Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people.

"Babette's Feast" and "The Horse's Mouth" are the two most insightful, accurate films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in "Babette's Feast" are not, as some other commentators here have said, "an artist is never poor," but two lines that come before and after it:<br /><br />"I was able to make them happy when I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best." <br /><br />I spent nine years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence in 1871). <br /><br />To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the chance to have done her best as an artist. <br /><br />That is why it is so satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up -- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it. She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person would come to receive it. <br /><br />To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy, it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner, the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them, talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film.<br /><br />One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film, as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever.

In order to enjoy 'Fur - An imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus,' Stephen Shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the American photographer, Diane Arbus. Paradoxically, it's the very use of Diane Arbus' name and knowledge to her life and work, that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale.<br /><br />What becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful WASPish and glamorous Nicole Kidman as the anti-glamorous Jewish Diane Arbus, is that Shainberg didn't get Arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to Arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks.<br /><br />What follows is a kind of pretty and trivial Beauty & the Beast fantasy biopic with Robert Downey JR as Kidman's hairy fictional love interest. However, it's not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film, but the director's misogynistic stance that Diane Arbus, one of the art world's most singular and original woman photographers, was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. While his previous film 'Secretary' was a study of female masochism, his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely - and flys in the face of the real life Diane Arbus' courage, tenacity and fearlessness in single-handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders.<br /><br />Imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star Madonna's life with Guy Richie as her Svengali, the man behind her career, and you'll get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is: It can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, or just choose to ignore all the facts.<br /><br />It's a shame because once you remove all reference to Diane Arbus, this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to Secretary. 4/10

This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!

Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i needed ten lines).

If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.<br /><br />There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.<br /><br />It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.<br /><br />The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.<br /><br />Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.<br /><br />In the original film, the various "human" things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ("I never knew an ape I didn't like." "Human see, human do!"). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.<br /><br />Nothing made me cringe more than the "V-Ger from Star Trek" moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.<br /><br />Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's "science fiction" you don't have to!<br /><br />Overall, Burton's most disappointing film.

Nazarin by the acclaimed surrealist Bunuel is ovbviously an attack on the Catholic Church and its loss of values. It is not a visual film and I think it would have played better on the stage. Bunuel takes us through this man, the nazarene that lives like Christ lived; a true follower i.e. in poverty, and without a care for property and what the next day bringeth. Some might call it a parallel to Christ's story but any follower and practitioner of the word, life should be like Christ in a way. But in essence Bunuel also inquires into the ogle of man's selfishness and need to sin and how goodness may save us all. It is a bold statement to make that may enliven, or recite to memory the movie for some. Truth, be told the Nazarene is also selfish because he gives without wanting in return or asking for it. His selfishness is his folly and the two women who follow him represent the sides of a coin;with the same face on each side. Lots of people represent sides of a coin in this movie, all with both faces the same. But the movie isn't exactly memorable once it ends and one could attack many of its ethical perforations and effusions within the movie's own doctrine. Not top-notch Bunuel but a "surreal" dream sequence that bunuel stages whithin where the message of the movie is framed and is worth noting for it shows you the capability of the director, Bunuel.

I saw this as a kid, before it had been yanked from the rotation, and even then it left a bad taste in my mouth. There were some competently worked out gags, but making slapstick villains out of American citizens who'd been interned in camps strictly due to their race was amazingly tasteless. <br /><br />Moe himself might have wanted this one buried. He was a liberal guy. In his autobiography he told of visiting a town in the segregated South, where he saw a black man get off the sidewalk to avoid passing too close. Moe stepped into the street to show it wasn't a problem, and the man then got back on the curb. Then off again. Finally, the man told Moe nervously that if Moe didn't stop trying to share the sidewalk with him, he might get them both lynched.<br /><br />Another thing: There are exploding ostrich eggs but no oxen in the film, so the title should actually be (if anyone cares) "The Yolk's on Me."

Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David "Hot Pants" Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox — it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS! <br /><br />Crap. Crap. Crap.

Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliché, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.<br /><br />*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********<br /><br />On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?<br /><br />I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.<br /><br />As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win.

With this movie I was really hoping that the idea was to make up for the hashed together ineptitude of the first AVP, and yet to my horror: Requiem is far worse than I could have imagined.<br /><br />My hopes were up in the opening moments of the film inside the Predator ship, and I almost breathed a sigh of relief when we finally saw the Predator home world (a throwaway digital matte painting, but still nice to finally see it) and then of course, the humans (if such poorly written characters can be referred to as such) are introduced...<br /><br />One must wonder why it seems to be impossible for Fox to make a good film out of Aliens and Predators. At the very least the supposed filmmakers could have done their homework.<br /><br />Characters are set up in the same manner in which we would expect from the worst Friday the 13th Sequel. The pizza delivery scene was cringe inducing as was every other scene of character interaction that followed it. Bimbos and teen non actors do not make for a REAL film, they make for a cheap flick, and Alien 1-3 and the Predator movies were good because they were produced above the concept (remember that the 1st Alien is a "B" movie done as an "A" movie) The Strause brothers really missed an opportunity, that could have been rectified by simply knowing their Alien+Predator roots: In both the Alien and Predator films we are introduced to characters that are part of a larger group (Alien: Refinery workers, Aliens: Marines, Alien 3: Convicts and in the Predator films we generally follow a main hero part of a unit; Predator, Arnold--Special forces, Predator 2: Danny Glover, Police) and it's easy to see where the filmmakers of both franchises started to go wrong: in Alien Ressurrection we have pirates...or something, AVP we have...explorers?...with guns?? and of course in AVP-R we have teen slasher clichés. What is there to identify with here? In concept the idea of a convict returning to a small town and a war vet returning seemed a set up for a First Blood type of action hero, but like many things it was never paid off.<br /><br />The Film-making is equally devoid of rhyme of reason. There is no sense of forward momentum to the action, just small sequences that build the most minuscule levels of tension or interest only to cut away just when they're getting interesting...taking the audience out of the movie at every turn. The action scenes themselves, though much ballyhooed in the trailers, are so darkly lit, it is literally impossible to tell what is going on during the fight scenes when they finally occur. Basically, the movie is hindered from many levels. Bad actors combined with poor direction and an atrocious screenplay (which as a screenwriter myself I noticed, seemed to hit every wrong note and cliché that only the most untalented writer devoid of ideas could have hashed together) The WRITING, if it can be called that, is not even direct to video quality, nor does it demonstrate a shred of respect for the established lore of the previous entries in the series. Why does the Predalien all the sudden have the ability to shoot alien embryos down a pregnant woman's throat to use her as an incubator for chestbursters? More than likely because the brain dead screenwriter needed a way to have more aliens for the predator to fight (and given the accelerated growth time even more so than the first AVP: as quickly as possible. Why must meaningless small talk between cardboard cutouts on sticks (meaning the supposed characters)substitute for real character development? (Remember a character is defined by what they DO, not SAY). Why is the Sheriff leading civilians to a cache of guns? (isn't he an officer of the law?) How does the bimbo of all people know where they are? Why does the Predalien wait for the Predator to VERY SLOWLY remove his mask before it attacks? Why are the aliens still falling into that nasty series-post-Alien 3 habit of hissing all the time to let their prey know to run? How on Earth did this series devolve to a character saying "People are dying...we need guns!" (how this writer even works is beyond me, and reflects badly on Fox's already destroyed artistic reputation. It's like everyone involved in the making of this film suffered from a mental impairment or really are that inept at every level of the film-making process. <br /><br />The EFFECTS are pretty lousy this time around. The Aliens look like men in suits and ADI is just getting lazy with their creature design. The Aliens look like modified leftovers from Alien Resurrection, with that same bulky musculature around the arms as if they did not learn from that movie that it was not a good design, nor a good one to recycle. Again, everything is shrouded in such a state of darkness not to create mystery or atmosphere, but simply to hide how bad the creatures look. And just like in AVP, Stan Winston is sorely missed when the fake looking Predator face is revealed.<br /><br />There are too many faults to list so I will just say this: Do not waste your money on this movie. Fox is beyond caring about the fans, as this cheap and trashy film is clearly evidence of. I felt bad having taken my girlfriend to see it (though it was free) and apologized to her profusely after. This is one die-hard fan who is done with the franchise.<br /><br />Note to Fox: What we really wanted wasn't a mindless slasher flick, it was a film adaptation of the original Darkhorse Comicbook, which was better than anything you've produced for this franchise post 1993.<br /><br />Signing off.

The saddest thing about this film is that only 8 people cared to leave a review of it and NO-ONE felt it worthwhile leaving a comment on the message boards.<br /><br />Made the same year as Philadelphia...the Tom Hanks Oscar-winner... this is the film that people REALLY should have seen and given awards to. There is more humanity, life, love, tenderness and beauty in these two people than in just about any other gay film I have seen... and it is all true.<br /><br />In order for this to be printed I need to leave a few more lines of text: suffice it to say that anyone who REALLY wants to know what it was like to be gay in the 60's and 70's, and to understand just what AIDS was like before the modern drug "cocktails" allowed people to breathe a little easier... this is the film to see. <br /><br />Oh, and I will add a personal comment about AIDS. Despite everything, there actually has been a silver lining to all the horror. When AIDS first arrived, it was called the "gay cancer", and governments preferred to "let them die" rather than spend a red cent on research to help save a bunch of fags. Then it became clear that AIDS would also be a heterosexual disease. But the government wasn't ready for that; So when straight people began getting ill too, the only organizations and associations that were available to them were those which had been set up by gays themselves (examples: The Names Project: the quilt memorializing all those who died of AIDS; Act Up etc) The result is that people who probably would never have come in contact with gays in their ordinary lives suddenly found themselves counting on them and needing them, because no other organizations existed. This close contact, in my estimation, is what finally broke down the barriers of prejudice and allowed the straight world to finally accept gays as equals. When AIDS first came on the scene, many of us thought that the straight world would use it as a way to come down even harder on us... and that probably would have been true if straights didn't suddenly become ill too; nevertheless, the strides that have been made in gay liberation - to the point that, as I write this, there are at least 5 countries in the world that accept gay marriage - these gains would probably have taken a lot longer without AIDS to bring us together. It is sad to think that all those people - both straight and gay - had to die before our common humanity became more obvious - but if what I am writing here is true, and I think it is - then there is a bit of comfort to be taken in realizing that all those people did not die in vain.

This is about one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. It's not the worst though - Manos the Hands of Fate holds that honor.<br /><br />This movie has a lot of problems. To begin, this whole movie is a cheap rip-off of the Conan movies. There's the babe in a skimpy dress wearing a hubcap, the quiet Asian warrior, the cookie cutter bad guy, the almost mindless soliders, and so on. There's lots of continuity errors in this film. Some of the dumbest errors I've ever seen are in this film.<br /><br />Fortunately when I watched this film I seen the MST3K version. Joel and the 'bots make the film watchable, otherwise I probably would've turned it off five minutes into the film.

This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever!

This is a very rare film and probably the least known from Shirley Temple as it isn't on any of her collections.The reason why is probably because it doesn't have a happy ending,unlike all her other films.Its also not a musical,although she does belt out one song called' The world owes me a living'.The film was made in 1934 and originally in black and white,the version i have is in colour and on VHS,i would say they have done a fine job as the colour does look realistic,unlike i would say the colourised films of Laurel And Hardy which are dreadful.The film is good for its age and the story hasn't dated at all,I'm surprised no one has tried to do a remake.At times the film is a little bit to talky as some of the scenes with Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard seem really dragged out, in some scenes they seem to take fifteen minutes to say what they could have said in five.Although don't be put off by this because this film does have some genuinely good moments in it,especially when {Jerry}Gary Cooper steals a necklace,and hides it in Shirley's teddy bear.The tension and slow build up to his actions,{while at the same time his daughter is singing to an audience in another room}is very well directed.Gary and Caroles edgy facial expressions when they are put under scrutiny are also very good.In all this is a good film from the early 30's,accept it for its age.

The Wooden Horse is a very clever movie about a very clever and successful escape plan worked out by British POW's during World War II. It is superbly acted with a wry sense of humor, especially the lines expressed by the acid-tongues Leo Genn. Anthony Steele and David Tomlinson (later George Banks in Mary Poppins) are marvelous as the two heroes. The direction is taut and fast-moving throughout. Highly Recommended.

Running Out of Time rests somewhere in the middle of Johnny To's cannon, in the "solid good" category. As a crime thriller it's not terribly original or overwhelming and the action scenes will not blow you away but it has something else going for it. It's a Johnny To film after all, it has to.<br /><br />Andy Lau has 72 hours to live. He decides to play a strange cat-and-mouse game with a hostage negotiator of the HK police, played by Lau Ching Wan. That's the plot in a nutshell. On top of that To piles layers of twists and turns that keep proceedings interesting throughout. It occasionally becomes too convoluted for its own sake but never lets it get the best of it. However, just as Johnny To is about to hand over a slick and well-made crime flick (which, let's face it, are dime-a-dozen), he slips in bits and pieces that bring Running Out of Time alive as a full emotional experience, providing the soul and heart to the well-oiled skeleton.<br /><br />The concepts of synchronism and minimalism (staples in his work) are explored in great effect here. Always subtle, letting the images speak for themselves, giving them time to develop with long takes and slow tracking shots, exemplary cutting to the score, it's all here. A small love story in a bus between Andy Lau and a girl is among the highlights of the film and part of the "heart" I'm talking about. So simple yet so powerful. Ditto for Lau's and Lau Ching Wan's car scenes and the bowling-room showdown.<br /><br />However something stops me from claiming Running Out of Time is a masterpiece. To has all the ability and craftmanship down to a notch but he can also be too workmanlike or bland at times. When he's good, he's REAL good. There are even isolated moment of pure brilliance that are just TOO good for their own sake, leaving a bittersweet aftertaste for the rest of the movie. I'm convinced that if he puts his heart to it, he can make a really great film. As it is, this is another one of his films that is flawed but enjoyable. Underneath the slick HK style, it's the black humour and heartfelt drama that makes this a compelling film. Worth watching, definitely.

I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.

I caught this movie on the Sundance Channel on cable one late afternoon. You might say "Who Loves the Sun" is a perfect leisurely pastime of a story, why ever not. You get to hang out with the trio: Lukas Haas is Will (returning after abruptly leaving everyone years ago), Molly Parker is Maggie (we learn she's very much part of the family Bloom), and Adam Scott is Daniel (is he friend or foe or fiancé), by the scenic Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada, captured in graphic compositions juxtaposed in vivid summer colors against sunshine and shadows. And supporting the trio are two more family members in the revealing mix: Wendy Crewson is Mom Mary Bloom, and R.H. Thomson is Dad Arthur Bloom. Writer-director Matt Bissonnette has delivered an ingenious unfolding of story-line and its various tentacle links - worry not, Haas may have a 'listless' face, but humor will come as Parker and Scott enter the circle of friends reunited, wry smiles will break and knowing delights stir. Dialogs may be terse or even nil, yet we'd get the flavor of what's cooking, bemused or wondering.<br /><br />Yes, "Who Loves the Sun" can very well be categorized as a sleeper gem. The chemistry between all five principals sure gels and 'combusts', giving an energetic ensemble performance. After all, it's all in the family, and the film sure doesn't take itself too seriously.<br /><br />Looks like the official site is still available at "wholovesthesun.com" and there are information on the soundtrack by Mac McCaughan (Portastatic with guitar tunes and strings) where score excerpts are being played, and behind the scenes production notes, interview with writer-director-producer Bissonnette on how the movie and concept came about, the casting and more. Have always appreciate Molly Parker since her spare yet mesmerizing performance in 1996 Lynne Stopkewich's 'Kissed', and she's married to Bissonnette, who "wrote the Maggie part for Molly."

Michael Radford, the director of "The Merchant of Venice" makes a tremendous job in opening the play, as he makes it more accessible for everyone to have a great time at the movies watching this thorny account of a horrible time in history. The luscious production of the Shakespeare's play is a feast for the eyes with its rich detail of the Venice of the XVI century.<br /><br />This is a story of revenge, prejudice and justice, as imagined by William Shakespeare. Having seen the play a few times, we were not prepared about what to expect. Mr. Radford takes care of presenting the story with such detail so it can be easily understood by everyone. Also, he has used a version of English that makes more sense, rather than relying on the original text. In fact, the way Shylock speaks in the film, doesn't shock at all, being he, a member of a minority that has been marginalized by the Venetian authorities and the Catholic Church.<br /><br />Al Pacino tremendous portrayal of Shylock shows a man that is vulnerable, arrogant, revengeful, mean, and totally human, all at the same time. Mr. Pacino sheds light into the character of the man who is defeated in court by a technicality. His own daughter has left him and his whole world seems to be caving in on him. At the end of the film, we see a man that has been reduced to being the target of hatred and ridicule by everyone.<br /><br />Lynn Collins, as Portia is a happy discovery. Having seen her in lighter fare, she not only surprises, but she makes the best of her role and her time in front of the camera. She shows us she is a woman with a high intelligence, who comes to the help of her husband and his best friend, who risked his own well being in trying to help Bassanio get Portia's hand.<br /><br />Jeremy Irons plays Antonio, the man who seeks Shylock for a "bridge loan". After all, he knows his ships will be returning with fortunes from abroad soon. Antonio gets much more than he bargained for in agreeing with Shylock to the terms of the loan. Antonio's best laid plans go astray when he is suddenly unable to fulfill his obligations. Mr. Irons gives a subtle performance.<br /><br />Joseph Fiennes, makes a good appearance as Bassanio. His good looks and his charm make an impression on Portia, who clearly sees a soul mate in this young Venetian as she knows he is the one for her. Also, in smaller roles, Kris Marshall, Zuleika Robinson, Charlie Cox, contribute to make the film an enjoyable experience.<br /><br />Ultimately, it's Mr. Radford's triumph because of the vision he gives us of Venice and its citizens during a horrible time in the history of mankind.

This short subject gathered kudos from all kinds of places for its plea for religious toleration. <br /><br />After a session at a recording studio Frank Sinatra leaves and comes upon a group of kids beating up on another because he was Jewish. He lectured them as only an American icon could about the meaning of prejudice and what we had just fought for against the Nazis. The meaning could not be clearer.<br /><br />Both songs from this short subject were recorded and sold big for Columbia records. If You Are But A Dream and the song written for the film, The House I Live In. The latter is one of the best songs about an idealized version of America, we'd all like to strive for.<br /><br />Sinatra in fact recorded The House I Live In again during the Sixties for a joint album he did for his Reprise record label. The album is now a rarity and it shouldn't be. His collaborators were Bing Crosby and Fred Waring and his Pennsylvanians with the orchestra conducted by Nelson Riddle.<br /><br />Axel Stordahl was Sinatra's primary music conductor and arranger during the forties. When he died that position eventually fell to Nelson Riddle. Stordahl does the orchestration for the short and the Columbia record, Riddle for the Reprise record. <br /><br />Sinatra aficionados and others should listen to both back to back and compare. And catch this worthwhile film whenever it is shown.

This was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad bad.

I still have grainy, late night, no-cable, cheap VHS dubs of this show from waaaaaayyyy back when, late-night-commercials and all, when I would stay up to whatever weird hour they would slap this show on -- just so I could tape it.<br /><br />The series wasn't really ABOUT Freddy Kreuger - only the first couple of episodes actually involved him as anything but a Rod Serling-esquire announcer. Instead, each episode was a distinct nightmare, using the traditional horror themes of horrific childhood, dating, cannibalism, dating, money, death, dating, and... hmm... dating.<br /><br />From the episode where a teenage boy accidentally says "I will love you forever" to the wrong girl, and is stuck with her (literally, at least for a moment, they grow together...), to the one where a young stewardess goes home with a strange man, only to find herself in his cabin, where he has a trophy room full of other stewardesses, and one I only vaguely remember which compared blind dates to hockey (and the injuries and penalties that go with it) - dating was definitely the scariest thing in the series.<br /><br />One episode had Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator, etc.) as a motivated pizza merchant with a tasty new secret ingredient. Not original, but still creepy and fun....<br /><br />Even so, some of the episodes were great. My personal favorite was "It's a Miserable Life" where a young man is trapped working in his parents' burger joint, when he wants to go off to college. Stuck talking to himself and doing little puppet shows with old cheeseburgers - until one late night when a weird guy comes through the drive through and suddenly his life is not the same. No, not Freddy, just a thug with a gun - turns out the whole mind-blowing episode is just that - the last thoughts that pass through the kid's head... along with a bullet.<br /><br />The second half of the same episode (many of the Freddie's Nightmares episodes were essentially two vaguely connected short stories) followed his girlfriend, who was also wounded, but not killed in the drive-by, and who is taken to "the hospital from heck" - they cram in all the most creepy hospital nightmare clichés, and then some - from accidentally having your mouth sewn shut - or waking up during an operation - to having your dead boyfriend try and lure you into the morgue for a little cuddle.<br /><br />Again, that was my favorite.<br /><br />Some of the episodes were much dumber, like ALMOST ALL OF THE ONES THEY'VE MADE AVAILABLE ON VIDEO. They put the crummy ones out as representative of the series, and then nobody likes them, thinks the show stunk, and then they don't put any more on video. It's a Miserable Life is only available on PAL DVD in England - but I'm still gonna buy it.

I saw this film earlier today, and I was amazed at how accurate the dialog is for the main characters. It didn't feel like a film - it felt more like a documentary (the part I liked best). The leading ladies in this film seemed as real to me as any fifteen year-old girls I know.<br /><br />All in all, a very enjoyable film for those who enjoy independent films.

There is only one reason to watch this movie if you are not related to one of the stars or a producer: actress Nichole Hiltz. She is the show in this slow moving and wildly unlikely story of revenge. Directed by Simon Gornick, the film stars Joyce Hyser as a betrayed wife who decides to seek revenge on her cheatin' spouse. Oh, but not by conventional means. She plans a total guerrilla war and recruits bad girl Nichole Hiltz as her weapon of choice. She wants Nichole (as Tuesday) to get close to her ex (the handsome but dull Stephan Jenkins, who should stick to music) to embarrass him and ruin his life. David DeLuise is good in his few brief moments, and former "Crime Story" star Anthony Dennison is given virtually nothing to do but scowl. Hiltz on the other hand comes off at various times as sexy and playful, then evil and devious. She also handles vulnerable and "maybe a bit psychotic" well. She's also quite hot (though there's no naughty bits show) so you can understand how she might be able to get to any guy she is aimed at. But the performance is kind of wasted in this movie, which is just not edgy or interesting enough to recommend.

Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of "family" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!

As far as fake documentaries go (fakumentaries anyone?), this one is up there with the best! It looks very real and that is what it aims for. In recent light of events (Guantanamo) this movie is even scarier, so you could say it was ahead of it's time, when it was released in the 70s! <br /><br />One can only hope that a government like that doesn't exist! Looking for terrorists and interviewing people just like that? Of course the people interviewed all seemed to have the same (70s mentality): Screw the politicians and politics in general. Maybe that wasn't so clever one might think ... but hey, don't forget: It's only a movie! ;o)

I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!

This show has come so far. At first EVERYONE in the cast from Eric to Fez, they were all new actors and actresses, fresh faces, and just look what they accomplished. They stuck with the show and it was a success. Its one of the best shows ever made and its probably the funniest sitcom I've ever seen in my life. It will be sad to see it end but if they end this show, I hope to God that the series finale goes out with one of the biggest bangs that any season finale has ever had. I don't care if the whole season sucks because they save all the fuel for the final episode. Go down swinging, get one last punch in. The show deserves it, the fans deserve it, if they go, let everyone know its going to end, like on Friends, and let the finale be huge. I say get Donna and Eric married, I say have Hyde and Kelso fight and become friends again, I say have something interesting happen between Fez and Jackie because Fez has been trying for so long, but of course it wont work out for him. JUST CLOSE OUT THE SERIES BIG TIME GUYS!<br /><br />That 70s Show will always be the best in my eyes. Eric, Kelso, Donna, Jackie, Fez, Hyde, I wish I had you guys as friends. You are the best!<br /><br />10/10...

Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.<br /><br />Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a "bit part" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in "Sister Act", as well as the best nun in "The Trouble With Angels." She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.<br /><br />In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the "greatest" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single "live-action" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.<br /><br />Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.<br /><br />Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.

I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those...

Chris Nolan's labyrinth like noir about voyeurism and identity is amazing from start to finish. A first film is as complex as "Memento" or "The Prestige", though maybe a little harder to get a handle on. Still it smacks of originality and creative drive, and has a "twist" as intellectually challenging as it is realistic pulp. Few film makers have made as good of use of their editors and attention to narrative that Nolan has. The story is about a bored writer who likes to follow random strangers down the street, until he follows someone, whose noticed him following others, and has been following him in tern, from there the complexity escalates and identities begin to rearrange. More naturalistic and realist than Nolan's later work but just as razor sharp.

I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.

When this movie first came out back in 1984, Prince was one of the hottest acts around. Everyone wanted to see this movie, which was not much more than a extended music video. The acting was pretty bad, but what can you expect from musicians acting on the big screen for the first time? Despite that, it was still a very entertaining film! Morris Day and Jerome Benton provide some all time classic comedy, especially their rendition of "The Password", which will make you think of Abbott & Costello doing their "who's on first" baseball routine.<br /><br />Appolina (who went by a single name then) provided some beautiful breasts, so you had the brief nudity covered. Plus, she is very attractive. And of course, the soundtrack of the album is one of the best Prince ever recorded. Prince later on had a fallout with Warner Bros. and changed his name, but at this particular time in his career, he was at the top of his game.<br /><br />This movie doesn't rank in the all time great category, but it is pretty entertaining.

First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.

I can't tell you all how much I love this movie. I have read reviews that say that this move is "too confusing" or "like swimming in drying concrete". I say that these reviewers have no imagination! For anyone who loves Fantasy Fiction, this movie is for you. If you ever loved playing Dungeons & Dragons... this movie is for you, (especially if you got into the Oriental Adventures) I'm just sorry that I did not get to see this movie on the big screen. (Just more incentive to get my own big screen t.v. :-)

"The Buddy Holly Story" shows the famous singer's beginnings in the dunk Lubbock, Texas, to his rise to stardom, to his tragic death in a plane crash. Strengthened by the fact that Gary Busey, as Holly, plays his own instruments, this movie is the biopic in its purest form. There are some things that seem a little hackneyed, namely the people of Lubbock considering rock 'n' roll to be the devil's music, but the masterful performances outweigh any weaknesses. If there's only one thing that's for certain in this great big world of ours, it's that Buddy Holly's music will never get stale. Whether it's "That'll Be the Day", "Peggy Sue", or another one of his songs, they still sound great after all these years. He remains one of the greatest singers in history.<br /><br />Just to show what Lubbock really thought of their most famous son, they didn't name a street after him until 37 years after his death! What a bunch of ingrates!

I took my 10-year-old daughter to see Nancy Drew over the weekend and found myself thoroughly entertained. First off, it was clean, and I mean by my standards. The majority of kids' movies today are full of crude toilet humor and gross-out jokes to elicit cheap laughter from the pre-teen crowd. Nancy Drew is smarter than that, however, and the humor is subtle and clever.<br /><br />The title role is played with a refreshing vivaciousness by Emma Roberts, who is perky and polite without ever becoming annoying. Unlike The Brady Bunch Movie, where the anachronistic characters are jeered and ridiculed, Nancy's style is treated with respect and dignity. It's a great moment when the LA "style-conscious" girls with their Paris Hilton streetwalker attire are dismissed by the boutique owner, while Nancy, in her penny loafers and homemade Butterick pattern dress, is embraced. This movie shuns the we-need-to-enlighten-this-wholesome-girl tack so many Hollywood movies take. Nancy remains true to herself and her values throughout.<br /><br />The mystery is just tense enough at times to be engaging. There were several suspenseful moments where my daughter nervously grabbed my arm, but there were no gratuitous shock scenes. It's all based on tension and mood and is a lot of fun. The supporting cast is good, particularly Marshall Bell as the creepy caretaker. There are some great cameos by Eddie Jemison, Chris Kattan and Bruce Willis and many moments that will make adults smile.<br /><br />This film deserves better ratings than some have given it. Not only was I glad not to be dragged to yet another computer animated film where talking animals burp and pass gas all over the place, but I was also very entertained. Had I been there without a child, I still would've enjoyed the movie. This is one DVD that will have my daughter's name on it under the Christmas tree.

Another in the they don't make em like that category. This story of a family with some real skeletons in its closet still qualifies as good clean, sometimes over-the-top fun. Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone are at their peak as the troubled Hadley siblings, and they really took the roles and ran with them. Malone won an Oscar and Stack was nominated in the supporting categories, both honors being eminently well-deserved. They counterbalance the somewhat bland leads. Neither Bacall nor Hudson could ever be called bad actors, but they've both had better parts and played them far more convincingly than they do here. It's kind of hard for me to accept Rock Hudson playing such a red-blooded heterosexual as he does here, but that's more of a personal bias than anything else. But that doesn't take away from the movie's overall entertainment value, which is considerable and this movie is extremely watchable. If you're up some night and this movie comes on I'd say watch it. It's well worth it.

HAH! So this is the movie that the "Next Action Stars" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...<br /><br />Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this "teleplay" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made it.

This was a surprisingly very good movie, and an interesting idea.. However, it was just a little bit disappointing in that the 'Twist' was a little too predictable and just a bit too early on in the movie. Whilst watching, it started to get a little bizarre and confusing to the point that, the only reasonable outcome possible was the inevitable plot twist, but it certainly did not ruin this movies flow. There were superb performances, there was never a dull boring moment, so totally well worth watching this one. It kept me interested right up until the end, and for me there isn't many movies that can do that these days. I highly recommend people watch this terrific little movie.

'Bland' is probably the word I'd use to try and start describing this film. I only watched it because it had a good rating on here and i was SO let down.<br /><br />Basically the film is about racism in a post 9/11 America and the director went at it with a sledge hammer! There was no subtlety in the film at all and it felt as though they were trying to achieve a kind of Magnolia feel to the film - which is never a good idea as that film was three hours of tedium and confusion only for it to start raining frogs at the end...<br /><br />All in all a HUGE disappointment.

The biggest and most disconcerting things of the Raptor movie was ending for the Tyransaurus is identical to Carnosaur except kid in the loader was a bit better acted and action then the adult. The similarities to the Carnosaur movies was rather poor choice in plot line. The only thing that approached good was the beginning with the kids in the jeep. Then the plot went down hill from there. Would have been nice if a different plot had been devised, rather then cloning the earlier movies. The raptor movie should have taken lesson from Jurasic park series in various plots. The only movie that has come close to a good dinosaur movie most recently is Aztec Rex. The repeated scenes as if taken from the Carnosaur movies leaves a person thinking of those movies.

An RKO Short Subject.<br /><br />A group of rowdy little bullies are given a lesson in tolerance by crooner Frank Sinatra, who compares America to THE HOUSE I LIVE IN.<br /><br />This little film delivers a pertinent message about the evils of prejudice & bias. Sinatra is an absolute natural in front of the camera; intense & sincere, he is the perfect spokesperson for the values espoused here.<br /><br />Sinatra sings ‘The House I Live In,' by Lewis Allan & Earl Robinson. This fine tune, with a solid, pro-American message, is being given something of a comeback since the horrendous events of September 11, 2001.<br /><br />After Pearl Harbor, Hollywood went to war totally against the Axis. Not only did many of the stars join up or do home front service, but the output of the Studios was largely turned to the war effort. The newsreels, of course, brought the latest war news into the neighborhood theater every week. The features showcased battle stories or war related themes. Even the short subjects & cartoons were used as a quick means of spreading Allied propaganda, the boosting of morale or information dissemination. Together, Uncle Sam, the American People & Hollywood proved to be an unbeatable combination.

What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.<br /><br />Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.<br /><br />So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.<br /><br />This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.<br /><br />What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.

For me, the Tempest and its characters (by which I mean the admirable ones) are like old friends. Ever since I first began to experience the play through acting classes (I played Ferdinand) I found myself immediately caught up in the fantastic world that Shakespeare created. I can distinctly remember one student deciding not to play Ferdinand after all, and so I took the stage and had the honor of playing opposite an excellent Miranda.<br /><br />One of the virtues that a great friend has is that you can never fully know them - there is always something you can discover about their character. A film production of the Tempest of quality is thus like a visit to an old friend, dear to one's heart: each visit presents one with new perspective on the memory we had of the work. With Prospero's Books, the ritual and the elegance of the play was emphasized, the exuberant celebration of art within the art. Here, we see a vision as esoteric mysticism, with lovingly crafted interiors full of candles and chalk diagrams on floors, more Aleister Crowley than Naples nobleman. It also made me reconsider - why was it that Prospero was cast out of Naples? His magical power is so palpable in this production that it makes one wonder whether it was just politics that doomed Prospero to exile, but rather the fact of his difference from his peers. So, in the real world, he suffered. Was cast out, powerless to change the wrong to the right. All of the villains in this play, whether they realize it or not, act in accordance to creating a more pain-filled, hell of a world - it is always in the interest of the oppressor to make life on Earth closer to hell. But Prospero manages to bring these terrestrial villains into his island, the realm where he has (absolute) dominion.<br /><br />Shakespeare brings his audience to the theater, the realm where Shakespeare dictates the events, the words, the outcomes. Shakespeare is, of course, Prospero - but what this film adaptation does that really honors the text is to make Prospero so sympathetic such a figure of reason, despite the fact that he is surrounded by what society calls irrational (astrological texts, alchemical symbols, magical diagrams, etc.). Is it more rational to be a man of the cloth and murder, or to be a heretic and work towards the righting of wrongs? Prospero IS a heretic, for the reason he abandons his magic is not because the books will lose their value in Naples, but because they are not necessary anymore - the world itself - has become the magic of the books.<br /><br />In Hamlet, Hamlet presents a play to his peers. The play accuses his fellows of conspiring against others for their own advancement. The reaction of the audience varies: while Ophelia is puzzled, Claudius reacts with stunned shock. This happens within the play, and then Shakespeare has this play performed for the men of his time. Did Shakespeare watch for their reactions? In the tempest, Prospero lives the play he is constructing, and we live it with him. How do we react? Do you react with simple delight at the happy ending? Are you upset and shocked by the strangeness of this production, which is entirely fitting given the source material? Do you feel sad at the fact that this little life, the play, is rounded with a sleep, as transient as it is eternal? The tragedy is that Shakespeare creates a paradise of reason and hope for mankind's life on Earth but man is weak, and unwilling to realize it in favor of petty power struggles. We have Claudiuses.<br /><br />Like a good friend, this film is not without its flaws. I disagree with the choice to paint some scenes entirely in blue. The dance of the mariners is rather tangential. But at the heart this is truly The Tempest, and one of its many faces.

A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, "I Fall in Love Too Easily," before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these.

I think the film is educational. However, it fails to treat the issue which sparked so much controversy: plural marriage. Also, the film fails to reveal what the LDS church espouses. Big opportunity was missed to tell the world what they actually believe. I could not get a clear idea of what it is LDS views are on central topics of religion.<br /><br />I have many LDS friends and they are nice people. Would have been nice to get a clearer picture of how they view their prophet's more controversial statements. Maybe these statements are just too controversial to be treated in a film format, but it would have been great to hear the whole story of Joseph Smith's truly interesting life. After all, it gives insight into American thought on religion in the 18th century. Hope they do some documentaries on this fascinating subject, allowing historians to comment on Smith's life. We may have a Mormon president some day. After all, Smith ran for president.

This movie was recommended to me so we went to see it together. I wouldn't call it a movie, it's more like a combination of 10 different unfinished, illogical stories, which are not all that funny. There're several characters in the movie who looked important in the beginning, and they just disappeared from the story. He's just trying too hard to fit everything in 2 1/2 hours. I left the show without wondering what happened to this and that guy.<br /><br />I think this movie is just an extended version of "Hitch", padded with a lot more characters and dancing.<br /><br />If this is the best movie that this couple has ever made, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in any of his previous ones.

That 70s Show is the best TV show ever, period. It's up there with the Andy Griffen Show, Saturday Night Live, and The Simpsons in my book. That 70s Show continued on for 8 seasons, all of which focus around a group of teenagers/young adults dealing with relationships, separating from their parents, and their overall futures.<br /><br />The two main characters, Eric and Donna, are two teenagers living next door to each other. They have been living next door to each other for most of their lives, and just begin to feel more feelings for each other at the beginning of the first season. A large amount of the show revolves around how their relationship is working.<br /><br />Two other characters, Red and Kitty, are Eric's parents. Red was in the service, so he really pushes Eric around. Kitty is just the opposite. Even though she drinks heavily, she treats Eric and his friends with a lot of care. Bob, their neighbor, is obviously Donna's Dad. Bob giggles around with several different women throughout the coarse of the show's story. Bob also annoys Red to his full extent.<br /><br />The remaining character, Hyde, Kelso, Fez, and Jackie, are Eric's friends. They also play a major role in the show's story.<br /><br />Well, the First Season is great. This is when the characters are beginning to feel new things for each other. The First Season is original, funny, and enjoyable.<br /><br />The Second Season is good, although it isn't as good as the first. It is a basic continuation of the First. Eric and Donna are together, and everything is working out great.<br /><br />The Third Season is my favorite. It went back and captured the First Season feel and humor. I also think that the character chemistry improved a bunch, making the show all that more fun to watch.<br /><br />The Fourth Season isn't near as good. Eric and Donna Arne't together in this one, making the show slightly less pleasurable. It is still funny, although I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous seasons.<br /><br />The Fifth Season is the last season I enjoyed all the way through. It is the gang's Senior Year, so that really helps with the story. The Fifth Season also had the best ending out of all the seasons.<br /><br />The Sixth Season is good for the most part. It is extremely funny, although it doesn't capture the feel that the other seasons did. The gang is out of High School, so I believe that it didn't hit the teen feel that the previous seasons did. I also didn't like the last three or four episodes considering that they had a major drama feel to them.<br /><br />The Seventh Season captures the same feel that the 5th season had in a way, although it didn't do it all the way. I enjoyed the Seventh Season as I did all the others, and the ending is great.<br /><br />The Last Season flat out sucked. Eric wasn't in it, which ruined it. Kelso wasn't in it for the most part either, which didn't help. I hated the Eighth Season up until the last episode. I thought that the last episode was really good, and a fitting ending to the series.<br /><br />So overall, if you enjoy comedy, give That 70s Show a try. They stopped making new episodes, but it is still on TV a bunch. I also recommend buying Seasons 1-7. It is up to you if you want to buy Season 8.

For us, an Abbott and Costello movie is something you have to be in the mood for. I'm very happy I recorded this -- my wife remembered it from when she was young, but I had never seen it. The family wanted to watch something not too serious before bed and this was selected.<br /><br />Our daughter has watched many of the old movies with us -- always complaining in the beginning, but most often coming around. She mostly ignored this in the beginning, preferring to check her email, but she started enjoying herself -- many times laughing out loud to the zaniness.<br /><br />It's wonderful to think you can have a fun evening with a 55yr old. The mono-colour introduction that blends into the full-colour fairy tale. It's a fun twist of a story that everyone is familiar with, that includes a little song and a little dance, along with everything you expect Lou and Bud to delivery.<br /><br />Watch it with your children and have a very fun evening!

This was without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. And that's saying alot, because I've seen my share of horrible movies.<br /><br />But I have never seen a movie in which every single character portrayed was an unintelligent loser. Seriously, there was not one respectable character in the entire script. How fitting that the plot was equally lame, lacking any intelligence whatsoever.<br /><br />I can't believe that Keanu Reeves and Cameron Diaz would even consent to participating in such stupidity. And while I haven't seen all of their other movies, I've always enjoyed their performances until now. It's not that the acting was bad, just the entire story line was moronic.

A clever overall story/location for a story. Action is respectable. The children are annoying and their motivation is unclear. The leading villain was a nice change but could have been better. "I Love You" was more overplayed than "you complete me" but at least Van Damme got a chance to show a little tenderness. One of Van Damme's better movies.

A tour deforce! OK the kid that plays Oliver is a bit toooooo sweet! Starting with the great cinematography, color, costumes and most impressive performances this is a must see movie. I have seen several adaptations of this great novel, but this one stands above them all and its a musical to boot! It is a masterful Fagan, never leaving his character to do a song. You never really know if you like him or not, the same feeling I got in the book. In other versions you hate him from start to finish. Bill Sykes.... when you read the book hes a mean one, and so he is in this movie. Oliver Reed was masterful. His wife directed this masterpiece. I went and saw his last movie, Gladiator based on his many fine performances, not to see the headliners. The music fits the times and the mood. Who will buy this beautiful movie? You Should!

For all of the hype about this film, I kept an open mind as to what I would ultimately think. And, although a bit slow at times, the first 90% of the movie is quite good, with more than a few "old time" scares that make one jumpy and unsettled. I actually thought the cinematography was excellent regarding many of these scenes. Where Dark Remains fails, however, is in its climax. The ending of the film and the denouement are what seems to be MILES APART from its body. The storyline completely falls on its face with an illogical conclusion and, the answer I was seeking most - what REALLY happened to Emma? - was not elucidated upon! The rationale for the negative energy was ludicrous at best, and in the end, I felt very cheated. What could have been a superb horror film was ultimately haunted by a terrible ending.

I wanted to see Valentine ever since I saw that Denise Richards and Marley Shelton were in it because they had played in some of my favorite movies ever. When I watched Valentine, I was amazed at how great the story line actually was. It kills me to see that it has a low rating because it was not horrible at all. The actors and actresses played the parts wonderfully and the way it ended was so brilliant and cunning. Some scenes were a little unbelievable and or poor, and I admit at a few minor parts it got just a small bit boring, but overall it was non-stop entertaining and suspenseful. It had a mind-twisting story line which made you guess the whole way through and it doesn't deserve all the crap it gets. I recommend this movie to watch anytime, but especially on Valentine's Day because it's sure to give you a ton of chills. Oh, and don't even pay attention to the trailer OR rating, please, DON'T...

The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.<br /><br />Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.<br /><br />The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.<br /><br />The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.

Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.

Chan is in New York and he gets involved with an attempt to sabotage a new aircraft design.<br /><br />The war was over a year away from reaching America but the second world war was already raging everywhere else in the world and so it colored everything since most people probably realized that war was coming. Here the War isn't mentioned but the fact that the film deals with the production of planes at the very least alludes to it. The mystery itself is pretty good, it the notion of plane sabotage lends itself nicely to a couple of rather tense moments. To be certain we are talking about Charlie Chan so we can be certain that he would live to fight another day, but there was no guarantee what condition he would be in, not whether anyone around him would survive.<br /><br />I really like this film a great deal. Its not one of the nest, and far from the worst. It is one of the truly rare things, a truly enjoyable one. Definitely worth a look or six.

I recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International Film Festival. The film's title and in fact much of the outline of the film is from the Robert Graves poem Beauty in Trouble. Jan Hrebejk directs a screenplay by Petr Jrchovský from a story by Hrebejk and Jrchovský. the story begins in 2002 when Prague is hit by one of those devastating 100 year floods that destroys the household of Marcela (Ana Ceislerová) and Jarda (Roman Luknár) and their two children Kuba (Adam Misik) and Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova). Because of the moldy conditions where they now live Kuba's asthma is life threatening. Marcela works and Jarda runs a chop shop out of the garage they live next to. Jarda's shady occupation runs him afoul of the law and one of his theft victims becomes infatuated with Marcela. Evzen Benes (Josef Abrhám) is a wealthy businessman who divides his time between Italy and the Czech Republic and offers to care Marcela and her two kids. Jana Brejchová is Marcella's mother who lives with her common-law husband called Uncle Richie played by Jirí Schmitzer in probably the film's best role. Rounding out this excellent cast is Emília Vasaryova as Jarda's mentally fragile mother who gives any money she gets to the local religious charlatan. There is a lot going on here for a small film and it's good story with a great script and a lot of comic relief. Ales Brezina provides the music score with additional music from Czech singer Raduza and Irish singer Glen Hansard. There is a lot to like about this film and I would give it an 8.0 out of 10 and recommend it.

I saw this film when it first came out, and didn't know what to expect exactly. What followed the Overture was one of the most pleasurable filmgoing experiences I have ever had. A lush score of songs and music by Britisher Leslie Bricusse (of Doctor Doolittle & Wilie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory fame as well as making his mark on the Broadway musical scene), and scored by the incomparable John Williams. There's not a bad song in the entire film. Plus some of the most exquisite cinematography, costume design and filming locations I have ever seen in one film. Not to mention the Academy Award nominated performance by Peter O'Toole, and the equally strong performance, in my opinion, by the wonderful Petula Clark. Now, given that Peter is not the same caliber a singer that Petula is, he still manages to sell his songs to the audience, and that, after all, is what it is all about. This is a faithful adaptation of the excellent book by James Hilton, and deserves to be treasured for generations to come. I recommend this film for family viewing, though most men will consider this a 'chick' flick. But if you like a truly great film musical, then this film is for you. But be warned that a standby box of Kleenex is just as important as popcorn for your viewing pleasure.

Adrian Pasdar is excellent is this film. He makes a fascinating woman.

This film, had it been done properly, has SO much potential. Parody films are always funny, and people tend to like them because they're light hearted, stupid and silly but fun. This film WAS funny in some parts, but it could have been a lot funnier. The acting itself was OK from all the actors, but...I wasn't satisfied. It seemed a tad empty, and my summary title says it all about the effects. Proper green screens weren't used for this movie...backgrounds were added in after which just looked terrible. No wonder this film went straight to DVD lol. It wasn't ALL a total loss, it is funny and will give you a good laugh (AT it, not WITH it most of the time).

How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.<br /><br />It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...<br /><br />It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.<br /><br />It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...<br /><br />And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.

As I am always looking for something new and unique, I watched this film online. I thought that it would be just another "B" rate movie but I was amazed at the acting by the two main characters. All of the actors in this film were very capable and well directed. The plot was wonderful and unique as well with an excellent moral to the story.<br /><br />This movie is definitely not for someone looking for a sex romp, "Dumb and Dumber" or blood and guts. This is a wonderfully poignant film showing some grim realities of life coupled with the kindness of the human heart and just enough frivolity to keep it interesting.<br /><br />I would prefer this movie to many "A" rate movies I have seen even a great number with high box office earnings.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie.

The choice to make this SNL skit into a movie was far better thought out than other recent ones. The humor involved in the character is not annoyance humor, and is also character driven enough to be stretched out for an hour or two.<br /><br />Oddly enough the sexual content seemed like it could be avoided, but that may have been because the constraints of live television schooled me to not expect it. I suppose I was thinking more "Leisure Suit Larry" risqué than the producers were...<br /><br />Definitely not a PG-13 movie, which will probably hurt it from ever reaching the heights of its more successful predecessors, but still better premise and writing than its more dismal ones.<br /><br />I liked it, but I doubt it will be a smash hit... (which is sad, as Tim Meadows tends not to do characters that annoy me with quite the frequency other SNL alumni tend to)

Barbra Streisand in 1964 was still a curiosity, and probably raised more than a few industry eyebrows when CBS signed her to 10-year, $5 million television deal (nothing these days). But more important than that, Barbra and her manager insisted on creative control--and got it. She had this special filmed her way, and for the most part her vision was by turns clever, canny, and incredible. Opening Act I with the title song (not written specifically for her), Streisand races through a classy cast of songs linked with "I'm Late" (from "Alice in Wonderland"!--she even keeps in the line about fuzzy ears and whiskers and "too much time to shave"!); this is a totally charming, if not bizarre, selection--and enjoy it because it didn't make the TWO soundtrack albums released. She slows down for "Make Believe" (which gets perhaps too slow), but the dramatic "How Does the Wine Taste?" is amazing. "A Kid Again" is cute (with Streisand looking tiny in a huge chair--is that where Lily Tomlin got the idea?), as is "Sweet Zoo" ("I'm an alligator--crocodile??--no, alligator!"). "Where is the Wonder" is very cool and elegant, and her "People" number, surrounded by an orchestra who tap for her at the song's close, is stunning. Act II is set in New York City's Bergdof Goodman, with Streisand acting kooky in high fashion get-ups (when she playfully stomps on the mink, the audience watching the tape actually gasps). Act III, before a studio audience (made up of lucky fan club devotees), begins with a powerful version of "When the Sun Comes Out" (Streisand actually looks out of breath at the dramatic close), followed by "Why Did I Choose You?" (probably her best early song), a too-quick "Lover, Come Back to Me" (where she's ultimately drowned out by the orchestra), and a 'Funny Girl' medley. The finale, "Happy Days are Here Again", which reportedly took 12 takes, closes the hour in amazing fashion. Sponsored by Chemstrand (a fiber-making company!), this black-and-white gem moves fast, with jazzy set-ups, terrific cinematography, kicky sets and costumes. They really don't make 'em like this anymore--and that pertains to the special and to La Streisand.

This film gets off to a bad start. An incredibly corny monologue is followed immediately by a brilliantly-done, truly amazing spaceship crash. Then things go downhill again, as you realize that the survivors are all a) bad actors (apart from the docking pilot and the psychopath) and b) almost all of them fit too nicely into the role of monster-fodder. Hell, half of them don't even speak English, preventing the audience from getting to know the characters at all. You feel as if you were watching "Deep Blue Sea" meets "Silence of the Lambs", minus the good bits. And unfortunately, the entire thing tries to hard to be "Crashed on a desert planet with Hannibal Lecter" during the daylight scenes. Vin Diesel is a great actor - but he is no Anthony Hopkins, and he frankly annoys as the smart hyper-cool psycho. There is at least one very good scene involving an unexpected survivor - but apart from that you could just as well have cut out the first thirty minutes or so...<br /><br />But then things take a turn. I can't exactly pinpoint the moment, but soon the movie gets a lot better. It also feels less chopped - the scenes actually begin to follow each other with a consistent narrative, and Vin Diesel becomes much less annoying and soon he is a show-stealer. By the time the first monsters appear, the film is actually quite enjoyable. By the time night falls, it is great. Thrilling, horrifying and exciting. And even the character development of most main characters is well-done. If you can just sit through the poor bits at the start you're in for some GREAT entertainment. <br /><br />Besides, the visuals are eye-candy, and I honestly admit: I love the colour and the tone of this movie. <br /><br />7/10 (could have been 9/10, if only....)

This movie was really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture.

Cannon pulled off a real visual beauty of a medieval epic that appears fascinating (except for the dragon prop). Now just how did the long-gone studio known for Chuck Norris movies ever come up with a complete lack of knowledge in the first place? Case in point: the amateurish acting and horrible plot is a sign that reviving the medieval legend is no cure for some lousy execution. They actually went on and made another cheap exploitationer featuring hundreds of lusty bimbos, just to make this look even better. For the two "Barbarian Brothers", they sure know how to make weird noises than becoming brave warriors so strong and bold enough to save their native land. This is the single greatest waste of potential I've seen from an "expensive" low-budget movie, and worse enough to let an axe strike through the gorgeous print without mercy. All of this followed an advertising campaign that sold T-shirts based on THE BARBARIANS! The movie alone makes a great souvenir!

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon starts in Switzerland as the world's foremost detective Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) outwits the Nazi's & manages to smuggle a brilliant scientist named Dr. Franz Tobel (William Post Jr.) out of the country & to the relative safety of London. But is London as safe as Holmes thinks? Dr. Tobel has engineered a revolutionary new bomb sight that will change aerial bombardment forever & he has agreed to give it to the British government, but those Nazi's want it just as badly & Holmes arch enemy Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) plans on stealing the secret of the bomb sight & selling it to the Nazi's. Add the bumbling Inspector Lestrade (Denis Hoey) of Scotland Yard, Dr. Tobel's love interest Charlotte Eberli (Kaaren Verne), assassins, mysterious scientists & a puzzling coded message & Holmes has his work cut out to keep Dr. Tobel alive so he can deliver his bomb sight...<br /><br />Directed by Roy William Neill Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was the fourth in a series of fourteen Holmes films made between 1939 & 1946 to feature Rathbone & Bruce as Holmes & Watson. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr., Scott Darling & Edmund L. Hartmann is based on the short 'The Dancing Men' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & isn't the tradition Holmes murder mystery as it's more of a wartime adventure story. To neglect what Holmes is all about, the solving of complex crimes & mysteries is a big mistake as far as I'm concerned & the involvement of the Nazi's & the war as a backdrop to the story feels out of place, awkward & just didn't sit too well with me. The dialogue isn't great, Professor Moriarty feels almost like an afterthought as if they couldn't come up with a villain for it & as a whole it's far less engaging than other's in the series. However, at least it's short.<br /><br />Director Neill does his usual efficient job but you have to cut it a little slack & bear in mind that it was made over 60 years ago. It has no real style or imagination & lacks both atmosphere & intrigue as well.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK if unspectacular, the black and white cinematography is fine although I understand that a computer colourised version is also available. The acting is alright, Bruce & Hoey do their usual comic relief turns & Rathbone's hairstyle in this looks ridiculous & I'm glad he changed it for later instalments.<br /><br />Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon was a disappointment when compared to some of the other excellent entries in the series, there is very little by which I can recommend it & everything that made the other's so good seems to be missing here. Leave this one till last & watch some of the better ones first, for die hard fans only.

Never viewed this 1971 film and was greatly entertained by this great production created by the Walt Disney Studios and great animation creations. Angela Lansbury, (Eglantine Price) played an outstanding role as a woman who had taken a course in witch craft and was an apprentice who was beginning to fly on a broomstick and had quite a few difficulties taking off. Eglantine discovered many tricks and was able to make a bed travel to different parts of the world. However, Eglantine missed her final exams to becoming an accomplished witch. Mr. Emerlius Browne, (David Tomlinson) was the person who sold Eglantine this course in witchcraft and he tries to help her in every way possible to find her solution. Eglantine has a purpose to her madness and that is to stop the Nazi's from evading England. Great family entertainment and we need more films like this today.

The Brighton has a traumatic drama in the breast of their family: the twenty years old Emily Brighton (Taylor Roberts) is retarded due to a fall when she was one, and her overprotective mother Martha Brighton (Amy Madigan) blames her negligence for the accident. The seventeen years old Evie Brighton (Lauren Ambrose) loves her sister and reads poems and stories for Emily. Their father Harry Brighton (John Savage), a bank investor, lives in the basement with his models of trains and railroads. Evie mysteriously sabotages her interviews for different universities being rejected, and teaches the poetries of her own to Emily. When Martha hears Emily repeating the poems, she takes notes and shows them to the English teacher Stewart Worthy (Christopher Lloyd), who believes that Emily has had a moment of geniuses. When Evie's only friend James (Fran Kranz) reads the notes, he immediately discloses the truth about the authority of the poetries. But when Martha becomes aware, she finds the reality of Evie, triggering a series of revelations.<br /><br />"Admissions" is a very powerful drama about needy of love and guilty complex. The performances are stunning, and this is the first work of Lauren Ambrose, from "Six Feet Under", that I see and she is amazing. This independent movie is an excellent choice for the viewers that are looking for a refreshing story based on the acting of the cast. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Cumplicidade" ("Complicity")

8 days no script that's what the DVD tells you is how the movie was made. It's shot in blurry video that's occasionally used to good effect, but it's really partially naked women sitting around in a room for most of the running time. It is very well acted and this helps a lot. But the killer only shows up once in a long time and the girls/women sit and mope they don't try to escape or do anything too interesting, so the whole thing grinds to a stand still after about 20 minutes. Would have been a good short maybe even powerful. Even for eight days they do very little. Why? Because they had no script. How many movies have been made without scripts. Not too many. I wonder why that is? How many great movies have been made from bad scripts. Not too many. Why is that? Working against this major problem, the direction tries and does some interesting things but with what is essentially nothing. Topless girls shot in dark grainy colorless video sitting around will keep some going for a while but not for the short but too long feature length. Actors again deserve praise, if only there was a script.<br /><br />Also the video quality, or lack thereof, is really low end, they try to use it to advantage and at times some shots look they are from Miami Vice, the recent movie that is. But that's not intended to compliment Miami Vice or this failed venture.

Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's character look weak. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't see the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work.

OK. I admit. I'm one of those nerds who have spent all to many hours with my beloved DVD player and my wonderful television set watching science fiction series. Star Trek (Next Generation) was my first space date, and since then I've switched partners regularly. I've seen'em all, it seems, and my favorites are «Lexx», «Farscape» and the new «Battlestar Galactica», in other words: the newest, state of the art space operas. But, I also have a general crush on the old fashioned ones, the cheap ones, like the magnificent four seasoned BBC show «Blakes7». Here, the budgets are smaller than hobbits, the special effects seem to be made on a Commodore 64, but who cares when the scripts are sharp and intelligently written with dark humor, the acting dead serious and at times even high class?<br /><br />But why do they always speak English in the space future? Because this is NOT the future, it's fantasy for kids. Still, it can be irritating at times. Me, being a Norwegian, have often damned this appalling fact that one never makes genre series, like science fiction, for Scandinavian viewers. I never ever thought of the fact that this might have happened. But it did, actually, once, and even in my own homeland, Norway. I was two years old when the so called Fjernsynsteatret (TV theater section) of our national public service channel Nrk produced this three episode version of Blindpassasjer (The Stowaway).<br /><br />When I first heard of it, I was not surprised of the fact that until this day, the show has only been screened once in Norway, making it impossible for me to actually see it. It went on Swedish, danish and Finnish television also, in it's time, but that was a long time ago. There have been no video or DVD release of it, not a surprise either, and when it was screened on an art house cinema, this happened in Bergen, a city far far away from Oslo (where I live). And then there's another fact about «Blindpassasjer» that didn't surprise me, that it was written by the two Norwegian authors Tor Åge Bringsværd and Jon Bing (Bing&Bringsværd). This duo basically introduced the SciFi genre to Norwegians in the seventies; they published anthologies and wrote what they called fable prose. In my opinion, Bringsværd is the most interesting of the two writers, and has written several great and entertaining novels, masterpieces even, some of them hilarious, such as «Bazar» and «Syvsoverskens Dystre Frokost». No other than this guy, also an acclaimed dramatist, could construct the script of «Blindpassasjer».<br /><br />When I finally got to watch it, it was because a strange swede who recorded the three episodes on VCR in the 80's, eventually managed to transform it to DVD and give it to me. He was a nice bloke. So I sat down and watched it, with Swedish subtitles, bad sound and some scrapes and errors; but the thing came through and I was surprised that I eventually came to love it.<br /><br />The exterior scenes with the spaceships and planets are better than the ones in Blakes7, and the credit goes to Caprino studios (who made the famous Flåklypa Grand Prix), and the interior of the Marco Polo (the space ship) works better than I'd expected. The acting is typically theatrical, but it works better than when they play Ibsen, to put it mildly, and Bjørn Floberg carries his role solidly, as does Trini Lund. The legendary actress Henny moan delivers her lines in a serious and laid back tone which fits the genre, but this is an ensemble play, and I'm happy to say that Ola B. Johannesen carries his mustache with nobility, and Marit Østbye is a really hot space chic of my standards.<br /><br />But is it really that good? Well, one have to swallow the rather abrupt ending, the pretentious criticism of «modern society», but yes, it's, well, not really really really fantastic, but charming, cool, nostalgic and pleasant. One and a half hour of classic Norwegian SciFi.

Tweaked a little bit, 'Nothing' could be a children's film. It's a very clever concept, touches upon some interesting metaphysical themes, and goes against pretty much every Hollywood convention you can think of...what goes against everything more than, literally, "nothing"? Nothing is the story of two friends who wish the world away when everything goes wrong with their lives. All that's left is what they don't hate, and a big empty white space. It's hard to focus a story on just two actors for the majority of your film, especially without any cuts to anything going on outside the plot. It focuses on pretty much one subject, but that's prime Vincenzo Natali territory. If you've seen 'Cube', you know already that he tends to like that type of situation. The "nothing" in this movie is apparently infinite space, but Natali somehow manages to make it somewhat claustrophobic, if only because there's literally nothing else, and nowhere else to go. The actors sell it, although you can tell these guys are friends anyway. Two actors from 'Cube' return here (Worth and Kazan), but are entirely different characters. They change throughout the story, and while they're not the strongest actors in the world, they're at least believable.<br /><br />The reason I say this could be a children's film under the right tweaks, is because aside from a few f-bombs and a somewhat unnecessary bloody dream sequence, the whimsical and often silly feel of this movie could very much be digested easily by kids. So I find it an odd choice that the writers decided to add some crass language and a small amount of gore, especially considering there isn't very much of it. This could've gotten a PG rating easily had they simply cut a few things out and changed a little dialogue. There is very little objectionable about this film, but just enough to keep parents from wanting their kids to see it. I only say that's a shame because not because I support censorship, but because that may have been the only thing preventing this movie from having wider exposure.<br /><br />At any rate, this is a reasonably entertaining film, albeit with a few dragged-out scenes. But for literally being about nothing, and focused entirely on two characters and their interactions with absolutely nothing, they do a surprisingly good job for an independent film.

I have looked forward to seeing this since I first saw it listed in her work. Finally found it yesterday 2/13/02 on Lifetime Movie Channel.<br /><br />Jim Larson's comments about it being a "sweet funny story of 2 people crossing paths" were dead on. Writers probably shouldn't get a bonus, everyone else SRO for making the movie.<br /><br />Anybody who appreciates a romantic Movie SHOULD SEE IT.<br /><br />Natasha's screen presence is so warm and her smile so electric, to say nothing of her beauty, that anything she is in goes on my favorite list. Her TV and print interviews that I have seen are just as refreshing and well worth looking for.<br /><br />God Bless her, her family and future endeavors.<br /><br />This movie doesn't seem to available in DVD or video yet, but I would be the first to buy it and I think others would too.

The Adventures of Hercules has to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie I've yet run across. You would have to look far and wide to find anything that approaches the level of ineptness on display in this movie. Acting – Bad. Editing – Bad. Direction – Bad. Special Effects – Bad and Laughable. Plot – Bad. Lighting – Bad. Cinematography – Bad. Costume Design – Bad and Silly. Everything Else – Bad. Watching The Adventures of Hercules is about as enjoyable as a root canal. Even for a fan of bad movies, it's a real endurance test. This is one for either masochists or Lou Ferrigno completists (if any exist).<br /><br />Eight things I learned from watching The Adventures of Hercules: <br /><br />1. If you don't have the budget for real special effects, rotoscope a scene from the previous movie. It will look great - trust me.<br /><br />2. When on a quest to recover Zeus' thunderbolts, take time for frequent stops to oil-up you body. It worked for Ferrigno and his two Amazon companions.<br /><br />3. Any sword fight, use of magic, and just about all other day to day activities in ancient Greece created a sound very similar to a game of Pac Man or Asteroids.<br /><br />4. Some of the ancient Greek gods dressed like extras from Star Wars.<br /><br />5. If you need to pad your crappy movie's runtime, extend the title sequence by adding Star Trek style credits and throw in some overly grandiose music. It also helps if you've got a previous movie to pull scenes from.<br /><br />6. Fight scenes move along much smoother if the bad guys attack Hercules one at a time.<br /><br />7. William Berger did anything for money.<br /><br />8. I didn't think it was possible, but The Adventures of Hercules makes the first film, Hercules (1983), look like an Academy Award winner.

Ray Liotta and Tom Hulce shine in this sterling example of brotherly love and commitment. Hulce plays Dominick, (Nicky) a mildly mentally handicapped young man who is putting his 12 minutes younger, twin brother, Liotta, who plays Eugene, through medical school. It is set in Baltimore and deals with the issues of sibling rivalry, the unbreakable bond of twins, child abuse and good always winning out over evil. It is captivating, and filled with laughter and tears. If you have not yet seen this film, please rent it, I promise, you'll be amazed at how such a wonderful film could go un-noticed.

Let me say first of all that I spent a total of about two minutes of my life on a skateboard before I realized I was totally uncoordinated. I've always thought it was cool watching cats that know how to get extreme on 'em do their stuff, but I've never been a skateboarder and have never really followed the sport. That being said, I thought this was a very informative and interesting documentary. Some reviewers have said that these dudes were sort of waving their own flag a bit, but what the hell? It looks to me that these guys probably deserve as much credit as anyone for giving the skateboarding world a jolt and they've provided some good footage of their innovations to back it up. It's great the way viewers are allowed to see these guys both then and now and the footage they shot while they were teens growing up in California provides some interesting nostalgia that goes a bit beyond the sport of skating. I never would have realized where extreme skating came from, but this films sort of ties all the pieces together and gives us an informative documentary. I'm sure it's at least a tad biased, but aren't all documentaries? Worth watching for anyone interested in the sport or, as in my case, anyone who grew up in the 1970's.

In a poor village in Mexico, the Colonel (Fernando Luján) lives with his asthmatic wife Lola (Marisa Paredes) in an old house. Lola still grieves the death of their son Augustin some time ago. The colonel has been expecting for his pension of fighter in a war against Catholic church for almost twenty-seven years. However, for political reasons, the present government wants to forget this old fight. Without having any possession or money, but a valuable gamecock, they struggle to survival with the expectation of the acknowledgement letter from the government, recognizing the law and paying for the delayed pension. This slow and touching movie reflects the social and financial situation of most of the elder retired persons in third world countries. In Brazil, most of the retired persons has to survive with about US$ 80,00 per month. The debts of the colonel in the story were made to pay for a graveyard for his son, otherwise he would be buried as an indigent. Outstanding performance of the cast, in a very sad story that is reality in the poor countries. My vote is eight. <br /><br />Title (Brazil): (`Não se Escreve ao Coronel') (Do not Write to the Colonel)<br /><br />

Guy Kibbee gives the viewer a lot of laughs. Like most candidates, he knows almost nothing. Warren William, a very, under rated actor, is superb in giving instructions to Kibbee; that is, he teaches him to say something which means nothing to the voting public. A campaign based on no comment, "I'll take it under advisement," and "Maybe yes, but then again, maybe no," is the nearly perfect way to win an election. Succinctly, the dumber the candidate, the greater the chance he or she will win. After all, the public can identify with such a person. With respect to the movie, it makes for a lot of comedy.

One of those movies where you take bets on who will die first and who will survive at the end. There was just something about the movie that made me zone out. I think because I keep looking back and thinking "yep still in that tree...still looking at the water". Poor character development. I felt nothing when they were in danger. I was voting for the croc. I found it hard to believe a croc would try to tip a boat in the first place and then when it jumps into the boat I find that really unlikely as well. The croc seems too supernatural at times ('all knowing all seeing'). Also when the croc attacks it's behavior seems very unrealistic. It's a killing machine and wouldn't be letting victims escape twice to three times in a row, especially when attacking in the water.

This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.<br /><br />All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: "Why you seem so careless?" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.<br /><br />It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters

The only reason I gave this movie a 2 and not a 1 was because for some reason I felt compelled to finish it out! Basically, I wanted to see if there were going to be any aliens, any UFO's, anything at all suggested by the title of the movie, the cover of the movie and the beginning of the movie! I was very disappointed to see religion being thrown into the mix the way that it was. This could have been used to the movie's advantage, but I felt, instead, that the movie was trying to send subliminal messages to me! Finally, how big was this cast's wardrobe!? I became so distracted by the number of different, and extremely bright, shirts each character had on in every new scene that I began to wonder if this movie wasn't really supposed to be classified under "poor comedy".<br /><br />toe thumbs down!

-Kidnappings in Mexico are as common as honeys giving me their phone numbers so if you're rich then you'll need a good bodyguard to keep you and your kids safe. A couple hires a washed up bodyguard called Creasy to protect their adorable kid Pita. At first, their relationship is a tad buggy but after a while, Creasy eases up to the girl and the two develop a father/daughter relationship. One day Pita is kidnapped and Creasy is badly injured in the process. When he wakes up he finds out that the girl has been killed due to a ransom negotiations that went wrong and this sets Creasy on a path find the men responsible for her death and make sure they are brought to his brand of justice.<br /><br />-Keep some Tylenol next to you while watching this movie because you will need to take some after watching it. I really love the story here of going to the extreme to obtain revenge because most movies usually just want revenge but really never go too far where as this movie they show how far a man can go to do what he feels is right. The only problem is the annoying visual style, which will either make you hate the movie or hate Tony Scott. I really feel sorry for the cinematographer because I'm sure he came into this movie thinking he was going to be filming an action movie and probably got all excited but instead he got stuck being the DP for a filmmaker that feels that the whole movie should look like it's been possessed by demons. I wouldn't have mind if the crappy visuals were restricted to a few action scenes but when it's spread through out the whole movie then that's when we have some problems. The same annoying style was recently used on "Domino" and much like with this movie the style did hurt that otherwise great movie.<br /><br />-Another person I feel sorry on this movie was the soon to be great Harry Gregson Williams who had the impossible task of trying to compose music out of the jagged images. Somehow, Williams wrote some decent music for the movie but I'm sure if the movie had been more stable then the music would have turned out a lot better. The sound is wrongfully used throughout the movie and instead of enhancing the movie experience, it rather makes you feel like you're being punished. The overuse of the subwoofer is irritating as every 5 seconds or so you can hear an ungodly low end sound coming out of it. I don't know why Scott thought the audience needed to be bombarded by the subwoofer but it really takes you away from the movie.<br /><br />-The acting in the movie is a beast despite the visuals. Little Fanning does yet another great job here and the scene at the end of the movie just breaks my heart. If the end of the movie doesn't make anyone cry then they're dead on the inside. Denzel Washington breaks his rule of not making any action movies with this movie and luckily, for him he gets to play a great character. The whole idea of a man that's lost in life and all of a sudden due to a tragedy finds a purpose in his life is nothing new but Washington brings some heart and emotion to the otherwise flat character. I love how we witness him from being a loner to actually learning to have emotion and after the kidnapping becoming a cold instrument of revenge. Radha Mitchell plays Marc Anthony's wife and she along with Fanning are the two reasons why I can't hate the movie too much. J.Lo's husband comes and goes in the movie but he doesn't really stand out much. Mickey Rourke and Chris Walken all have minimal roles in the movie but they do make an impact.<br /><br />-One thing that makes me laugh is how the filmmakers try to makeup for the crappy way they portray Mexico by calling it a fine city at the end of the movie. A little too late for that if you ask me. Let's hope that Tony Scott is done with this phase of intentionally trying to ruin his career because a filmmaker as talented as him CAN and must do better than this.

The early films of the Dead End Kids (before they were re-christened "the Bowery Boys") were all very entertaining and well-produced films from Warner Brothers. Despite their being rather formulaic, they still had excellent writing, acting and hold up well over time. Do NOT confuse these with the cheap Bowery Boys films from Monogram Pictures--despite the presence of Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, these films were several notches below the earlier films in regard to quality.<br /><br />The film begins with tough-guy John Garfield winning the lightweight boxing championship. Unfortunately, shortly after this he's on a drunken binge and is blamed for a murder he really didn't commit. The problem is that he was so loaded that he wasn't sure he didn't kill the man, so he runs away and lives the life of a hobo. Eventually, he meets up with feisty May Robson and the Dead End Kids--as well as a lady you just know will become his girlfriend given time.<br /><br />Where the rest of the film goes was not all that surprising, but because of the quality of the film, it doesn't seem to matter. Garfield and the Kids are at their best and this is a film sure to please all but the pickiest of viewers.

The photography on the DVD is so dark I thought the screen had died. I think I missed seeing half of the movie. Still, it was poorly crafted and not interesting. I did not find the story related to the title "The Black Widow". I was hoping for a mystery or a thriller but did not get involved enough to care after the first few frames. I rented the movie especially for Willem Dafoe and was sad it wasted his talent. I do not believe Giada Colagrande has studied movie making long enough to develop a major motion picture. She is attractive and might develop into an actor but she took on too many tasks in this movie. Although they are married in real life, they lack chemistry on the screen. Their relationships did not seem believable. I do not understand why the other characters were even introduced into the plot.

I also joined IMDB for the sole purpose of commenting on this film, but so that I can sing its praises. I had never heard of this movie (it's packaged so horribly that it's easy to see why it may get passed over) but a good friend suggested it to me and I'm so glad she did. It's a gem of a film. The actors are great (Kathy Bates and Meredith Eaton in particular) and look like they are truly having a fun time. Sure at times it was a bit over the top, but I cannot remember the last time I laughed so hard or so many times over the course of two hours. If you love to laugh, then you owe it to yourself to see this film.<br /><br />Highly Recommended.

Young couple on the road, minding their own business and having casual sex in their car during broad daylight. Yet, suddenly, they're being menaced and terrorized by a deranged psychopath in an old and rusty pick-up truck. Hmm, where have I seen this premise before? Oh yeah, now I remember, we've seen this a THOUSAND times before already, and approximately nine hundred and ninety-nine of the other cases were much better than "Rest Stop"! This weak and pitiable new movie is insulting even to the intellect of the most undemanding horror fans, as it doesn't feature a single original twist or memorable gimmick. It's very sadistic and nasty, but every teenkill-slasher flick is sadistic and nasty nowadays, so that's no real surprise anymore, neither. The absolute main problem with this production is the incredibly large amount of dumb plot holes and meaningless sub plots. Writer/director John Shiban damn well realized that the ultra-thin basic storyline nearly wasn't enough to fill a whole movie with, and thus he stuffs up his film like a Thanksgiving turkey with imbecile and nonsensical padding material. Nicole's boyfriend vanishes at an abandoned and filthy rest stop in California. Killing off her character right away wouldn't result in a very long movie and thus she subsequently encounters a motor home family of freaks, suffers from visions (?) in which she talks to the deranged killer's previous victims and she has deeply emotional (and boring) conversations with a police officer who just won't die even though a truck ran over him...twice! The dumb sub plots never lead anywhere and they're definitely the most pathetic and desperate attempts to stretch a movie's length I've ever seen. Instead of all the pointless padding, Shiban should have paid more attention to building up tension and make his lead characters a little more likable. Jaimie Alexander's character Nicole is an annoying and brainless girl, and you won't really care whether she'll survive the ordeal or not. Her boyfriend Jesse as well as the cop are both whining losers and their brutal deaths still weren't painful enough, if you ask me. I counted exactly three sequences, all including torture and gratuitous mutilation, that were gory and exciting enough to bring a sadist smile on my face. That's still way too few for a nowadays horror movie. Basically, "Rest Stop" is simply a miserable attempt to cash in on the success of such films like "Wolf Creek" and "Hostel", but you're better off watching the originals. This was the first film of the new production company called 'Raw Feed'. They're promoting themselves as the new name in great horror, but they'll have to come up with something much better than "Rest Stop" if they want us to believe that.

Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.<br /><br />Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.<br /><br />The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.<br /><br />There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover?

A wonderful film - a charming, quirky family story. A cross-country journey filled with lots of interesting, oddball stops along the way (& several very cool cameos). Great cast led by Rod Steiger carries the film along and leads to a surprise ending. Well directed & shot - a really nice movie.

This movie was amazing. Never before have I seen such a film that brought me to the harsh reality of drug use quite like this one. There is no glamorizing, sugar coating, or glorifying heroine. This movie shows the true struggles, pain, and loss people go through when dealing with this drug. Good film, decent emotionally packed acting, and a great storyline. A much watch!<br /><br />

For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.<br /><br />Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.<br /><br />Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's. <br /><br />Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.<br /><br />I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders.

"Hari om" is an Indian greeting and the compelling title character of the film bearing this same name(played by the wedding planner from Monsoon Wedding) greets you and takes you on a journey through the heart of southern India. There's no "Bend it like Beckham" backdrops and stereotypes, and only slight salutes to the music and dancing of Bollywood (however, the soundtrack is well worth procuring), but rather, the feel that you are seeing the real India permeates the film through the use of dozens of local residents in each scene to augment the performance of the five professional actors. Fortunately for us, Hari Om's companion is a young and beautiful French woman in search of a journey. With overtures of an "Y Tu Mama Tambien" trip toward self-discovery (without the sex and fatal disease), this beautiful film calms and brings the philosophic mind. Against the initial juxtaposition of the protagonists, all identify with traits of both and the cultural divide disappears as humanity steps in. Most succinctly put, the movie's central theme, "Everyone has a love story, don't let yours pass by" teaches us a great deal about love on a number of levels. Don't let this film pass you by!

If you like The Three Stooges you'll undoubtedly like this 17 minute short. There were certainly some amusing moments in it, but like all the Stooges' work, this revolves around their particular style of slapstick comedy, and I have to confess that somehow the Stooges just never really did it for me. Their slapstick always seemed angry rather than funny, and even though it was obviously fake, their antics always seemed more likely to cause hurt rather than to cause laughter. In this short, the slapstick revolves around the attempts to find Shemp (who is a Professor of Music in this) a wife, because he's just inherited half a million dollars on condition that he marry within 48 hours of the will being read. One of his students is interested, but once word of the inheritance gets out , there's suddenly a long line-up of potential brides, and a pretty good cat fight emerges between them. Fans of the Stooges will enjoy. For me, it has all the elements that drive me nuts about them. 4/10

I saw this movie way back at the first theatrical release, in a justifiably empty theater. Believe it or not, after decades of watching movies, this one still sticks clearly in my mind as the worst movie of all time; or at least the worst that I would allow myself to watch.<br /><br />The acting is far beneath the standard set by any random group of drunken high-school students yanked off the street and forced to learn their lines in 5 minutes or less.<br /><br />After the first shock of disbelief, we laughed for a while as each scene hit new lows. But after a while, even that dubious pleasure wore off and it just got to be really sad.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.<br /><br />The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying "lake" and "cabin". I'd kick his ass.<br /><br />Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.<br /><br />I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.<br /><br />Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness.

Poorly cast, terrible script full of holes, hot blonde gets eaten alive, The evil scientist has a seriously nasty mustache, one man takes on a platoon of trained gunman and comes out victor, terrible special effects, they fix the problem by blowing the head off the monster... Awesome. The only thing missing was an unnecessary graphic sex scene during one of the killings. Haha. Good gored up fun filled with predictable twists and laughable one liners. I highly enjoyed this movie, but before you watch it make sure you're in for a good laugh. I recommend this movie to people who can watch a movie and not take it so serious. I can not, in my right mind, think that this movie was made for people to take it seriously. However, if you can watch it and sit back and just enjoy, I really think you can enjoy this movie in the way it was meant to be enjoyed. Very simply. So get some popcorn and a couple beers and have a fun night with some friends and this movie. It brought some joy into my life.