruhi don't go to much to the extremes, and he is the only one in the class that Haruhi likes to talk with. Another member is Yuki Nagato, which is the "indispensable silent member" and is also the only remaining member of the Literature club, which room the SOS-Brigade has occupied in the quest for a free club room. She doesn't mind that the SOS-Brigade uses her clubroom, as long as she can sit in a corner and read her books. She also participate in the brigades activities. Mikuru Asahina was "voluntarily arrested" by Haruhi because the club needed a Lolita-like mascot for anything suspicious to happen. She often act as the clubs maid. The last member is the always smiling Itsuki Koizumi, who happens to be the "mysterious transfer student" (meaning he transfered two months in to the semester which Haruhi finds to qualifies as mysterious).<br /><br />Haruhi thinks that all members but Kyon are some random picked people in school, but the do indeed have their own interest in her.

I've always loved "Gone With The Wind" and have seen it numerous times. However, its ending left me not only "hanging," but depressed, with a hopeless feeling. Finally, in "Scarlett," Ripley took us to a very plausible and satisfying end ("beginning") of the original story.<br /><br />It follows that someone of Scarlett's obvious intelligence (as originally written) would eventually grow up. Although, like most people, I fell in love with Scarlett in GWTW, I tired of her constant insipid infantiilism to the point of exasperation, and I was disappointed that Mitchell did not show Scarlett using that obvious intelligence to even make an attempt to grow emotionally. Thankfully, someone finally did. (After all, isn't that nagging immaturity that conflicted with her beauty and intelligence the very reason Rhett finally gave up on her in the first place?) I think Ripley did an excellent job of describing that long-overdue process, and Whalley-Kilmer did a superb job of portraying it. Joanne W-K has all the fire, exuberance and intelligent sparkle as did Vivian Leigh, and she is certainly at least as, if not more, beautiful.<br /><br />There was, is, and always will be only one Clark Gable. However, if I had to pick an actor out of the thousands to which I've been exposed to portray him in his biography, it would definitely be Timothy Dalton. Dalton possesses the same elegant charm that Gable did, which is essential for Rhett's character. I can't imagine anyone else who could come close.<br /><br />In my opinion, both Joanne Whalley-Kilmer and Timothy Dalton were superbly cast and the only actors who could have possibly played Scarlett and Rhett. I think both their performances did justice to not only the late actors but also the spirit of their characters.<br /><br />I enjoyed the whole cast. Julie Harris was her usual delightful presence, and Jean Smart was an adorable kick! Even Ashley's character was nicely played by Stephen Collins, and the progression of his relationship with Scarlett was totally believable.<br /><br />The story became a little convoluted in Ireland, but so is life, after all, and I still found it entertaining.<br /><br />All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of Ripley's imagination. I wish I'd written it!<br /><br />

Evil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 4/10

"We're both stumbling around together in this unformed world, whose rules and objectives are largely unknown, seemingly indecipherable or even possibly nonexistent, always on the verge of being killed by forces that we don't understand." So says Ted Pikul in the film. Which for some people sums up life and 'eXistenZ' probably is a film about existence. What is real and what is unreal and how you tell the difference. Or not. The last line of the film is superbly ambiguous.<br /><br />The film seems like a shaggy dog story (indeed it has a real shaggy dog in it) but it takes you along on an interesting ride, full of provocative Cronenberg touches that will make you look at amphibians, game pods, fish, spines and bones in a new light. Some bits are quite icky. It takes place in a rural setting where the gas station is called 'GAS STATION' and a Chinese restaurant is called 'CHINESE RESTAURANT.'The film has an engrossing texture that is leagues away from your usual big budget science fiction movie.You can read many things into the film and it repays watching more than once.<br /><br />The main actors are Jude Law who is OK and Jennifer Jason Leigh who is great. Some roles don't suit this very talented actor but when she has a good role like this she is unmatchable. Her unconventional beauty and fascinating voice suits the part of Allegra. (Looks great in a short black skirt too.) There are other familiar actors but they are not given much to do. It looks good, sounds good and a Howard Shore score complements the film very well. Cronenberg is possibly the Alfred Hitchcock of the sci-fi/horror genre. No matter what film he makes he is always worth watching.

I just watched this movie for the first time after finishing the book last week. What's the problem here? Folks admit that the performances are great--I mean, Lange is stellar!--and that the film is good-looking, but it's got less than a '6'! I don't get it. Come on! The writing's not that bad!<br /><br />Having read a lot of Pulitzer-winning novels, and having seen a lot of the films based on them, I think a better-than-decent job was done in bringing the screenplay together. I thought the paring down of all the dialogue in the novel was executed almost perfectly. This story had a pretty hefty amount of dialogue in it, and the story really came through on the screen despite the fact that only a portion of it was used.<br /><br />**BOOK SPOILER PART** I was, however, a little disappointed in the Ginny-tries-to-kill-Rose subplot's being omitted. I thought that was one of the more emotionally jarring parts of the book, but it was probably a good bet to leave it out. Avid movie-goers, more than avid readers, I think, tend to be less forgiving of protagonists pulling antagonistic stuff. It's apt to confuse Johnny Lunchpail and Joe Sixpack.<br /><br />If you loved the book, you will like the movie. If you hated the book, you will likely hate the movie.<br /><br />********<br /><br />Rog

The plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless

I did not have too much interest in watching The Flock.Andrew Lau co-directed the masterpiece trilogy of Infernal Affairs but he had been fired from The Flock and he had been replaced by an emergency director called Niels Mueller.I had the feeling that Lau had made a good film but it had not satisfied the study,so they fired him and hired another director.This usually does not work well (let's remember The Invasion).But The Flock resulted to be better than what I expected.It's not a great film but it's an interesting and entertaining thriller.The character development is very well done and I could know the characters very well.Also,the relationship between the two main characters is natural and credible.Richard Gere and Claire Danes bring competent performances.Now,let's go to the negative points.One element which really bothered me (there was a moment in which it irritated me) was the excess of edition tricks to give the movie more "attitude" and style.That tricks feel out of place and their presence is arbitrary.Plus,I think the film should have been more ambitious.In spite of that,I recommend The Flock as a good thriller.It's not memorable at all,but it's entertaining.

Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.

A priest who has abandoned his ministry meets a young man who has just been ordained.<br /><br />This movie is about the cruel dilemma between a life dedicated to God and faith and a life of more earthly pleasures. In post war France it is also about the mortal aspect of Faith itself.<br /><br />This may not be the movie of a lifetime but it is a sin to have allowed it to fall in oblivion. Besides, Pierre Fresnay is sublime.

Lifeforce starts in outer space where the HMS Churchill tracks Haley's Comet & it's equipment detects a 150 mile long alien spaceship in the head of the comet, unable to contact Earth because of interference Colonel Tom Carlsen (Steve Railsback) decides this is the one & only chance to investigate it. Going outside in spacesuits Carlsen & some of his crew enter the mysterious spaceship & find the remains of a bat like race of creatures & three perfect looking humanoids, two men (Chris Jagger & Bill Malin) & a beautiful woman (Mathilda May) all of whom they take aboard the Churchill. Thirty days later & back on Earth the Churchill is detected on radar, a rescue mission is sent up only to discover the spaceship is burnt out & all the crew supposedly dead. The rescue team do find the three humanoid aliens though & take them back to Earth where in a space research center in London they come back to life & start to literally suck the lifeforce out of human victims who then in turn need to do the same to stop themselves turning into dust, things look grim as the epidemic spreads throughout London...<br /><br />This English production was produced by the notorious Menahem Golan & Yoram Globus who during the early 80's were responsible for lots of cheap low budget action flicks under their production company Cannon usually starring Chuck Norris & they wanted to move into the big time & signed director Tobe Hooper up on a three film deal (which were this Lifeforce, the Invaders from Mars (1986) remake & The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) a sequel to Hooper's own classic) all of which flopped & basically bankrupt both Golan & Globus & Cannon was no more. Anyway, despite being a commercial flop at the box-office I have to say I think Lifeforce is a highly enjoyable, if rather silly sci-fi horror. When originally released into theatres back in '85 Lifefore was cut down to 101 minutes by Golan & Globus but over the past few years the longer 116 minute cut has all but replaced it on DVD, VHS, Laserdisc & TV although apparently Hooper's original cut of the film ran for 128 minutes so there's even more footage out there somewhere. I will be basing my comments on the longer 116 minute cut, the script by Dan O'Bannon, Don Jakoby & uncredited rewrites by Michael Armstrong & Olaf Pooley was based on the 1976 novel 'The Space Vampires' by Colin Wilson & has many extraordinary ideas, it's scope is truly ambitious & one felt that it ends up being a bit of a mess but a hell of an entertaining one. It moves along like a rocket & at heart there's a really interesting story here although the film gets itself into a tangle. There are also some hilarious moments in Lifeforce, the scene when the security guard tries to convince the naked female Vampire to surrender by offering her a half eaten biscuit is a true camp classic, the horribly overwrought hypnosis scenes including the one where Railsback ends up kissing Patrick Stewart & many, many more besides. I don't know, call me weird but I just thought Lifeforce was tremendous fun & highly entertaining in just about every way, from silly character's, odd dialogue, strange ideas that never quite come together & some terrific visuals Lifeforce certainly isn't a film that will bore you.<br /><br />Director Hooper had just about more money here to play around with than he ever has (double what he had for Poltergeist (1982) even) & he uses every bit of it to bring this spectacular film to the big screen, John Dykstra the guy responsible for Star Wars (1977), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) & more recently Spider-Man (2002) was brought in to handle the visual effects & generally speaking they look fabulous. The sequences set in outer space with spaceships in particular look great, there's also some really good visual effects back on Earth including the destruction of London as 100's of blue souls fly around everywhere. There's some nudity but not much gore, there are some withered corpses, a few gunshot wounds, the skin on someones hand peels off, blood spurts from someones eyes, nose & ears & there's a severed arm as well as some zombies. The special make-up effects are also generally very good. I wouldn't say Lifeforce is scary as such as it's more of a sci-fi film than horror, I loved the way Hooper shoots the outer space sequences as he keeps rotating his camera to effectively capture the feeling of weightlessness & that there is no 'solid' floor as it were.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $25,000,000 it made less than half that in it's theatrical run & hasn't set the world alight on video or DVD either which is a shame because although it's a bit of a mess it's very enjoyable to watch. Shot on location in England. Well filmed in 2:35:1 widescreen, the 4:3 cropped image is horrible & cuts huge chunks of information from both sides of the screen, this is most noticeable during the opening scenes set in outer space where sometimes it's hard to make out what's going on & the sense of the vastness of space & the alien spaceship is lost. The acting is OK in a very silly film, Patrick Stewart replaced Sir John Gielgud, Nancy Paul replaced Olivia Hussey, Frank Finlay replaced Klaus Kinski while Anthony Hopkins turned the role of Caine down.<br /><br />Lifeforce is a bizarre film, no two ways about it really & anyone looking for something simple & straight forward should look elsewhere. Anyone looking for something a bit different in the sci-fi genre than give Lifeforce a go as it's one of those so bad it's good films with some impressive effects & it isn't your average run of the mill film by any means.

A Bugs Life is a great film that is not just for kids but for adults too. The story is set around a colony of ants and their struggle against the evil Grasshoppers who come back every year and steal their food ( A Mirror of the Magnifiscent seven). There is some wonderfull computer animation and the voices are great too. You will love it!! 8 out of 10

Two things are always signs that you`re going to be watching a bad movie :<br /><br />1 ) If you`re instantly reminded of other movies like THE TERMINATOR, HARDWARE or BLADE RUNNER during the title sequence <br /><br />2 ) If there`s a death during a sex scene straight after the title sequence<br /><br />There`s actually a third warning sign and that`s a caption indicating lazy exposition warning the poor ignorant naive audience of the dangers of corporate greed . Guess what ? CYBORG 2 starts with a caption warning us of corporate greed in the future , followed by a title sequence that reminded me of THE TERMINATOR , HARDWARE and BLADE RUNNER followed by a death during a sex scene ! Hey you don`t suppose I`ll be watching a bad movie by any chance ? <br /><br />As you can guess this is a bad movie . It`s basically a series of action scenes written around a thread bare plot of a cyborg on the run from a greedy corporate company . It`s badly written , directed and acted and most especially it`s badly lit which means it`s very difficult to see what`s happening on screen , though I`m not entirely sure this is actually a bad thing . The only interest to be had is that it`s the film debut of Angelina Jolie who plays the cyborg on the run and who says the prophetic line " They`re lovely , I wonder if they`re real ? " which is something I ask myself whenever I see one of her movies

Saw this film the first time in 1953 with my older brother. It was one of the great 3 Demension films released in that era. We saw it at least thirteen times and were proud of it. Scott does a typical western shoot em up job while surrounded by the Indian arrows rather than surround sound. Oh, for those polaroid lenses again.

Just watched the film for the 3rd time and enjoyed Lindsay Crouse and the rest of the cast just as much as before. It just keeps getting better and better. You simply have to marvel at the carefully measured way of speech, the slow deliberate action, everything being exactly in place.<br /><br />Truly one of the great ones and definitely my all-time favourite!!!

I totally agree that the reenactments kill what could otherwise be a great show. I'll admit that I'd seen 1 or 2 episodes last season and was not clear at all that it was all reenacted. But when I caught one episode recently it suddenly jumped out at me BIG TIME and I lost interest immediately. Then I noticed the disclaimer at the start before an episode that followed. Has anyone followed the show closely enough to tell me, did they actually make the "acting" and reenacting parts more artificial on purpose, or did I just not notice before. I'm usually pretty good at sensing this stuff, but the recent episode was so obviously artificial I practically tripped over it. Now I have no interest whatsoever in watching and have given up entirely on it. It just doesn't have any real value if it's all scripted and acted. And at least lately, it seems VERY poorly scripted and acted. The comment above that says who cares if it's all reenactments, I do. Without visual truth, this is just a bunch of "you know what happened, one time this guy" heresay. It's info better read in a book.

The first five minutes of this movie showed potential. After that, it went straight from something possibly decent to some sort of illegitimate comedy. The best part is that I couldn't stop thinking of Supertroopers thanks to Joey Kern. I would recommend watching this movie for the sheer fact of learning how not to make a movie. There are so many scenes in this movie that makes one just stop and wonder if the entire cast and crew just stopped caring at some point. The thing that amazes me most about this movie is that it grossed $22 million in the box office and only cost about $1.5 million to make. Congrats to Lion's Gate for being able to pull that one off.

First of all, the big named actors must need the money... The surgical scenes were laughable.... and surely they must know that people who have a little knowledge of medicine would find this utterly absurd......Anesthesiologists do not leave the room during a heart transplant....nor do they do the surgery in a tiny room devoid of instruments, heart lung equipment and sterile techniques... just a joke... couldn't concentrate on the story line because of all the stupid surgery scenes... no blood, no personnel and then the hero doc coming in and taking over... it is not a film for thinking adults....Also the budget must have been limited... the street scenes were OK but who was the technical adviser....Seems like it was directed by a total idiot.. Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD and Don't rent it..

This film was made thirteen years before I was born but I still think it is the wittiest, dottiest, most harmless piece of fun ever made. It simply could not go wrong with the cast of superb British character actors it boasts.<br /><br />Where to start? Alastair Sim-peerless; Margaret Rutherford-ditto;the wonderfully alkward, innocent Gossage, played to perfection by the imperious Joyce Grenfell. The caddish Victor Hyde-Brown (a Guy Middleton special) and the rest of the staff sum up post-war middle-class England to a tee.<br /><br />The humour is sometimes obvious, but it is of that special "Ealing" variety and is never offensive.<br /><br />I have watched this film more times than I care to remember and still laugh like a drain at the antics every time. The storming of the dorms occupied by the girls school, the magnificently-planned but ultimately doomed twin tours of the school and the chaotic ending involving the arrival of a third school to add to the anarchy, are priceless.<br /><br />It's an old cliché I know, but they really do not make them like that anymore. How I wish they did. If you haven't seen it, please do, you won't be disappointed.

Thank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.

She's not Michael Jordan<br /><br />Think of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.<br /><br />I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.<br /><br />I still remember that for some time after I saw "The Devil's Advocate" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in "2 Days in the Valley" and "Mighty Joe Young" and Gretchen Mol was in "Donnie Brasco", "Celebrity", and "Rounders".<br /><br />By the time I had seen "The Thirteenth Floor" (Mol) and "Sweet November" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.<br /><br />Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.<br /><br />In 2003 "Monster" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the "Best Actress" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!<br /><br />Then in 2005 "The Notorious Bettie Page" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a "B" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naïve, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating.

I do not see what is the whole deal about this movie. Patricia Kaas sings, yes, and that makes the film charming, but singing is not enough. I mean, if you want to get all benefits of this one, go buy Patricia's CD and enjoy! The plot is simple (if to omit the "dreams"); the main characters seem to love each other instantly, and as well instantly forget their other acquaintances. Relationships appear almost "mandatory", and the little "detective story" thrown in just makes things worse. What at first appeared to be a perfect movie ending, is first screwed up and then comes out as just a dream. I measure movies by how well I would remember them, and for this one, I already started to forget the details.

I was really stunned how much a film, that's over 60 years old could impress me. It is nearly two hours long, there are absolutely no stars in it, there are subtitles but nevertheless it is interesting and exciting to watch. What impressed me mostly was the realism of the film. You could nearly feel the coldness of the ice, because you could see that the storms are real. This is a relief in a CGI-world like ourdays. I wondered how much work this must have been for van Dyke. I read somewhere that it took 17 months to film it. Now who wants to talk about 'Titanic' anymore? It's a great film with a great message and I would recommend it to future directors to see how great and realistic movies can be if they are only directed with realism instead of visual effects.

Solo starts as a team of US soldiers go into Soth America to blow up a rebel airstrip, joining them is a robot named Solo (Mario Van Peebles) who can use any weapon ever made, is fifteen times stronger & ten times faster than any human being. Something goes wrong though & Solo refuses to kill innocent civilians which Colonel Frank Madden (William Sadler) isn't happy about, back at base & General Haynes (Barry Corbin) orders Solo to be shut down & reprogrammed. One of Solo's main directives is self preservation so decides to escape back into the South American jungles where Colonel Madden & his men are sent in to recapture it...<br /><br />This Mexican American co-production was directed by Norberto Barba & one has to say Solo is awful. The script by David Corley was based on the novel 'Weapon' by Robert Mason & is one cliché after another, robots were popular at the time Solo was made in Hollywood & at the box-office so Solo rip-offs the likes of Robocop (1987), Universal Soldier (1992) & the two Terminator flicks as well as having the same setting & basic story as Predator (1987). This is the usual rubbish about an emotionless robot who grows a sense of humanity while being around people, at first he doesn't know what a joke is or why one person would care for another but by the end he develops emotions & starts to befriend people, sounds like Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) to me. The character's are poor & Colonel Madden in particular is given absolutely no motivation for hating Solo at all & why he would kill other US soldiers & disobey orders to destroy it. You know I saw this on cable telly last night for free (thank god I didn't spend any money on it) & I looked it up in the TV guide & do you know what it said? My TV guide described Solo as a 'dire sci-fi action starring Mario Van Peebels' which when I think about it is a perfect description of Solo. In less than ten words my TV guide has hit the nail on the head, I mean it's a sci-fi action film, it certainly stars Mario Van Peebles & it's definitely dire. Enough said really.<br /><br />Director Barba doesn't do anything particularly special here & the action scenes lack any real excitement & the sci-fi elements are virtually none existent apart from the fact Solo is a robot. So the military lose Solo & Colonel Madden is sent in to recapture it right? I'm not being funny but wouldn't the military have put a 'self destruct' mechanism inside Solo in case something like that happened? Surely at the very least Solo would have had a tracking device inside it so the military would at least know where it was at any given time? I'm not being funny but these people can come up with a walking talking robotic soldier but they are not clever enough to realise that a tracking or self destruct device might be useful if anything went wrong? The violence is mild, there are a few OK fight scenes but this is pretty weak stuff really.<br /><br />Technically the film looks alright & is competently made, it was actually shot in Mexico. The makers of the Dolph Lundgren action flick Agent Red (2000) edited footage from Solo into that film. The acting is poor, Van Peebles was the perfect choice to play an emotionless robot... William Sadler deserves better than this, it was only a few years prior he was staring in the fantastic Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990).<br /><br />Solo is a really bad sci-fi action flick which is basically a huge rip-off of big budget Hollywood sci-fi action films like Robocop, Universal Soldier & the Terminator films. Not recommend & I'm going to start & pay more attention to my TV guide when it comes to choosing films to watch...

I stumbled upon this movie by chance. I was traveling a few years back and this movie was on some channel on cable at the hotel late one night. Not much else on and figured I watch it for about 20 to 30 minutes until I decided to go to bed. Needless to say, I stayed up and watched the complete movie. The plot was very interesting and does make you wonder if there had not been SS who did this or at least thought of doing it. I have been looking all over for this movie. I even sent and email to the production company, but the weren't sure that it would ever make it to DVD, but said there was always hope. If anyone finds this movie drop a note here where you found it, as I'd sure like to get a copy some day.

Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.<br /><br />While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. <br /><br />Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.

"Cleo's Second Husband" is an amateurish attempt at psychodrama with more to fault than to praise. The plot is hacked, the story monotonous, the acting poor, the execution second rate, etc. Not worth the time unless maybe your a relative of one of the actors. PU! (D)

"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.

**May Contain Spoilers**<br /><br />A luckless South Sea islander is executed by other (Caucasian-looking) natives after he befriends visiting scientists Tod Andrews and Tina Carver. The meddlesome scientists dig him up and find that he has taken the form of a humanoid tree. He comes to life and goes on a rampage and sure enough, that Fifties boogeyman, the A-Bomb, is blamed for this aberration. To state that this particular monster walks like it has a stick up its a** would be redundant. Suffice it to say that the critter lumbers along, like the film itself, throwing his enemies into some handy quicksand and giving the main characters one more thing to make stupid comments about. Paul Blaisdell created the tree-man suit and it's hardly his best work. Over the years this flick has been sujected to many comments like "To Hell it can go!" Personally I think it's the best walking-tree movie I've ever seen.

I just viewed MURDER AT THE VANITIES in the newly-released Universal Pre-Code set, and I was amazed at how much I enjoyed the vehicle end to end. Most of the other commentators have covered the story, a murder mystery within a musical, but I wanted to add a few additional notes. Brisson and Carlisle are relatively bland, compared to even most of the minor players, and neither one really seems to have the proper voice for what they're singing (Carlisle being a trained opera singer, Brisson a bit wobbly on some of his high and low notes). The great Victor McLaglen and Jack Oakie play well off each other, with an excellent sense of timing that keeps the ball rolling between musical numbers. Yes, Lucille Ball and Ann Sheridan are Vanities girls, but let's not forget the splendid jazz singer Ernestine Anderson in the "Ebony Rhapsody" number. Gail Patrick makes one of her early appearances, sounding a bit like Eve Arden; Patrick would go on to become the executive producer of the Perry Mason TV series. Then there's Jessie Ralph as the wardrobe mistress--you'll spot her also in David COPPERFIELD (as Aunt Peggoty) and THE BANK DICK. The music is very good--Brisson introducing the standard "Cocktails for Two" in two different scenes; "Sweet Marihuana" with barely clad peyote button girls in the background (blood dripping on one chorine's white skin was wonderfully chilling); the "Ebony Rhapsody," with Duke Ellington's Orchestra and a bevy of beautiful dancers, both black and white, mixing it up. And I believe this is one of the only early musicals to feature such a mix--and the costumes leave nothing to the imagination.

Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.<br /><br />Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.<br /><br />The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like "We had a limited budget" and "with our limited timeline" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent "Droid Runner" (Fred Olen Ray) or "The Dead Hate the Living" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing "Killer Eye")<br /><br />Grade: D-

Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.

The Bible teaches us that the love of money is the root of all evil. The love of money leads to greed which can lead to pride and eventually to destruction. Two brothers, Andy and Hank, will discover how far the love of money will cost them and those they love the most.<br /><br />Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) couldn't be more different. Andy is seemingly enjoying the success of working in New York's real estate market and is married to his beautiful wife Gina (Marisa Tomei) who is the idea of a trophy wife if one ever existed. Hank, however, is divorcée who finds himself at the mercy of his ex-wife, his daughter's expensive school bills, and endless amount of child support payments. A man who means well and has good intentions, Hank none the less cannot escape the water that his slowly raising above his head no matter how hard he swims to stay above it.<br /><br />However, Andy has his own problems with the only difference between him and his brother being that he hides them better. He has committed fraud against his company and is heavily involved in drug use in order to escape his fears. The pressure of his life, and the lies he needs to keep his appearances up, have now caused him to think about fleeing the country with Gina in order to start over again. Of course, like Hank, he needs money to do this and believes he knows how to get it. How? By robbing the jewelery store that their parents own and run. This act of betrayal is where the Hanson brothers, their families, and several other lives, will be destroyed because of greed, pride, and fear. <br /><br />The uniqueness of Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is the manner in which the story is told. After the robbery goes wrong, and Nanette Hanson (Rosemary Harris) who is the mother of both Andy and Hank is killed, the story is told from a variety of different points of view from various days before and after the robbery attempt. We learn more about the motivations of not only Andy and Hank but also the reaction to their father Charles (Albert Finney) to the death of his wife. The relationship between Charles and his two sons, especially to Andy, is also explored and another possible motivation of sorts is discovered after it is revealed that there is little love between the two men. Nanette may have been dearly loved by her sons but their father is a different story.<br /><br />Philip Seymour Hoffman proves once more why he is one of the most impressive actors in Hollywood today by portraying Andy as not only a greedy criminal with lack of morality but also, in contradictory way, as a man we can sympathize with. Ethan Hawke also brings Hank alive not just as a loser but really as a man just desperate to hang on to what little he has left. Andy and Hank are thus brought to life in such a realistic way that it is easy to think of them as not just characters but the very real images of lost and confused men who now find themselves facing the consequence of their actions.<br /><br />Before The Devil Knows You're Dead is a moral tale about how our actions lead to consequences that we otherwise might not expect to face. More than that, our choices also can affect those around us in ways we never expected. In what should have been best picture of the year, we see how lives are easily broken when the love of money becomes the ultimate pursuit in order to ease our troubled lives. In other words, there are no easy fixes or answers to our problems and trying to find them can only make things worse.<br /><br />10/10

This movie describes a truly horrific event, to be sure. But it all falls down from poor performances from all the cast. It is impossible to feel the emotion of almost any character, as all the emotional scenes seem like parodies of themselves. For example, a character is shot at the start of the movie, and you get the clichéd desperate, "Am I gonna make it, Sergeant?", "Yeah it ain't nothing'", but it plays out like a sketch from a Wayans Brothers movie (I don't know if they've made the War Movie yet) or something starring Leslie Nielsen.<br /><br />The sergeant played by Sean Penn reminds me of Al Bundy from Married With Children, while Fox is the greatest self-deprecating good-guy cliché you can imagine... Thank God he curses and smokes during it.<br /><br />His emotional "NOOOO!!!" is definitely more suited to comedies like Back To The Future than so-called serious movies such as this.<br /><br />To their credit, some of the "main" scenes... (without giving too much away, where they actually perform some fairly horrific acts) ...are well done and do make us take the subject matter seriously. But that is in spite of, not thanks to the acting.

This movie shocked me. It was so realistic and the story was incredible touching. They talk German and Russian, which makes it more believable and real. This is a must-see movie. The actors are great too. Really a good piece of work. The plot takes place within a German troop in WWII. They have to go to Stalingrad, Sovjet, to fight against the Sovjetian armies. You get more connected with every soldier in this group and follow them through all the perils as they get captured within Stalingrad. They get face-to-face meetings with death, blood, grief and the coldness of Russia. This is a must-see-movie and you cant afford not to see it.

Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying "Wolfe is dead" or "Nouvelle-France is no more" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.<br /><br />An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as "so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it." That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring "You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.<br /><br />Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven Tchéky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.<br /><br />Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better.

This movie took the Jerry Springer approach to super-human power. "Wilder Napalm" is the kind of theme-based movie that I love, addressing the idea that prodigies in America are defined either by their gifts or by attempts to hide them. At the same time, the movie points out that every prodigy is only human, and no more to be feared or worshipped than any other human being. This was a great comedy, fun and human with that slight satiric edge.

This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!

This is not a horror film, but a boring sex movie. A very bad movie, to be avoided by any serious horror fan. No plot, awful acting and annoying music. If you only watch the trailer you will know enough... It's a shame that such thing is available on VHS or video while there are so many good movies unavailable. If you like vampires try the Hammer Productions or the Italian Gothic from Mario Bava and Antonio Margheriti instead. Those are masterpieces if you compare this with this trash. Rating = even "1" is too much! And believe me, I am not the only one with this opinion.

I recall seeing this film on TV some years ago and not paying full attention, maybe even missing the first half, so I came to the conclusion that it was dull and over rated. I decided to revisit it last night to see if I had missed anything the first time. I certainly did. This is one of the most disturbing and amazing films of all time and it has clearly had much influence on films today and probably will forever. I can't believe I thought this film was boring! <br /><br />A young Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give the performances of their careers and are supported by Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. This story will leave you with a sense of disgust and dread long after you watch it, it is truly horrifying. Oh, and did I mention that the theme song is great, as well? Well it is, and this movie should be seen by movie fans everywhere.<br /><br />Everyone should see this movie for the experience. Just don't expect a picnic.

If you like horror movies with lots of blood and gore, tons of jump-scare moments and unrelenting, escalating scenes of excruciating death, then look elsewhere. If you like quiet, moody, thoughtful horror which casts blood aside in favor of a genuine feeling of dread, then Wendigo is for you.<br /><br />Thoughtful, stressed out George, his psychoanalyst wife Kim and their young son Miles are heading out to the snowy countryside for a long weekend vacation away from the city. On the way up, George hits a stag with his car. The hunters who had been pursuing the deer are not thrilled when they find that George has ended their chase. In particular, deranged hunter Otis takes it personally. He follows the family to their vacation home, making sure they see him. He spies on George and Kim as they have sex. He fires through their windows with his rifle when they aren't home, letting them discover the ominous holes in their windows and walls when they return. When Kim takes Miles to the drugstore in town, Miles is attracted to a small sculpture in a display case, carved to resemble a man with the head of a stag. A Native American man tells Miles that this is the Wendigo, a spirit of the woods who has a taste for flesh and is always hungry. Miles takes the figure home with him, already haunted by the death of the deer the day before. That afternoon, when he and his father go sledding, George is shot and Miles pursued through the woods by a creature barely glimpsed...or is he just in shock, and imagining the whole thing? Hours later, George is rushed to the hospital and Miles, still clutching his statue, either faints, dreams or goes on a vision quest, in which the Wendigo returns. This time the angry, flesh eating god - part tree, part stag and part man - is hunting for Otis, who has finally gone over the edge.<br /><br />Wendigo is a beautifully made film, almost totally silent but for the wind howling through the snow covered trees. Okay, so the monster itself is kind of fakey-looking, but it's a small flaw, more than made up for by the genuine feeling of tension and dread that creeps through every frame of the film, and the eerie backdrop of the silent, snowy countryside. The performances are great, particularly by Jake Weber as the moody and thoughtful George and Patricia Clarkson as his sweet but no-nonsense wife. They are a happy couple with their share of common problems, and it is the strength of their relationship and their love for each other that makes this film powerful. Watching this film is often like watching someone's home videos, so realistic are the performances. <br /><br />This movie is not for everyone. A lot of people may find themselves totally bored, waiting for the hideous Lovecraftian Beast and bloody revenge that never come. We can never really be sure if the Wendigo even exists, seen as it is through the eyes of a sensitive child and also, later, through the eyes of a madman. This is more a psychological drama than a horror film, but it has more than enough creepy elements in it to satisfy fans of subtle horror.

My interpretation is that the term 'distant' is used in the sense of the opposite of 'warm'; people who are not warm toward others. The film reminds me of the teachings of the Dalai Lama in 'The Art of Happiness' where his main point is that the key to happiness is connecting with others. Not only are the characters in the film insular, but they are also humorless, charmless, shy, quiet and unfriendly. These characteristics appear to prevent them, amongst other things, from forming and enjoying relationships and being able to talk about and deal with their problems. And as a result they are terribly unhappy. I see it as a strong vindication of the Dalai Lama's teaching (I'm not a Buddist by the way). If you are one of the people who thinks that their behavior is a natural response to living in a large city then I think you may be right but I recommend the Dalai Lama's book. City life need not be like this.<br /><br />I can see why some people found it boring - it does drag a bit in places and the characters are not particularly likable. And it does contrast to Lost In Translation where the insular characters are much more likable and do connect with one another even though they don't connect with people generally.

I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10!

The movie is an adaptation of a Japanese story by the respected author Yukio Mishima. It simply doesn't make the transition into a credible story about Brits and Americans.<br /><br />The story moves sluggishly, especially the part where Miles and Kristofferson are separated and the director fills in with the cliched shots of a ship's prow cutting through the waves, and the little route line filling in on the maps, while their letters are heard in overvoice. The film moves so languidly that I even fast-forwarded through the sex and masturbation scenes which, although long, are not really either passionate or erotic. The film did achieve a measure of notoriety when Kristofferson's then-wife divorced him for extra-curricular activities with Miss Miles during the filming. I guess they enjoyed the sex scenes, but it isn't quite the same for a viewer.<br /><br />There are no characters to hang on to. The sexually frustrated widow is unlikeable, the little kid is detestable. Kristofferson is amiable enough, but he just doesn't have the acting skills to bring much to the role, although perhaps we don't really want get too involved with him, considering his ultimate fate.<br /><br />As for the little kid, well, he kinda falls in with a bad crowd after his dad dies, and they help him plot some evil against the man who enters his mum's life. Now this is a really bad crowd. They don't just shoplift and smoke dope, nosireebib. They slip a mickey to a cat and vivisect it. This is shown in gory detail. But of course, this is only practice so they can do the same thing to Kristofferson!<br /><br />So the movie mostly moves slowly, with no characters to relate to, and when something does happen it is unrelentingly morbid.<br /><br />The ending is about as unsatisfying as any movie you'll ever see.<br /><br />This all might have made some sense if the Japanese locale and cultural context had been retained. As it stands, it is just abysmal.<br /><br />

I'm surprised by some of the comments on this site because I really liked this film. If you're looking for something different then this movie is a good choice. Definitely not your typical mindless story that seems to be everywhere starring Ben Idiot Affleck or some other Hollywood loser. It's an intellectual film, you actually need to pay attention so some people might be turned off by that. However, if you are looking for something that keeps you on your toes then this is a good choice. Warning to parents - it has some fairly graphic sex scenes so watch it once the kiddies are in bed. People who like Euro flicks will like this one. Adam Sandler fans should skip it because it will be over their heads and definitely NOT their style.

Unbelievable!<br /><br />this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. <br /><br />and the 2 of merely for trying

To be completely honest, I completely intrigued by the original concept of 'Sleeper Cell.' Having watched the best part of the series on FX Channel (UK), my Sky got broke meaning I missed the crucial finale. But what I DID see of it, I assumed it to be a great story line, good acting and as I don't watch '24' I thought it was great, AND it's been confirmed for a second season...<br /><br />One of the best TV programs I have seen. Much more realistic and believable than "24." Excellent character development and plot line. Does not bash Islam, but gives a thoughtful and considered approach, showing the difference between radical terrorist Islam and true Islam. Everybody should see this show!<br /><br />Stringy xx

This was the second of three films that Irving Berlin wrote for the Astaire-Rogers franchise and it has by far the largest score and is somewhat unusual in that two of the numbers are performed by Harriet Hilliard leaving the rest to be divvied and/or shared between the principals. As usual the storyline needn't detain us though for the record it was based on a play, Shore Leave, that also served as the basis for a Broadway Musical, Hit The Deck. Anyone who actually saw Shore Leave in the theatre may have been momentarily bemused inasmuch as the roles played by Fred and Ginger were created for the movie but what matters, as always, is the music, lyrics and hoofing and this is all out of the right bottle. It's a departure from the other titles in the franchise in that 1) we get to see Astaire play the piano - in real life he was an accomplished pianist and composed several songs, one of which, I'm Building Up To An Awful Let-Down, had a lyric by Johnny Mercer and spent a couple of weeks in the charts - and it is the only one of the series in which he played a serviceman, albeit an ex-hoofer who enlisted in the navy after being dumped by dancing partner Ginger before the story starts. He gets to perform a little-known but excellent Berlin number, I'd Rather Lead A Band as well as duetting on I'm Putting All My Eggs In One Basket but the ultimate number is the prophetic - in 1936 rumbles of World War II were already being felt - Let's Face The Music And Dance, one of the most potent ballads ever performed by the team. So what if Randolph Scott is a little wooden and fish-out-of-water without either a horse or a six-gun within easy reach and Harriet Hilliard doesn't exactly set the screen on fire; we came to see Fred and Ginger and the only question is, do they deliver. Answer: In spades.

Well, I would consider Police Story as one of Jackie Chan's best film. The plot, the fighting scenes and the stunt works are excellent. In this film, Jackie himself acted as a police officer called Chan Ka Kui (Kevin Chan in some versions) who successfully arrested a crime lord. After the crime lord was released due to lack of evidence , he framed Chan for the killing of a police officer. Due to this, he became wanted by the police. Later on, Salina (Brigitte Lin), who was the secretary of the crime lord, went to a shopping mall and started to steal the evidence of the crime lord's crimes from his computer and preparing to pass them to Chan. However, the crime lord knew that Salina had downloaded his incriminating data and hired his henchmen to capture her. Later on, Chan appeared at the scenes and began to fight all of the henchmen, defeating them one by one. At the last scene, Chan was seen punching the crime lord. Lastly, this is the best action and comedy movie. Everyone should watch it. Highly recommended.

and abysmal, over-the-top acting, you might enjoy this rubbish flick.Apparently atomic bombs makes life mutate in about a day or two (or according to other viewers, wake them up). Or so it seems. And apparently massive atomic explosions off the coast of Spain doesn't make anyone ask any questions at all. Coming to think of it, the plot doesn't make sense in any way whatsoever (why would evil sock puppets attack lighthouses?), so the nukes going off for no reason at all doesn't stand out too much.<br /><br />OK, getting past this, and the fact that the "monster" is a glorified thing you make of socks in kindergarten, you may actually be able to stand this. But for once the complete lack of gore doesn't help, leaving the monster attacks in all their naked rock-bottom-budget "glory".<br /><br />I doubt you'll be able to watch this though, so better stay well away.

The actors are so bland that it's almost impossible to tell them apart (Pauline Kael said of this movie: "The actors have names, but they're truly anonymous"), and the special effects are really bad. They simulate weightlessness with people hanging on cables and by recycling the trick that let Fred Astaire dance on the ceiling in "Royal Wedding" (but none of these guys move well enough to make it look convincing). <br /><br />The low point of the movie is when one of the characters, an airplane tycoon, is trying to convince some other "giants of industry" to come in with him in a moon-rocket consortium, and he shows them a Woody Woodpecker cartoon that explains how a rocket works at a 2nd grade level! (And to think that Robert Heinlein worked on the screenplay...)<br /><br />The only plus is that the production design manages to communicate a sort of "Amazing Stories" sensibility, and even that is done much better in the producer's (George Pal) subsequent movie "When Worlds Collide", which has similar bad acting, but is much more entertaining. However, Pal's best sci-fi movie has to be "The Time Machine".

This film has got to be ranked as one of the most disturbing and arresting films in years. It is one of the few films, perhaps the only one, that actually gave me shivers: not even Pasolini´s Sálo, to which this film bears comparison, affected me like that. I saw echoes in the film from filmmakers like Pasolini, Fassbinder and others. I had to ask myself, what was it about the film that made me feel like I did? I think the answer would be that I was watching a horror film, but one that defies or even reverses the conventions of said genre. Typically, in a horror film, horrible and frightening things will happen, but on the margins of civilized society: abandoned houses, deserted hotels, castles, churchyards, morgues etc. This handling of the subject in horror is, I think, a sort of defence mechanism, a principle of darkness and opacity functioning as a sort of projective space for the desires and fears of the viewer. So, from this perspective, Hundstage is not a horror film; it takes place in a perfectly normal society, and so doesn´t dabble in the histrionics of the horror film. But what you see is the displacement of certain key thematics from the horror genre, especially concerning the body and its violation, the stages of fright and torture it can be put through. What Seidl does is to use the settings of an everyday, middle class society as a stage on which is relayed a repetitious play of sexual aggression, loneliness, lack and violation of intimacy and integrity: precisely the themes you would find in horror, but subjected to a principle of light and transparency from which there is no escape. It is precisely within this displacement that the power of Seidl´s film resides. Hundstage deals with these matters as a function of the everyday, displays them in quotidian repetition, rather than as sites of extremity and catharsis - a move you would encounter in said horror genre. One important point of reference here is Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Fassbinder also had a way of blending the political with the personal in his films, a tactics of the melodrama that allowed him to deal in a serious and even moral way with political issues like racism, domination, desire, questions concerning ownership, sexual property and control, fascism and capitalism etc. Seidl´s tactic of making the mechanisms of everyday society the subject of his film puts him in close proximity with Fassbinder; like this German ally, he has a sort of political vision of society that he feels it is his responsibility to put forward in his films. During a seminar at the Gothenburg Film Festival this year, at which Seidl was a guest, he was asked why he would have so many instances of violated, subjugated women in Hundstage, but no instances of a woman fighting back, liberating herself. Seidl replied that some may view it as immoral to show violence against women, but that he himself felt it would be immoral not to show it. An artistic statement as good as any, I think. Thank you.

I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right).

Johnny Crawford is great in this movie of a troubled teen coming of age in a generation that was in the middle of a cultural and spiritual upheaval. Billy Graham does a good job of portraying life in this sweet, sometimes corny, but all the way sincere flick. He gives us a look at not only the social scene but gives good, solid advice that holds true today about morals, decisions, the generation gap, teen dating, (some of the statistics that are given in this movie are astounding. They sound like today's stats). Just to see Billy in his younger days is worth seeing. It's an awesome movie. It made me realize that human nature does not change, even though hair, fashion and language may change, humans are still struggling with the same issues they have been struggling with for thousands of years.

One of my favorites. As a child, growing up in the NY Metro area in the late 60s and early 70s, I was often afforded the opportunity to visit NYC with my grandfather or father, as they conducted business there. The gritty, bustling, human, reality of that city, particularly in winter, have stayed with me. <br /><br />This film very aptly captures the stark, cold, matter-of-fact feel of the NYC winter season, while keenly exposing the underbelly of the region's infamous underworld of crime and policing. A great snapshot of a place and a time and a culture. <br /><br />And the car chase is simply amazing. At least on par with the one in "Bullitt", and surpassing the chase in "The French Connection". I can watch, time and again, as the suspension comes unstuck on that Plymouth Fury police cruiser barreling toward the GW Bridge in pursuit, as it lurches into that sharp right curve, bouncing and scraping into oncoming traffic. The stunt driving coordinator for that scene did "Bullitt" and "The French Connection" as well as many other noatable movie chases. Good acting, too, and a decent plot line. The musical score is edgy and compelling, and the cinematography and direction are top notch. A great, if underrated 1970s cop drama. A keeper. Not out on DVD yet, though.<br /><br />Comparable in style and content to: The French Connection and Super Fly. Early 1970's cop dramas set in the bleak NYC winter months.

When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.<br /><br />Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.<br /><br />The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.<br /><br />There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.<br /><br />The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.<br /><br />The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.

I saw this last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.

Castle in the sky is undoubtedly a Hayao Miyazaki film. After seeing it for the first time I'm glad to say that it doesn't disappoint. On the contrary, you get your time's worth, which means (as to what Miyazaki's films are concern), that is nothing less than excellent! <br /><br />Produced early in his cinematic career, Castle in the Sky anticipates many of the trade marks in his later movies, with strong (but young) female characters, forced to grow up due to external circumstances, helped out by very interesting (and some times lovable) supporting characters. And, of course, the usual battle of nature versus civilization, flying machines (lots of it!!), beautiful painted sceneries … but alas, no pigs ( at least that i've noticed, after all I have only seen it once). Never the less, Miyazaki had already got his theatrical debut two years earlier, with Nausicãa, which was a dress rehearsal for Princess Mononoke, his magnum opus. Castle in the Sky is set a bit a part from these two, with a soft action packed first 30 minutes, resembling his TV series Conan, and his directed episodes of Meitantei Holmes. In here we are introduced to Sheeta, a girl who literally falls from the sky, only to be found by Pazu, a young boy working in a little countryside mining town. Intrigued by her amnesia and suspecting a connection between her and the mysterious flying city of Laputa, Pazu is set on helping her find out where she came from, whilst escaping the army and a gang of air pirates. As the movie progresses, the plot gets heavier and much more interesting, revealing Myiazaki at his best. <br /><br />The sound track is very reminiscent of Spirited Away, (or vice versa, as Castle in the sky was produced first), and much like its director, Joe Hisaishi _the composer_ starts with a very light score, that gets more complex and beautifully fitting as the plot goes forward! <br /><br />A note to the English dubbing, with a good interpretation from the two lead stars, although Anna Paquin's Sheeta has a very thick accent (which the actress still had at that point in her career), and a heads up for Mark Hamil as Muska, making up for a delighting yet devilish villain! <br /><br />Don't miss this one people!

The number of times I've had tears in my eyes when watching a movie are few. And there is only one time when I have really cried and that was when I saw this movie. This movie has some kliches but I really don't care. I cry even as I write this and it was quite some time since I saw it. It is perfectly acted and all the production values are good, but what really matters is the simple and wonderful message. We all know it in our hearts, but it is not always easy to remember that the only thing that really matters in life is LOVE in all it's forms. It's only when we love that we're truly alive. I know how sentimental I sound and I promise I'm not usually like that. I'm quite a cynic. This movie has brought out stronger feelings of both sorrow and happiness in me than any other movies and it will probably always be the first movie I recommend others to see.

I can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.<br /><br />If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think "how can a movie be so sadly stupid", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).<br /><br />These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!<br /><br />Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time.

This film is so bad. I mean, who commissions this stuff? And the costume designer deserves an award for making everyone look like they had just stepped out of 1983. A bloke puts a female wig on and fights....nuff said.

Elvis Presley plays a "half-breed" Native American ("Indian") who has to defend his reservation from nasty business tycoons. Everyone likes to get drunk, fight, and make children. Fighting, wrestling, and "punching out" each other replace the stereotypical hand-raised expression "How"?<br /><br />Although he does have make-up on, it's obvious Elvis is healthier than he appeared in prior films; possibly, he was getting ready for his famous "comeback". It couldn't have been because this movie's script was anything to get excited about. Joan Blondell trying to seduce Elvis, and Burgess Meredith in "war paint", should be ashamed.<br /><br />The best song is "Stay Away" (actually, "Green Sleeves" with different lyrics). The most embarrassing song is Elvis' love song to the bull "Dominic". There are some surreal scenes, but it never becomes trippy enough to succeed in that genre; though, "Stay Away, Joe" might provide some laughs if you're in the right "mood".<br /><br />Otherwise, stay away. <br /><br />** Stay Away, Joe (1968) Peter Tewksbury ~ Elvis Presley, Burgess Meredith, Joan Blondell

Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!

All I can say about this movie, is it is absolutely boring. The intro to the movie is quite possibly the worst intro to a horror film I have ever seen, I mean a angry chick hitting a guy in the head with a frying pan isn't at all frightening which is what I assume the director was aiming for, but in fact it was "mildly" funny. <br /><br />The acting in this picture was beyond pathetic; a note to directors, if your making a horror film, please hire some good actors, not some popular teen soap star who has no idea how to act.<br /><br />The death scenes in this movie were beyond boring... no gore, and i'm sorry but horror movies without gore, or good suspense are just cheesy. I mean this girl gets killed by hair wrapped all around her in the middle of Tokyo, and not one person sees it happen, they just declare her as "missing", wow thats awesome!<br /><br />In conclusion if you and your friends want to see this movie, make sure u bring some sleeping pills, because I guarantee you won't make it to the end.. Me and my friend walked out cause we didn't even care what happened at the end.<br /><br />Cheers

Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture "in" references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.<br /><br />It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.<br /><br />That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- "Take my wife, please!"- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.<br /><br />Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it "stick", that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a "daring" so-called movie.<br /><br />This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.

GREAT, Chris Diamantopoulos has got to be the best Robim Williams that I have every seen.. He acts it up, perfectly. This was like watching Robim Williams as he really was and is.. It almost made me cry watching him.<br /><br />I had no idea that Robin was as close a friend to John Belushi as he was. The portrayal of this relationship was very good and could almost stand on it's own merits.. Very sad, what both of them went through.<br /><br />I really felt for both Val and Robin during his rough times. I am glad that they ended it in a high note!<br /><br />I hope Robin puts a $100 bill in this guy's hat !!<br /><br />And it was great that it was filmed in Vancouver!