Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.<br /><br />The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.<br /><br />Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.<br /><br />Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.<br /><br />A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.<br /><br />4/10

One of the better Vance films succeeds more on interesting plot and artful direction by none other than Michael Curtiz. This time around a generally hated financier is found dead - shot in the head - in his locked and bolted bedroom on the upper floor. Philo Vance, hearing of the situation while about to set off for Italy, decides to end his vacation and try to solve what he thinks is a murder and what everyone else is considering a suicide. William Powell is as affable a Philo Vance as you will find. He never seems to press and is always very smooth in what he says and does. Powell is aided by a host of very talented actors - some first-rate character actors and actresses like Mary Astor as a niece that hated her uncle, Ralph Morgan as the dead man's secretary, Paul Cavanaugh as a rival dog fancier, Arthur Hohl as a mysterious butler, Helen Vinson as the next door kept blonde, and two really good performances by James Lee as the Chinese cook and portly Eugene Palette as a wise-cracking police detective. Add into the mix a wonderfully comedic turn by Etienne Girardot as a public coroner always missing his meal. It is this depth of suspects and a story that has many plots twists and turns that make The Kennel Murder Case a fast-moving, fun mystery.

The American Humane Association, which is the source of the familiar disclaimer "No animals were harmed..." (the registered trademark of the AHA), began to monitor the use of animals in film production more than 60 years ago, after a blindfolded horse was forced to leap to its death from the top of a cliff for a shot in the film Jesse James (1939). Needless to say, the atrocious act kills the whole entertainment aspect of this film for me. I suppose one could say that at least the horse didn't die in vain, since it was the beginning of the public waking up to the callous and horrendous pain caused animals for the glory of movie making, but I can't help but feel that if the poor animal had a choice, this sure wouldn't have been the path he would have taken!

French film directors continue to amaze with their extraordinary ability to simulate the sights and sounds of ordinary, everyday suburban life. This was readily apparent with the release early in 2002 of L'Emploi du temps ( Time Out ) , a brilliant character study of of a white collar worker's descent into melancholy after having been fired from his job. As is the penchant of French filmmakers , many scenes were shot on real streets and in public places, giving a cinema verite feel to the story , yet L'Emploi du temps also possessed an elegant look thanks to excellent camera work and some stunning location footage ( most notably a Swiss mountain retreat ). Running fairly on the heels of that masterful movie comes another impressive French production, Jacques Audiard's gritty crime caper, Sur mes levres ( Read My Lips ). Actually, to tag this film a crime caper does it a disservice because it is so much more than that. As with the earlier French release, it is an incisive character study of marginal people using their wits to get ahead in a society that has turned its back on them. In a Paris construction firm Carla, a shy, diminutive young woman sits at her desk, sequestered to an area of the office that is a major pathway to the xerox machines and restrooms.<br /><br />Obnoxious coworkers use the front of Carla's desk to chat and drop off their half-finished Styrofoam cups of coffee. Partially deaf, Carla turns her hearing aids on and off at will if noise becomes bothersome, be it the drone of the paper copiers or the shrill crying of a friend's baby. When her boss calls her into the office to suggest that she hire a secretarial assistant to help her with the work load, Carla fears she may lose her job. At the employment office Carla lists the specifications she wants for her assistant (preferably male) as if she were at a Personals Agency. He should be 25 years old and clean -cut , with extensive computer and filing skills. When the agency sends over an unkempt , menacing looking young man, Carla is both shocked and intrigued. They leave the office and have lunch at a local eatery, where Carla interviews her prospective assistant. When she finds out that he has just gotten out of prison , Carla initially wants nothing to do with Paul, but has a change of heart and hires him on. Although she is basically kind toward her helper, Carla now finds herself in a position of authority and possessing a newfound sense of power. Paul learns quickly and becomes an able worker. Carla helps Paul find a temporary place to live and even covers for him when his parole officer shows up one day at the office wondering why Paul missed his appointment. During one of their lunch breaks Carla informs Paul of her hearing deficiency and reveals her ability to read lips. Later, when an avaricious coworker blatantly takes over a project Carla has been working on, a furious Carla asks Paul's help in seeking revenge on the man. From here on in Sur mes levres becomes an increasingly intense crime drama escalating into some of the most violently graphic scenes that have been shown on the screen in recent years. The screenplay borrows elements from Hitchcock, most notably REAR WINDOW, where Carla's lip-reading talent comes into full play using a pair of binoculars. There is a teasing, on-again, off-again sexual attraction between the two protagonists that culminates in a rather strange homage to NORTH BY NORTHWEST, but it works because of the considerable sexual heat that builds slowly between the two stars. That being said, what one carries away from this movie isn't so much the similarities to classic Hitchcock thrillers, although those elements are definitely there, but the pervasive view a of a modern day city (in this case Paris) where life runs the gamut from mundane workdays to a boozy, garish nightlife where sex, drugs and laundered money infiltrate the lives of several characters. Unlike Hollywood productions, this is a psychological suspense yarn where the people look like the everyday man and woman on the street, where a punch in the face or groin sounds like a sickening thud and where the office is a place to be feared. It's Hitchcock with the gloves off.

I was lucky enough to see Zero Day last night. It's an amazing movie. A very disturbing one at that.<br /><br />In a way, Zero Day is very comparable to "The Blair Witch Project". It's shot completley with handheld camcorders. It's about 2 kids. Just your average kids. Andre and Calvin. They start a campaign against there High School entitled "Army of 2".<br /><br />The whole story is told in Video Diary form, from the 2 kids. It shows there relationships with there parents, amongst other people, showing that these are just normal kids, just like people we know or who have bumped into. We find out The Army of 2's last mission will be entitles Zero Day. They plan to shoot up there High School.<br /><br />You see how they get access to there guns, how they plan it out, everything. They stress that the media has not affected them at all, and there is no reason for doing this. Like I said, this is all told in Video Diary form, and then they store the tapes in a safety deposit box to be seen after Zero Day.<br /><br />The actual shooting is shown through Survillence Cameras throughout the school. Chilling indeed. The movie is very chilling. Some of the things they say, how they plan it out, you'd just have to see it for yourself. One quote that I remember is the only time Calvin is byhimself. He says "Andre thinks were just gonna leave in some getaway car, doing this to numerous schools across the country. I don't know what he's thinking, but the only way I'm coming out of the school is in a black plastic bag".<br /><br />I'm probaly not even giving you guys the proper idea of this film. You really need to see it yourself. It's going around festivals right now.<br /><br />A+.

Warning: Herzog is a filmaker, and as such tends to be a bit overly dramatic. So obsessions about closing doors may or may not be a real part of the character's life, but a filmaker's dramatic embellishment - or so both agreed at the premiere in San Francisco. But Herzog's usual fascination with character, dreams and perseverance are well suited by this story first published in Soldier of Fortune, and now a full length autobiographical book. (The Soldier of Fortune comment brought loud boos from the politically correct SF audience, and both filmaker and main character had to ensure the audience who had just seen the film, that SOF's interest was misplaced - so warning, this is not Rambo, just survival.)

Duchess and her three kittens are enjoying the high life with their devoted human mistress until the wicked butler Edgar, with his eyes on a big inheritance, decides to dope them and get them out of the picture. How can these fragile creatures cope in the unfamiliar countryside and the meaner streets of Paris? Only by meeting the irrepressible alley cat O'Malley, a rough diamond with romance in his heart. After they get a taste of the wide dangerous world, he guides them home, and Edgar gets his just desserts at the wrong end of a horse. As always, it's really the voices rather than the animation that are the heart of the Disney magic: Phil Harris is brilliant as O'Malley, Eva Gabor as Duchess is... well... Eva Gabor; but perhaps the most memorable turns are by Pat Buttram and George Lindsay, who turn the old hounds Napoleon and Lafayette into a couple of bumbling Southern-fried rednecks. Their scenes with Edgar, and the musical numbers with Scat Cat and his cool-dude band, are classic. Most striking about seeing The Aristocats now is how deeply Disney's style of animation has changed since this was at the cutting edge in 1970. Perhaps the nostalgic, dated feel are just a result of being plonked down in Belle Epoque Paris, but the illustrations are fussier (a pity) and the animation and overall pace much less frenetic (sometimes a relief) than in more recent efforts such as Aladdin.

This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.

The Three Stooges in a feature length western comedy-musical? Perhaps "Rockin' in the Rockies" was meant to combine the Stooges comedy short with the western musical, in a matinée; if so, this was a pleasant way to break up a Saturday afternoon. Jay Kirby (as Rusty) is a handsome young hero; and, Mary Beth Hughes (as the blonde June) and Gladys Blake (as the brunette Betty) are pretty women. The Hoosier Hotshots are a harmonious group; their songs are quite tuneful; however, this is the 1940s, not the 1950s, so the film doesn't exactly "rock". There are a few laughs; but the Stooges' brand of humor is more subdued than usual. The talking horse is also underutilized. <br /><br />**** Rockin' in the Rockies (4/17/45) Vernon Keays ~ Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curly Howard, Mary Beth Hughes

God! Zorro has been the the subject of about as many movies as Tarzan, and probably had about as many actors in the title role. <br /><br />This Serial is one of my own personal favourites, and as previously stated,it is one of the Top 5 Sound Serials. Oddly enough, this is one production that came out in that water shed year of 1939.* By the time of this production in '39, Zorro was really well known as a (Pulp) literary and movie character. The film opens up with a little foot note about the History of the Mexico's struggle for freedom from rule by a European Monarchy, namely Spain. The story invites comparison with the American Revolutionary War.<br /><br />The story concentrates its attention to the mythical Province of San Mendelito and its 'Council'. It is being addressed by Benito Juarez**on their gold mine's relation to the new Republic of Mexico. Gold shipments must get thru to Mexico City.<br /><br />Don Francisco Uncle to Diego Vega, states that he has organized a group of patriots to act as a protective force for the gold convoys.A thug from the Don del Oro mob, stages an 'insult' to himself and challenges Don Francisco to a duel with swords, Don Frasncisco getting run through.<br /><br />Suddenly the dark clad masked swordsman appears to sword fight and after carving the trademark 'Z' on the face of the bad guy, he dispatches him to the hereafter. Don Francisco declares with his dying breath to his ward Ramon (William Corson) that Zorro is his nephew from the city of Los Angeles. He also attempts to tell of the true identity of Don del Oro, but expires before completing statement.<br /><br />There is a big reception for Diego at Don Francisco's Hacienda, where Diego disappoints Ramon'sister (also ward of Don Francisco) with his timid act. "A FOP!!", she declares.<br /><br />Later,Diego and Ramon slip away to join up with a meeting of the volunteers. When they ask, "who will lead us with Don Francisco now dead?", Ramon declares "Zorro, we are Zorro's Fighting Legion!" Well there is a big battle with the Legion, now all clad on gray, with masks and capes, protecting the Gold Train. Then Zorro seems trapped at a man-made avalanche intended for the convoy, when, well, you know cliffhanger end of Chapter One.<br /><br />Wow! That was a lot of writing for one Chapter, but like most other Serials, the opening one is longer and has a lot of ground to be laid to set up the story line. Let's just let it suffice to say that there are 11 more good, well made, action filled Chapters following.<br /><br />ZORRO's FIGHTING LEGION has all of the elements that made for top cliffhanger action. We have an unknown evil leader who is fomenting trouble between different groups. There is a number of suspects as to who was really behind of the mask of 'Don del Oro'. We had soldiers, renegade Whites, hostile Indians and the Legion.<br /><br />In short, it's safe to say that there is everything one could want, and then some, in this Serial. And, incidentally, they wisely choose to not have the actors affect any Mexican accents.<br /><br />As to just what is there here that makes ZFL stand out from the rest? What makes it different or unique? Well........<br /><br />First of all, it has a much more elaborate and exciting musical score playing and underlining the drama and action on the screen. The opening theme even appears in a flamenco guitar rendition at the Cantina in Chapter One. This is probably the only time that such a highly specialized innovation appears in serial sound track.<br /><br />And yet there is one more feature that really sets the Fighting Legion saga out in front from all others. That is, the film not only has a heroic musical theme, but it also sports Lyrics, yes, the Legionairres sing! We hear them singing in the opening credits and in several Chapters! It really works well and adds to the feelings we get from the viewing.<br /><br />When the Serial was first shown on our local television (circa 1955), all of the gang immediately recognized the voice of Reed Hadley as belonging to 'Captain Braddock from RACKET SQUAD, the TV Series. Mr. Hadley had a very distinctive, deep voice.*** He also handled the role very well. His costume and especially the elongated mask looked very good and was probably very functional.<br /><br />There is a small slip up. A sort of minor anachronism occurs by having Benito Juarez(Carleton Young)addressing the San Mendelito Council, as Juarez was about 18 years old at this time (1824) and, though he was later perhaps the greatest single figure in Mexico's History, he surely hadn't achieved such prominence yet. His inclusion in story probably was to cash in on the release of Warner Brothers' JUAREZ that year, which starred Paul Muni in the title role.<br /><br />This is not only my pick as a top 5 sound serial, but also my favourite Zorro film.<br /><br />* We are reminded of the great crop of top flight movies that year, what with GONE WITH THE WIND, MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, THE CITADEL, JUAREZ, THE WIZARD OF OZ, OF MICE AND MEN, ONE MILLION B.C.,ZENOBIA, WE WANT OUR MUMMY all counted among the output that year.<br /><br />** Once again, Juarez did not ascend to any national importance until around 1850, about 25 years later. Also, the political sub-divisions are referred to as 'Provinces' in the story. In actuality, they are called 'States'. Just as we are called the United States of America, so too,South of the Border they call their Repubhlic the United States of Mexico.<br /><br />*** Reed Hadley was prominent in some very 'A' pictures in which his richly toned voice is exploited to good effect. Watch & listen for his narration in THE HOUSE ON 92nd STREET (1945) and GUADALCANAL DIARY (1945).

This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.<br /><br />I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most "A-pictures" of the day.

I couldn't believe it when I put this movie in my DVD player. I thought I'd have a good laugh, since I've played D&D for half my life. I had to turn it off as I had company and they were wondering what the crap I was watching.<br /><br />Finished it later, and I should have just left it off at the soft-core gay clown porn in the beginning. No, they run the gamut of fart jokes, cum jokes, incest, racism, dressing up as KKK... This movie is flat out mean to anyone who's ever played D&D.<br /><br />No wonder it looks like the Real D&D wouldn't let them use their game. Who'd want their name attached to this?

I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.

Frankie Darro was a wonderful child actor who excelled at playing pugnacious little toughs with gigantic chips on their shoulders. He appeared in a couple of top films of the early 30s - "The Public Enemy" (1931), a ground breaking crime drama and "Wild Boys of the Road" (1933), a topical depression era movie about kids who ride the rails. He was essentially a younger version of James Cagney. Although short of height, his willingness to do his own stunts kept him employed in a series of programmers when the bigger studios had no more use for him.<br /><br />"Crime School" was supposed to be a remake of "The Mayor of Hell" but it had far more humour in it and featured The Dead End Kids and Humphrey Bogart as a very laid back Deputy Commisssioner. "The Mayor of Hell" is really a combination of "Hell's House"/"Crime School"/ "Boy's Town". Even though Cagney didn't make his appearance until around the 25th minute his impact (as usual) was immediate. He plays a hot headed gangster who is on the payroll of a political group run by the mob.<br /><br />Jimmy Smith (Frankie Darro) and his gang (including "Farina" from "Our Gang") run a car washing racket but bite off more than they can chew when they rob a general store and push the owner through a plate glass window. They appear before the juvenile court and are sentenced to go to the state reformatory. It is painted in glowing terms - a model school where boys are given a chance to learn a trade. In reality, it is a hellish place run by a sadistic warden, Mr. Thompson (outstandingly played by Dudley Digges). The only compassionate person is Dorothy Griffith, the live-in nurse (played by Madge Evans).<br /><br />"Patsy" Gargan (James Cagney) has been given the job as the new Deputy Commissioner, as a favour. On his arrival at the school he witnesses a failed escape attempt and after talking to Dorothy, realises the school needs sweeping reforms. He is soon running the school and brings in a system of "self government" - rather along the lines of "Boy's Town". Even though Cagney doesn't have a lot to do, the picture is carried along to it's gripping climax by the energy of Darro. After "Patsy" is temporarily out of the picture (he accidentally shoots a mobster and has to leave the state), Thompson returns and his brutal treatment, resulting in the death of a boy ("Skinny") turn the rest of the boys into an angry mob. They burn down a barn and Thompson falls to his death - "Patsy" returning just in time to quieten the mob with some sobering talk.<br /><br />Sure, all the boys seemed to get was a stiff talking to for their crimes but I do disagree with one of the reviewers - Thompson was more than just a "meanie". His sadistic treatment resulted in a boy's death. There is a scene at the beginning where the boys are served some inedible slop - Thompson orders ham and eggs and keeps piling the butter on his bread while talking to Dorothy. <br /><br />Allan Jenkins plays "Uncle" Mike and Sheila Terry, although billed only as "a blonde" has one of the most memorable lines when she pouts and says "I thought there was going to be young boys here, where are they?"!!!<br /><br />Highly Recommended.

This movie, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.

This was the worst movie I have ever seen. I have to admit I didn't watch it from beginning to end as cleaning the toilet was more entertaining.<br /><br />The 'star' was the most unpleasant character I've ever seen, neither funny nor attractive, in fact, creepy and obnoxious are far too complimentary.<br /><br />It is painful to watch, there is no acting, especially not from the star who behaves as a doped up mentally deficient take off on one of those loud mouthed black actors.<br /><br />As horrible as it is to watch one of those can't shut up black actors, watching a Puerto Rican one is even worse. <br /><br />The name of the movie is descriptive, he is the pest. This movie is a must miss.

Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.<br /><br />Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.

i was greatly moved when i watched the movie.how jonny could keep such hope and faith was amazing. so many people only care about what they want , and fuss about all the things they don't have . and they are such small things ,like chothes,money a new car . i've seen people in tears because of a blemish. this movie brings everything back to the basics . love,hope the beauty of the simple but so important things in life.it makes our everyday problems seen for what they are Small and really unimportant. you watch this boy and you realize as long as you have been blessed with food ,a roof over your head and your loved ones around you .you are truly blessed.and the saying stop and smell the roses truly has a new meaning.and i know jonny will see this and i want to thank him so much for sharing such faith,strenght,and humor with me .thank you jonny i know you soar the heavens and bring much love and laughter to the heavens above.

Just watched this on DVD three times - Once the 'normal' way, once with the scenes in consecutive order (in this doozy of a film noir, the beginning, middle and end of the story intertwine), and once with the director's commentary running. Quite amazing. A bare-bones tale, told with more flair, energy and substance than most big-budget overblown features being released today. <br /><br />I think this is an even more accomplished film than the subsequent Memento, which turned me on to Nolan in the first place. Can't wait to see what he does with a bigger budget (and bigger box-office stars) in his next film, Insomnia.

There is an endless supply of trashy horror movies. It seems that people never get tired of trying to scare and thrill. Alas, very seldom these attempts succeed. This, unfortunate movie has almost no redeeming value. The story is highly predictable, most of the actors very uninspired, or just plainly miscast, special effects of very low quality. It took a lot of effort not to switch off the DVD and go to bed. With such a limited number of foreign movies issued in the USA, why in the world would anybody want to import this drivel. To top it all, apparently there is an "Anatomy 2 ", for those who have nothing better to do. I'd rather watch the paint dry.

"Mad Dog Time"..."Trigger Happy" whatever you wanna call it...simply doesn't hit the mark. Maybe its just me, maybe i just don't like Gangster comedies ( as i thought Oscar , Johney Dangerously and Mafia also sucked ) It's probably more "witty sharp wordplay" than all out Comedy, only its not as witty and sharp as it ( or the other reviewers )Make it out to be. <br /><br />The Rick , Mick , Vic Thing was old to begin with making it a running gag was at times painful to watch. <br /><br />There wasn't enough Changes of Location or Feel for the period they were supposed to be in. The Majority of the film was either set in "Dreyfus's Club" or a variety of Offices /dim rooms... ( what was with that Sit down Gun stand off thing Goldblum kept winning ?) <br /><br />The supporting cast was... on Paper excellent ( great to see Silva & Drago)but characters were killed off before they had time to develop. and Richard Pryors cameo was a Joke ! The Romance and Love element of the film also bogged it down.<br /><br />4/10 I don't think i'll return to it anytime soon.

In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.<br /><br />I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.<br /><br />Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me. <br /><br />Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well.

In "Hoot", Mullet Fingers is engaging in sabotage to stop the pancake house. The problem is that the builders just start over again, and he has to take more drastic measures. When he is confronted with the dogs, he scares them off with snakes, not before he is bitten by a dog and has to go to hospital.<br /><br />Roy at bedtime asks his father, who works with the Department of Justice, how he deals with crooks. His father says it involves the tedious steps of looking through papers, because sooner or later, they all slip up. You can see this with Enron and WorldCom. Roy looks at documents relating to the pancake house, and finds a suppressed document (he does have to break in to the company trailer), so when the police see it, he has the law on his side. Unlike when he evaded the police.<br /><br />Mind you, as mentioned before, Roy is not always law-abiding, and when the company man is killing owls (illegally), Mullet Fingers takes direct action. He can't wait for the law (Mullet Fingers is in hiding). The movie does suggest that one should work in the system.

Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of "Broadcast News," good or bad, almost all the credit for that "thinking" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks. As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to savage an entire business -- in this case, the "business" being television news -- but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in abundance.<br /><br />One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical question -- "Did Walter Cronkite act like this?" Answerve: No! Of course not! And the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF.<br /><br />Now, of course, all that has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that?<br /><br />Let's consider "The Big Three": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings (aka "Stanley Stunning"). All three have now been on the job at their respective anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job). Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter. Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now, imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for (let's say, "put in") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one of these three would have been "put in" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit that he is, or once was, "the most trusted man in America." <br /><br />And this is what "Broadcast News" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field reporter who has no hope for a national job because he "flop-sweats" behind the anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in the news divisions of the various networks.<br /><br />"Network" blazed the trail. Eleven years later, "Broadcast News" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network "news you can use" ..... maybe. Or maybe not.

The author of "Nekromantik", Jörg Buttgereit's second feature film, "Der Todesking" is a powerful masterpiece. Centered around a chain letter originating from a group called "The Brotherhood of the 7th Day", the movie shows 7 episodes, each consisting of one day during one week, where suicide is approached using different characters and situations all the while the letter is making it's rounds. Do not touch this one if you like Hollywood movies or musicals, enjoy happy or even remotely "normal" movies or expect a movie to be good only, if it is focused on stage acting.<br /><br />The nihilistic, avant-garde approach of Der Todesking well explains, why Buttgereit's movies in general were banned in Germany, their native country of origin, during the 80's and most of the 90's. Der Todesking is not really focused on the characters appearing on-screen, but the meaningless apathy or depression most people's lives consist of in general. Buttgereit does not find reasons to go on living, only reasons to stop, and in choosing how and when you die, you can also be the king of death, Der Todesking.<br /><br />Buttgereit's movies are generally difficult to categorize and Der Todesking is no exception. Featuring the same crew and almost the same cast as all other of his movies, "art film" would probably be the closest description every time. Der Todesking features an original method to shoot, create the mood and handle the central object in almost every scene. During one scene, the camera slowly, continuously pans in 360 degree circle, while a person lives in a small one-room apartment for a day. During another, Buttgereit uses sound and film corruption to depict the collapsing mental state of a man, while he dwells in his desperation. During a third, seemingly pleasant scene names, ages and occupations of actual people to have committed suicide are shown on-screen, supposedly warranting the ban in Germany for this particular movie.<br /><br />Episode movies (and especially this one, as the scenes are only vaguely connected) generally suffer from incoherence, and Der Todesking is no exception. While all episodes have the same focus of inflicted death and it's consequences or subsequences in all it's variations, there are very powerful episodes, yet an episode or two might even seem like filler material, partly draining the overall power of the movie - still, the the jaw-dropping, immensely powerful intermissions depicting a decomposing body manage to keep the movie together and cleanse it from it's more vague moments back to the status of greatness. The general atmosphere is baffling, awe-inspiring, highly depressing and sometimes even disgusting - so much so that dozens of people left in the middle of the movie during a theater showing in a film festival I took part of.<br /><br />This is one movie that does leave a lasting impression and I strongly recommend it for anyone looking for a special experience and something they will definitely remember in years to come. Not recommended for the faint of heart or show time fans, this is a small, different movie that truly raises feelings in the audience. Whether it be confusion, amazement or even hate, you aren't likely to be left cold by this, in my opinion the best, achievement of this small indie crew.<br /><br />The main theme of the movie, "Die Fahrt ins Reich der Menschentrümmer part I-III" was released in a limited 666-piece 8" vinyl edition, which is now much sought after. You still can get the classical masterpiece by getting "The Nekromantik" soundtrack CD, which I highly recommend. The Lo-Fi synthesizer music in the movie is dark and quirky, almost illbient-like, makes an essential part of the movie's atmosphere, and is something you would very, very rarely hear otherwise. Much recommended!

"The Matador" is a dark comedy starring Pierce Brosnan as an aging hit man who befriends a straight-arrow, happily-married American businessman (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico. Although the sardonic Julian (ironically surnamed "Noble") appears to be a "tough guy" on the surface, underneath he is really just a mass of neuroses and insecurities, a man who realizes that his chosen profession has left him virtually alone in the world and friendless. Thus on his birthday, he reaches out to Danny, a man who has lived his life playing by the rules and who becomes strangely intrigued by Julian's "unconventional" lifestyle. In fact, both men find in each other the person they could never be but wish they could become in their quieter, franker moments of self-evaluation.<br /><br />Although the film is a bit too reminiscent of "Analyze This" and "Midnight Run" to feel entirely fresh and original, "The Matador," nevertheless, earns points for the complexity of its characters and the quality of its acting. Brosnan, looking aged and almost used up, sinks his teeth into the role of Julian in a way he never has before. Playing a man who seems constitutionally unable to make a serious connection with another human being, Brosnan is flip and cavalier one moment, then genuine and sympathetic the next. He always keeps us off balance so that the humor never becomes crass or stale. Kinnear is also excellent as the Regular Joe businessman who finds himself pulled ever more to the Dark Side as his relationship with Julian deepens. Hope Davis does a fine job as "Bean," Danny's loyal and loving wife who, like her husband, finds herself intrigued by this mysterious and "dangerous" figure from a world far different from the one she knows.<br /><br />At times, we find ourselves feeling that "The Matador" is holding something back from us, not quite plumbing the depths of its situation and premise. At the end it feels a little too light, a little too insubstantial to register the impact it should. This could be because this is the feature film debut for writer/director Richard Shephard, and he hasn't quite gotten his movie pacing down yet. Still, one appreciates the fact that he doesn't always go for the obvious and that he keeps tightly focused on the two main figures in the piece, rarely settling for the trite setup or the easy laugh.<br /><br />'The Matador" is a flawed but generally entertaining little comedy that will, hopefully, signal a new phase in Brosnan's acting career.

About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...<br /><br />Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).<br /><br />Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.<br /><br />The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.<br /><br />All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?

"Garden State" is another of these "indie"-type pictures that supposedly skimp on production values for the sake of giving the audience some real true-to-life human drama. Oddly enough, the production is very good, so are the performances (by some fairly big-name actors as well). Where the picture is lacking is in Zach Braff's script, which seems mostly culled from situations taken from other movies.<br /><br />When you're as young as Braff is, you haven't really lived enough to use the experience as film fodder. Braff's experience looks to be from watching movies, then repeating the same trite clichés in his own movie. In Garden State, he plays Andrew Largeman, a semi-successful Hollywood actor who returns to his hometown in New Jersey to bury his mother, who took her own life after suffering in a wheelchair for many years. He appears to have no feeling about any of this; he has no relationship with his father, who blames him for causing his mother's paralysis in a freak accident as a six-year-old, and has no particular despondency over losing his mother (in fact, he attends a party right after the burial to which he was invited by a friend of his, who works as a cemetery grave-digger). It all smacks heavily of "Beautiful Girls", also about a guy who returns to his hometown to "find himself" and hang with his old friends, with a little "Ordinary People" thrown in on the side. <br /><br />It's really a miracle Braff could accomplish anything at all in his life, given his father and his useless friends (I'm surprised he didn't kill himself), who are still living their "lives" as though they're still in high school, partying with dumb bimbos, drinking and drugging, etc. None of them even recognize him from his TV role as the "retarded quarterback" (Natalie Portman's character, the most aware person in the movie, does), and say things, like "Hey, I remember you from Junior year". These guys are such losers, for them, watching television would be a cultural leap forward. Even one friend, who made millions inventing a silent Velcro, has no real reason to live, because his whole frame of reference is high school and partying. And you don't need big money to party like a high school sophomore.<br /><br />Braff, it is revealed, is heavily medicated, which keeps from "feeling" and dealing with anything, really, like an adult would. Then he meets Sam (Natalie Portman) a sort-of lost girl, who gives pet funerals and lives with her mother like a 10-year-old in a bedroom that looks like a pink doll house blown up to life size. Anyway, they fall in love, and Braff learns to "feel" again. The clichés come fast and furious. Braff has a long delayed heart-to-heart talk with his cold, distancing father and tells him What It Is and The Name Of The Game. In one scene, Braff and Portman are in the millionaire kid's house, playing touchy-feely is front of a giant fireplace, and the bit is so routine, so standard movie-schtick, I swear, I half-expected somebody to walk up and throw a sled into the fire. In another, Braff visits a doctor (Ron Liebman) to get his junk refilled, and Liebman tells him (in easily the worst line in the movie) "The body can play tricks on you. I once found my ex-best-friend's cufflinks in my wife's purse, and I didn't have an erection for a year and a half." Obviously, no licensed physician would ever say that, but it's dirtbag poetry, a nod from Braff to, I guess, his loser friends to let them know he's still thinking of them, just as the "37" joke in "Clerks", was Kevin Smith's nod to his dirtbag buddies. <br /><br />Anyway, Braff finds true happiness and gets off the dope; the story plays itself out predictably. But if you're going to have a movie that's wall-to-wall clichés, at least give it some charming performances to breathe some life into it. And Braff does. He has the right sort of vacancy, of casual acceptance to make his role as the zonked-out Andrew both real and poignant, and Natalie Portman (also of Beautiful Girls) gives the movie a big lift. With her tiny features and flickering expressions of mood, she just about steals the picture as his traveling companion. Jean Smart is surprisingly good as Portman's mother, and Peter Saarsgard (though much better in "Shattered Glass") is notable as the gravedigger friend. I would recommend "Garden State" if you can't get enough storybook romance out of movies, but when people start hailing it as a masterpiece, they're just clueless. Braff thinks you can take the same old tired plot, write in a few "f**ks" and "awesomes" and slap on an acoustic rock soundtrack and that contemporizes the material. It doesn't.

ET's obsession with Dannielynn Smith is despicable. Leave the child alone. With all the constant attention she'll most likely grow up psychotic, depressed or worse. Think of Princess Diana and how she longed for privacy. Now poor little rich girl Ashley Olson just wants to be left alone. No wonder Greta Garbo became a recluse and said "I want to be alone". How much does ET make off this little girl? Does ET not have anything better to report on? I bet there's lots of people who really don't care what color her birthday cake and balloons were. By the way, I never heard that Anna Nichole ever won any of those court cases over the will and her inheritance. Who is paying for the lifestyle of Larry, Howard and little Dannielynn? Could it be ET?

As this movie unfolds you start to feel the conundrum of human existence. If you carry with you questions, inner wars, unsolved puzzles about the meaning of life then you will feel this movie with every morsel of your body. Charles Darwin begins a war with an utterly predictable ending. War with God. His theories resemble the fact that God has nothing to do with mankind, has nothing to do with the amazing World that we live in. Savage, harsh, ironic and chaotic, this words surround the mind of the character thrown into an universe of material truth, who slowly pushes hope for God, out from his mind. Nevertheless, the movie as Charles Darwin, still sees wonder and beauty beyond God in the universe of infinite Evolution.

I gave it an 8 only because it had received such low votes... this is definitely really about a 5.5..... Ummm.. it was kind of bloody, had likeable, shallow characters, and it had some really hot babes in it. I like the eclectic killer, because he didn't kill people the same way everytime... that sometimes gets old.

For all losers who gave it negative review,its because you probably have sex once in 2 years,or you are in LTR with one girl for years. And guess what ? She is going to cheat on you when player like those on that show approach her somewhere.Off course any male who is not as good as these guys are going to hate them and hate the show. And that one chick who thinks this show is meant to mock these guys.. its more actually how to show clueless man how to pick up woman.What these guys are doing it way better then what most man are doing-not approaching at all.For anybody who has open mind I recommend to read the book "the game" by neil strauss.It deals with similar theme as this show

The only reason I saw this movie was for Jimmy Fallon, who I've had a crush on since 9th grade, which was his first year on SNL. I am a die-hard Yankees fan, and I didn't find the movie painful until the last 15 minutes, when they begin showing clips of the ALCS games. I had to cover my ears and make small noises so I wouldn't have to hear that which must not be heard, but otherwise it was completely bearable.<br /><br />I thought Jimmy played the role very well, because the character was supposed to be nervous and quirky, and he is a nervous and quirky guy. I know that it may not be a Academy Award-winning stretch, but the movie is just a light, fun, romantic comedy that is actually appropriate for both women and men to see.<br /><br />Jimmy and Drew worked well together, and they had much better chemistry on camera than other actors in the past. (Ed Burns and Angelina Jolie in that stupid movie? What?) I think Jimmy has a positive career ahead of him, and thank goodness, because Taxi could have killed it. I think Fever Pitch will help him out a lot. Everyone needs to stop being so critical of his acting ability because he is just starting out in movies. I imagine it must be difficult, and if you look at any of the other great actors of our time (Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, etc) you'll see that they started off in some flops. Busom Buddies? Australian soap operas? Here's wishing Jimmy a successful career on screen. I never wanted him to leave SNL but what can you do?

Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here.

I caught "Sorrows Lost" at the New York Film and Video Festival and I guess I had some high hopes for this film. Sadly, this is just another Visual FX calling card. The story is pretty lame. The bad lighting and camera work, along with the less than great editing and music all make the film seem low quality.<br /><br />Is it really too much to ask that FX shorts have better stories and have the rest of the technical production be on par with the FX! You can't just get away with cool FX in shorts anymore, it's been 5 years since "405" made a big splash. At least that short quick, cool and was even a little funny! None of that can be said about "Sorrows Lost."

Here is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).<br /><br />We're left with a somewhat feeble "happy" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.<br /><br />Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a "drifter". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.<br /><br />These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's "Rope" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.<br /><br />MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.

I also viewed this film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival. It was an excellent film about adult family relationships. Paul Reiser wrote the film and included some similarities to his family. It was funny, warm, poignant, and moving, as well as entertaining. A film like this would do very well with the word of mouth reviews. I would definitely tell my friends and family to see this film. Let's only hope they'll have the chance. I would rate this film as one of the best movies I've seen in a year. It contains no violence, action scenes, murders, sex, so evidently distributors question whether or not to pick it up. Believe me, there are people out there who would love to go see a movie like this that has redeeming value, instead of the many typical big box office blockbusters we are usually given.

The French Naudet brothers did something nobody else did, they had a video camera the day that this tragedy happened. They were in Building #2, when you could see papers drifting down, people hitting the ground from jumping from such a height.<br /><br />I mean it goes as far as when both buildings collapsed they went running, their camera was still running, when the white dust covered them, they found a shop doorway and got inside, but all this footage is real and I think they did a fantastic job of capturing it for us.<br /><br />Ten stars goes to the Naudet brothers that filmed this extraordinary film that I watch every 9/11 so I'll never forget what this country went through. I believe if I remember right, it shows the first death of the priest of the firefighters, while he was being carried to the church and his honorable funeral.

For those unfamiliar with Paddy Chayefsky, this is a very good introduction. While Chayefsky deals with the reality behind the myths of many things including medicine, this work is surprisingly prophetic of the way medicine is going today, two decades after the movie was made and over a decade after his death. Beyond that, some insights into Chayefsky's view of life in general are 'slipped into' the movie as well. The 20th Century may well turn out to be the first and last century of the United States in the History of the World. If it turns out that the contribution to the arts by the United States was in the dimension of the 'movie,' this is a prime example of that art.

Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.<br /><br />Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.<br /><br />This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:<br /><br />-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot<br /><br />Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.<br /><br />Give the demonic ..... 0/10.

A very credible and unsettling movie portraying the effects of war on the general public, Shame gives us a chilling understanding oh Ingmar Bergman's beliefs. The absence of color and sound (as in a soundtrack) helps to give the film a more realistic feeling. There is no soft or hard lighting or a variety of camera angles to give the story a charming or dramatic effect. Everything is very simply portrayed as it would be in reality. At times the storyline was confusing, but perhaps in order to give a sense of the characters' frame of mind – how they too do now know what is happening or why. The simplicity of the film made it somewhat boring, but I could understand how the director is trying not to glamorize the story and points. He depicted the harsh and unsettling events and effects of war. In the beginning the characters were introduced and shown as content with the lighter settings and very long, drawn-out shots. When all of a sudden the war struck upon them, they were much darker and quiet with less intimate shots. Bergman did a good job on allowing us to be consumed by the war ourselves and presenting an image of it the so adequately corresponded to war. Although the storyline itself was not too impressive, the content of the film was.

I almost didn't rent this because of all the bad comments but did anyways.I thought it was similar to darkness falls which i also liked. The only part i hated about the tooth ferry was the 2 red neck brothers at the gas station.They were funny and the dialog made me laugh but this was not a comedy. It ruined the movie a bit for me because it was unnecessary.The rest of the movie was the way a horror or suspense film should be. The make-up was good and I have seen way worse movies then this one. It was a simple story with believable acting.It's not the scariest or goriest movie, but I wasn't ticked off or wanting a refund after watching it. On the DVD there was previews of other movies that all look good and i'm gonna check them out.

Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.

This is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget.

As a "rebuttle" of sorts to the AFI's top 100 films, the British Film Institute worked out a documentary with Martin Scorsese.<br /><br />Now. I am a huge film fan and pride myself on having seen many, many films. But, I am nowheres in comparrison with my idol. In this fantastic (though long) documentary, Scorsese walks the viewer through several stages of the American History on film. This is divided in to several sections including the Western, the Gangster film and the Noir. Full of bouncy enthusiasm, Martin Scorsese is a great tour guide as well as a fantastic professor.

I thought it was weird and just gory, not scary. I have seen a couple of the Japanese horror films, Ringu and Juon, and loved them; but this movie was a disappointment. It never even explained anything about the curse. I just didn't see any horror... it wasn't scary to me at all. The whole time I was watching I was waiting for Kirie to discover the secret of the curse and why it was happening now. If this was some ancient curse, why didn't it happen before Shuichi's father? And it never told us what happened to her father. I kept waiting for someone to tell us the meaning or the reasoning behind this curse and then it just ended. I was very disappointed.

I saw this movie about a year ago, and found it to be completely Laugh-Out-Loud funny. A real winner, in my mind. It had the underlining of a stupid comedy, but indeed had an actual plot as well. Much like the hit comedy, Elf, in fact. It had a few serious moments, sandwiched between hilarity. When Stiller shot Black's horse, an ordinarily sober moment, you found yourself laughing at his bumbling antics. You can actually find common ground there, as I'm sure many people have done something they wouldn't want a friend to find out about, lest your friendship should end.<br /><br />When I found out how much people disliked this movie, I was completely dumbfounded. That absolutely terrible movies like Napoleon Dynamite had ratings higher than it makes me wonder about the sanity of people on IMDb. Take my advice and rent it. If you don't find yourself laughing at least once, I'll compensate you the rental fee. =D

Henry Fool is a better film. But this is the perfect way to follow-up a film like 'Henry Fool.' To take Henry very seriously, his 'lies' and his mysterious aura. Even the opening shot of 'Henry Fool' when Simon puts his ear to the ground as Henry comes walking over the hill is more fully manifest through 'Fay Grim.' The over-the-top jokes, that are more or less meta-jokes (about the writing of the film and the jokes themselves), are good but the opening of the film is a little saturated in them. Also Hartley's use of Dutch angles throughout the film is jarring, yes, it's intention, but it feels forced and over-used, it goes beyond jarring to, what I'd like to call, annoying. It's a flawed film, but a must see for any Hartley or 'Henry Fool' fan. <br /><br />And don't listen to stupid reviews, don't watch this unless you've seen the first film. The intrigue, satire and wit of this movie is totally lost if you haven't seen Henry Fool. It's a sequel. That's just dumb.

Hollywood does it again. Lots of money, no creativity. I'm sure the writers were on something other than oxygen when they wrote this one. Based on the previews, I thought that this would be a funny movie. But if you are not up on the latest stupid pop culture then you'll miss most of the silly humor in this movie. Why waste your time. You can sit on a log doing nothing and have more fun than this movie will provide.<br /><br />

I should have trusted my instincts better: No expectations - no disappointments. Instead, however, I expected to experience a similar masterpiece like Koyaanisqatsi (1983) and was brutally disappointed. Powaqqatsi is in my humble opinion nothing but a cheap attempt to cash in on the cult success of its predecessor, and - artistically - it fails miserably. It appears some producer gathered up leftover material from Koyaanisqatsi, hurriedly threw it together, placed everything in slow motion and got some pop entertainer under the pseudonym of Philip Glass to hurriedly throw together some banal background music, which is incessantly repeated. Where Koyaanisqatsi entertains the viewer with clever fast and slow motion changes, Powaqqatsi is one long sequence of mundane images in slow-motion (if you view them on your VCR in fast preview mode, you'll see what I mean). What disappointed me the most, however, was Philip Glass's soundtrack. I couldn't - and still can't - believe that these commercial-sounding New Age type drones, which could easily have been composed in one afternoon by any 14-year-old on a Casio calculator, were from the same composer who so brilliantly composed the emotional and perfectly-synchronized music for Koyaanisqatsi. All in all, a big waste of time! My advice: Forget commercialism! Watch Koyaanisqatsi again instead!

This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.

Not a terrible film -- my 10 year old boy loved it, and he would be the target demographic, so I guess they hit the spot. Pretty dull for an adult though.<br /><br />Hard to relate to animated lego characters, even mod high-tech ones.<br /><br />I thought the choice of the three great virtues of the Bionicle world was a bit odd -- unity, duty, and destiny. Am I the only one who thinks those sound just a bit fascistic? Especially destiny. What about freedom, equality, justice, etc.?<br /><br />Oh well, it will sell Lego. Kind of dull for a movie, but not bad for a 74-minute advertisement. Could have been a lot worse.

LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: "Take a tranquilizer and go to bed." "Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power." I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.

This is definitely a "lesser known" comedy short from the 1920s. The only reason I saw it was because it was on a DVD by Kino Films featuring non-Laurel and Hardy shorts featuring Ollie. They are interesting and historically important, but also generally average to below average for the style film. Compared to shorts by Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle and Lloyd, they are definitely a step below them in quality and humor. Also, the accompanying music was pretty poor by the standards of other silent DVDs. I ended up turning OFF the sound due to the inappropriateness of the music to set the proper mood. But, despite this, they are still worth seeing.<br /><br />I've gotta be honest about this short. It was the last of 8 on this DVD and by the time I got to it, I was pretty bored with the mediocrity of 7 of the 8 shorts. So, it is possible the film might be A LITTLE better than a 4--but certainly, if this is the case, no better than a 5! The film is a pretty standard short about an incompetent bellboy. Nothing especially interesting and there are certainly MUCH better silent shorts out there.

The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.<br /><br />First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.<br /><br />Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.<br /><br />The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.<br /><br />Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off.

The super sexy B movie actress has another bit part as future "Goodfellas" star Ray Liotta's girlfriend in this box office bomb. She plays Marion, has only one line of dialog, well, one WORD of dialog actually. She shouts out "Joe!" as Ray's character is violating poor Pia Zadora with a plastic garden hose sprinkler. This movie is so bad though it becomes funny, hilarious at times. The guys at Mystery Science Theater 3000 would love this! Check out the hysterical scene at the end where Pia has a nervous breakdown and all the cheesy editing and effects they do to try and show how badly Pia's character is freaking out. Pia plays an aspiring Hollywood screenwriter in this. Pia Zadora as a screenwriter? Yeah, right. Pia can barely talk, let alone write! Pia is utterly and absolutely miscast in this dumb role. But who cares? The real star is the hot and fresh Glory Annen in her bit part in this cat's opinion! Rock on Glory!

This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade).

Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.<br /><br />“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger! <br /><br />The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer! <br /><br />As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).

What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.<br /><br />The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.<br /><br />Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.

Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball player who ever lived."<br /><br />You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.<br /><br />Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.

Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. "Fires on the Plain" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of "classics" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of "masterpiece." What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative "classics" like "Fires on the Plain" focus so much on "inside the box" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered "classics" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in "Fires on the Plain" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.<br /><br />After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, "Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that." So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.<br /><br />Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout "Fires on the Plain" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like – oh I don't know – giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out "Japanese soldiers." Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.<br /><br />Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape – a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices – get ready, cause here it comes – that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all – because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.<br /><br />There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, "Hey, are you dead?" Like the guy is going to answer "Yes" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.<br /><br />The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like "A Tale of Two Sisters" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that "AToTS" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side.

The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. <br /><br />The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie.

Ah, a Kelly/Sinatra sailor-suit musical. So familiar, right? Yes, but this isn't the one you usually hear about. On The Town's that-a-way. But if you stick around, you might learn something. Okay, probably not. Anyway, Anchors Aweigh tells the story of two sailors on a three- or four-day leave. Joe is the "Sea Wolf" and Clarence, the bookish type, begs Joe to get him a "dame". Now, after they're picked up by the coppers they get little Donald home. That's where they meet Susie, that temptress, that jezebel. Just kidding! Clarence falls in love with her. At least he thinks he does. Is he right? Or is he a moron? Or is he just misguided by society? Find out all this and more when you watch {trumpet fanfare} ANCHORS AWEIGH!<br /><br />P.S. If you want to see Kathryn Grayson be anything but sickeningly sweet, try Kiss Me Kate (1953).

Sudden Impact is the best of the five Dirty Harry movies. They don't come any leaner and meaner than this as Harry romps through a series of violent clashes, with the bad guys getting their just desserts. Which is just the way I like it. Great story too and ably directed by Clint himself. Excellent entertainment.

I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.<br /><br />Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.<br /><br />I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.<br /><br />Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.<br /><br />Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.

In this episode, a man and his dog go 'coon huntin' after eating dinner with his wife of 50 years. He's devoted to his wife and his dog.<br /><br />While hunting, his dog jumps in the river after the dog and he follows. The man dies and doesn't know it. He tries to talk to his wife and his grave diggers to no avail.<br /><br />What follows is a tug of war between heaven and hell for the man's soul and his dog helps make the decision. He's being tricked by the devil and won't go in to "heaven" unless his dog comes with him.<br /><br />It makes you wonder if all the animal lovers have the right idea and want to go to heaven with them.

Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only "the names had been changed to protect the innocent," I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.<br /><br />Unfortunately, putting the name "Mr. Darcy" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name "Elizabeth Bennett" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making "Mr. Bingley" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story. <br /><br />There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants "a comfortable home." However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, "Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book. <br /><br />Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.<br /><br />The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place. <br /><br />Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous. <br /><br />Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of "love at first sight." Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally "loves her for her mind." <br /><br />This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad cliché. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous! <br /><br />The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other. <br /><br />All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill. <br /><br />Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel. <br /><br />The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces.

This is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film.

Its gonna be hard to make this fill 10 lines.... But ill give it a try (just to prevent others from making the same mistake as i did - to watch this (awful and boring) movie.<br /><br />I like Patrick swayze - he did a excellent performance in films like Ghost - Dirty Dancing - Point Break - North & South (TV series), but in this movie..... ARGH....This movie is so booooooring, the acting is awful - the script sucks - well.. i cant even find ONE good thing, nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I was watching it with 2 other friends and we all agreed that this was one of the most boring films we had ever seen, and the fact that it lasts for more then 3 hours (which we didn't know) - when part 1 was over and it said "to be continued", we almost cried "nooooooooooooo, do we have to watch 90 minutes more of this movie!!!!".<br /><br />Its painful to see this movie: At no time do you get the impression that the actors are Russians, the action scenes are extremely bad. The ONLY good scene is when the truck explodes in the beginning of the movie! The rest is CRAP! GO clean your toilet, instead of watching this movie (and don't come running, crying if you do see this movie - you were pre warned!) Personally i would recommend Patrick Swayze to call his agent and have them recall this movie - its that bad.

When a man who doesn't have Alzheimer's can't remember how many films he's made, he probably is the world's most prolific director after all. That man is Jesus Franco, the king of so-called 'eurotrash'. His 1980 flick Devil Hunter is as rushed, opaque, stupid, lazy and exploitative in the truest sense of the word (the film's title is misleading, for starters) as any other Franco film I've seen. That makes it sound pretty awful, and it is... Yet Franco does have some kind of inimitable sensibility, a generous way with the baldly outrageous, with nudity and sleaze and violence, and even with his stupid cheap editing which tries to pave over the extreme haste with which all his films were made. The mix of all these elements causes you to ride his films out, even while you're mostly waiting for them to end because they're so very tedious.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is nigh on incomprehensible for the first half an hour. The kidnap by strangers of a white woman who seems to be a model or film star is intercut with a bunch of native action in South America. There's lots of naked writhing, dancing, and endless repeated zoom-ins on an ugly totem pole. You need to get used to the repetitive zoom-ins and the technique of cutting back to the same shot about three times in a row right away, as these are Franco's main methods of extending a film out to feature length.<br /><br />The monster who looks like the totem pole is actually kind of scary. He has raw bug eyes and his presence is always signalled on the soundtrack by cacophonous groaning, apparently recorded in an echo chamber. Early in the piece he chews on a native lady strapped to a tree, and it's hard to know what really happens here but I think he ate her stomach (or her genitals, sweet Jesus!).<br /><br />Anyway, the adventure begins properly when a studly guy and his freaked out Vietnam vet pal are sent to the island to recover the white girl from the kidnappers. The flakey guy has an accent which, as dubbed, is half Brooklyn-American, half English-Liverpudlian and all retarded. All of the dialogue and dubbing is ridiculous and laughable, making for another layer of the film which can somehow hold your interest.<br /><br />Not too much really happens from here on in, and it happens pretty sluggishly, studded with the odd bit of outrage like a rape. The nebulous action is fleshed out (haha!) by acres of 360 degree nudity from the natives and the two female leads, and even from the monster himself. That he walks around with his penis exposed makes wrestling him an unappetising prospect for the tough guy hero, but it's gotta be done at some point, and it's nice to note that the director will show anyone's genitals on camera.<br /><br />The best feature of Devil Hunter is the location filming. Franco can be extremely cheap with the structural and story aspects of film-making, but he doesn't muck around with sets. You get real islands, jungles, helicopters and mountains, all in widescreen. This is something that is really cool to experience in these days of crappy CGI sets and backdrops ad nauseam.<br /><br />Ultimately, issues of recommendation where this film is concerned seem moot. If you're trying to see all the Video Nasties, you will have to watch this at some point, and you'll be made as restless as I was. If you like Franco, you'll watch this anyway. If you fall into neither of the above categories, the odds are you'll never come across this film. Copies of it aren't just lying around, and I could hardly recommend the seeking out of it. It's Franco. Lazy, crazy Franco.

I studied Charlotte Bronte's novel in high school, and it left me with a stunning impression. Here was a beautiful novel about a young woman's struggle to find love and acceptance in the dark times of Victorian England. This young woman was Jane Eyre, a poor and plain character with a strong mind and will of her own. Her story, which Bronte told through Jane's own eyes, was both sad and inspiring. <br /><br />As part of our study, we watched the 1983 adaptation of the story, and it blew me away. The mini-series not only made the effort to stay true to Bronte's original text and the essence of the story, but the actors who portrayed the characters were just great. Both Zelah Clarke (Jane Eyre) and Timothy Dalton (Jane's lover, by the name of Rochester) captured brilliantly the essence of their characters. I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. (The other performances of Rochester in other versions such as the 2006 version lack the passion, energy, and tenderness needed to portray Rochester accurately. I say that Timothy Dalton comes out on top because he possesses all these characteristics in his portrayal of Rochester. Zelah Clarke not only looks like Jane Eyre, but she captures Jane's quiet, but firm and passionate nature brilliantly. She holds in her emotions, like the Jane of the book, at the appropriate moments in the story but allows her fire to come out in Jane's passionate scenes. The chemistry that Clarke and Dalton portray in their scenes together is also credible and true to Jane and Rochester's devoted relationship.) As well, the supporting actors also fit their roles perfectly, and the sets fit the Gothic nature of the story. <br /><br />I strongly recommend this version of the classic Bronte tale. If you have not read the book before, then you can watch this production as a faithful introduction to this beautiful story.

Outragously entertaining period piece set in the 30s, it is a spin on the classic cliffhanger series, as much as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", only done on a low budget and much campier by director Michael Anderson. The opening scenes laces liberal amount of gothic art nuveau, predating Batman by two decades. Starring Ron Ely (Tarzan) as a perfectly cast hero and the gorgeous Pamela Hensley as the local latina Mona tagging on to our hero on a goldhunt in the non-existent latin american country of Hidalgo. Best line, our hero to Mona, holding a fist to her chin just as you expect him to be tender with her and give her a hug: "Mona, you're a brick!"<br /><br />Paul Wexler's ham-and-cheese blackhat, Captain Seas is a an absolute delight. Expect a little "Raiders..", a dash of "Batman", a little "The Lost World", a little "Lost Horizons" and a whole lot of campiness and you'll get it just right. Watch out for cult favorite Michael Berryman in a small part as undertaker and enjoy the campy use of John Philip Sousa's patriotic music. A prime candidate for DVD release, it is certainly overdue. An unmissable treat for the whole family. 9/10

So many wonderful actresses in one film serve as a practical invitation to the local movie house so I duly responded. Here are some remarks..<br /><br />Vanessa Redgrave is great even while lying in bed. She also looks very old and I don't think this is achieved with much make-up which is a good thing for the film but a sad thing for us cinema-goers. I think her aging got a bit harsh in recent years. Claire Danes continues her welcome return to the movies and exudes a definite warmth. Mamie Gummer's resemblance to her mother Merly Streep both in terms of physical appearance and acting style is so striking that I lost my concentration to the film for a couple of minutes after her entrance. She is surprisingly good; however such a resemblance has the danger of working against her favor. I agree with a previous comment: Natasha Richardson definitely had some plastic job done to her face. She certainly does not look like how I remember her from previous films ("Nell" for example.) Both she and Toni Collette sadly do not make much impression partly because they do not look convincing as sisters. Their interplay is weak. Toni Collette additionally is way too old for her character. Glenn Close and Meryl Streep had to have more screen time. Streep's performance actually is little more than a cameo. Her scenes on the other hand have bigger emotional resonance than the rest of the film. Eileen Atkins provides some welcome dry wit, especially in her second role as an imaginary nighttime companion to Redgrave's character. As for the men; Hugh Dancy enlivenes the film considerably even though he gives a broader performance than needed. As a matter of fact as soon as he exits the story it starts to drag. It is also to his credit that he manages to create the exact necessary sense of boyish charm in the viewer. Patrick Wilson on the other hand is a complete void at the center of the film. He also has the misfortune that the script is insufficient in explaining why three people (one of them a man) are so much smitten by this man. The backstory to this should have been developed more.<br /><br />The cinematography is excellent as expected. However the main summer house set failed to convince me. It does not look natural on the top of that rocky hill, particularly with its grass patch in the front. A bit too cardboard like.<br /><br />Overall, the film is a classy production, but a seen-it-all-before, cried-at-it-all-before feeling took over me during most of its duration and consequently it failed to make the kind of impact on me that I expected from a tearjerker. However, it still managed to make me thoughtful about the passing of time, about one's expectations from life and the extent to which these are fulfilled or not. Worth trying at least on DVD if not at the movies...

I was referred to this movie by a friend. I had never heard of it but I thought it had Christopher Lampbert so I rented it, and come to find out that wasn't Christopher Lampbert it was Thomas Jane who was great it this film. I love that almost the whole movie is set in this suburban house. The characters were great everyone of them and the script was amazing I really wish Skip Woods would write and direct another movie. In my book Thursday is the flawless tale of this guy trying to do the wife and kid thing after a shady past but then his old drug dealer buddy shows up and it becomes quite the Thursday. This is one of my favorite movies and it shows some real potential in Thomas Jane. But this movie is very rare but I have found it in a couple of Hollywood Video's on VHS. So dust off the old VCR and pop in Thursday because it gets Pee Wee's seal of approval

"Electra Glide in Blue" is a slow moving B-flick in which Blake plays a desert motorcycle cop who wants to be a homicide detective and becomes embroiled in a murder investigation. A mediocre film at best, "EG in B" features some members of the band Chicago, a whiff of action, some philosophizing, and lots and lots of boring dramatic filler. Not worth the time.

The biggest mystery of Veronica Mars is not one that she had to tackle on screen.<br /><br />Rather, the mystery is why this perennial ratings disappointment is still on the air. This week marked a nadir for Veronica Mars: it ranked 146 out of 146 shows in the big 6 (soon to be Big 5). Yes, you read right. Veronica Mars was beaten by every show of the now-defunct WB and every show on UPN. It was beat by all the shows on Fox and of course by all the shows on ABC, CBS and NBC.<br /><br />Now, the hip hypesters are going to say: but this was a re-run. But everything on TV that week was pretty much a re-run! It boggles the mind why CW would choose this proved ratings disappointment as one of the few shows it saved from UPN.<br /><br />Clearly something is going on behind the scenes. Favors are being exchanged and influence peddled.<br /><br />Sorry to be so cynical, but what other explanation is there? The "Veronica Mars has potential" line is clearly dead now that it's had two years to establish itself and failed to do so.<br /><br />Maybe it's Joel Silver's influence and clout, but frankly, I am at a loss why anyone would choose to spend their clout on a bad show that no audience is watching.<br /><br />A great mystery and a very inauspicious debut for CW.

This is an excellent but hard to find trippy World War I spy thriller in the inimitable 60's Italian style. From the psychedelic graphics of the introductory credits and the great score by Ennio Morricone to the lesbian love scene with Capucine and the elaborately produced apocalyptic no man's land battle scenes with poison gas and German cavalry in full gas proof 'storm trooper' gear, this is a movie that should not be missed. It is a film that captures the horrors and cruelty of war and the ruthlessness of the players on and off the battlefield. Apart from the battle scenes, some of the production and special effects are primitive, apparently because the bulk of the budget for this movie was saved for the battle scenes, but for lovers of 60's cinema it should not be an issue. I first saw this movie on television many years ago and had the foresight to tape it on VHS. I still have the tape and enjoy watching it again from time to time.

Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.<br /><br />Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.<br /><br />The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art.

"The Screaming Skull" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw "House on Haunted Hill" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.<br /><br />In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!

Shame, is a Swedish film in Swedish with English subtitles. The film is about a husband and wife named Jan, and Eva. They live on an island working as farmers. There is a war going on and soldiers start attacking people on the island. Once the war subsides a little Jan, and Eva are arrested as going along with the opposite side. Once released even more trouble ensues and the film shows how two ordinary people will act in a situation of war and life or death. Winner of The CEC Award for Best Foreign Film at The Cinema Writers Circle Awards, The Guldbagge Award for Best Actress (Liv Ullman, who plays Eva) at The Guldbagge Awards, The NBR Award for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Actress at The National Board Of Review and The NSFC Award for Best Actress, Best Director (Ingmar Bergman) and Best Film at The National Society Of Film Critics Awards. Shame, has good direction, a good script, good performances by both Max Von Sydow (who plays Jan) and Liv Ullman (who plays Eva), good cinematography and good production design. Shame, is a well acted and well made story of how people in a desperate situation will sometimes do whatever they can do in order to survive. The film has a powerful message and is a good film. The reason I'am not rating this film higher is because it is not a masterpiece like some other Ingmar Bergman films like Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal or Persona, for example. The film didn't have as big an impact on me as I thought it would and it lacked Ingmar Bergman's thoughtful and philosophical dialog. While nowhere close to being one of his best films there is still a lot to like about Shame, and it is a good movie. I just probably would have liked it more having not seen some of those other Bergman masterpieces.

.....and it's a good one, too. In fact, this may be one of the best studies of sexual repression ever made. It's extremely well-acted and has some downright chilling moments. An often overlooked film in Clint Eastwood's filmography, and atypical of him, to be sure, but if you're willing to accept him in such an ambiguous role, it's certainly very gripping. (***)

I normally don't comment on movies on IMDB, but in this case I feel like I should. I love movies, and I want to make them, and this movie is a perfect example of fine filmmaking.<br /><br />This is one of the few movies that I have seen on the small screen (originally seeing it air on AMC, I believe, and then on the DVD I just watched) that made me get that feeling in the pit of my stomach. That little gnawing sensation that the director would hope you feel while watching his thriller.<br /><br />Jack Lemmon's performance is a fine one, and Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas follow. I felt so much empathy of Lemmon, who's character Jack Godell, only wanted people to listen to his warning.<br /><br />But what impresses me most about this film is the lack of a score, and this is also what makes it beautiful to me. Apart from the opening titles there are no background music to increase the tension, because none is needed. And while the credits run, white on black, in silence it drives the point home.<br /><br />I use the movie as an example to anyone who says music makes the movie. I think the movie should make the movie and the music should only amplify that. But for The China Syndrome music is not necessary to get across the realism and the urgency depicted here. The characters portray all of this far better than the music ever could.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie, it is one of my favorites. If you like movies, you won't be disappointed. If you like movie soundtracks more, you might not want to give this one a go.

There was a lot about Little Vera that was strange to me. All in all I did enjoy this movie, but a lot of the way the characters behaved was not what I was used to. For example the environment that Vera's family lived in was very tense. Almost every time the family was together they were either drinking, fighting or yelling and frequently it was a combination of the three. After I had viewed the film I felt tense because of all the confrontation that took place during it. I was however very interested in watching the story if this middle class Russian family. Throughout the entire film we are reminded of the industrialized state of Russia because of the repeated shots of a train passing by the screen. It gave the viewer a sense of a mechanically lived life. The characters seemed to be focused on living their lives through work and drinking after work. There was not a feeling of happiness throughout the film. The only time a character was not yelling was when Vera first fell in love with her fiancé Sergei. This was very short lived because the viewer later discovers (after Sergei locks Vera's father in a bathroom and Vera lets him out after which the father proceeds to stab Sergei) that he is abusive. Another time Vera is told that the only reason she was born was so the family could get a larger apartment. It is very interesting watching how both Vera and the family were able to cope with each other's behavior. The film was definitely worth watching because of its depiction of how life could be in areas of Russia.

There is a clever little scene in The Karen Carpenter Story, where both Carpenters are in a recording studio, and Richard makes an impromptu decision to have Karen sing for the owner of the studio.<br /><br />Richard picks the wrong key for Karen to sing in, so Karen is singing above her natural range. You can see a look of bemusement on the owner's face; he figures she really can't sing. Richard quickly realizes his mistake and tries again in a different key. The next thing you hear is Karen's amazing, beautiful voice, and the owner does a priceless double take. Nicely done! For some reason, I have never forgotten that scene.<br /><br />The Karen Carpenter Story chronicles the meteoric rise of the Carpenters, and Karen's struggle to overcome anorexia. A lot of things are glossed over. This isn't a documentary, and the movie left me with a lot of questions. Very little is mentioned of Karen's solo venture (the CD was released only a few years ago. If you buy it, you will wonder why they waited. It's some of Karen's best work. The songs aren't as timeless as her work with brother Richard, but it was a great recording, in my opinion).<br /><br />I have heard it said that, you can be listening to a cheap, time-worn little radio in the middle of the Third World, that would seem to produce more static than anything else. But when a Carpenter song comes on the radio, you would think you were listening to a $1000 Hi-Fidelity unit.<br /><br />Watch this movie!

Great movie -I loved it. Great editing and use of the soundtrack. Captures the real feeling of Indian life, yet we can all relate. A well chose cast with some great characters. The movie develops all the characters so that you real care about them all and you feel like you know them. The use of the Indian music and drums in some of the soccer scenes is great and the direction really works as everyone comes off as real and natural. You just can't help but to root for Jess in this film! The acting was really good, even the tomboyish walk and body posture of both leading ladies is very convincing as a someone that played lots of soccer.

-The movie tells the tale of a prince whose life is wonderful, but after an evil wizard tells him to go into town disguised as a beggar the wizard then locks up the prince and soon becomes the shadow ruler of Baghdad. the jailed prince meets a thief called Abu who helps him escape the jail and head to a town called Basra where he meets a princess who he falls madly in love with, but unbeknown to him the evil wizard Jafa is also in love with the princess and tries to convince her father to allow him to marry her. Jafa soon learns that the prince is trying to win the girls heart so he makes him blind and turns Abu into a dog. This leads to the prince and Abu going off on an adventure to find a way to defeat Jafa, restore peace to Baghdad and marry the princess. during their journey they encounter everything from sarcastic Genies that takes Abu on a flight through the clouds, a giant spider that's really hungry, and a flying horse that probably gives birth to one of the most beautiful sequence these old eyes of mine have ever seen.<br /><br />-This is a pure fantasy movie from start to finish it has flying horses, genies, flying carpets, and wizards that can actually do magic instead of just hit people with their staffs. It doesn't have any cheesy moments and the love story isn't a waste of time. The production designs are just stunning in this movie. From the palaces to the different dangerous traps that the heroes encounter. Even though this movie is over 40 years old, the production design is far better than most of the crap that gets tacked on in today's cinema. The music and songs are also well done. Anyone who sees it will no doubt hail, "I want to be a sailor sailing on the seas" as one of the great musical moments in movies. I'm usually not a huge fan of singing in movies since I find them about as enjoyable as doing my taxes but I'll be more than happy to make an exception for this movie.<br /><br />-What sells the movie for me is the sheer fact that you get to see things you don't see in everyday life which is also the same reason why I love stuff like "Two Towers" and "Silent Hill". Way before today's modern fantasy movie came along with their realistic CGI to blow our minds there was this movie which blew your mind without having green screen scattered all over the place. One of my favorite shots in "Two Towers" is the one where we see the trolls opening the Black Gates, the main appeal of that shot for me was seeing these great fantasy beings doing what is essentially manual labor, and that's what I love about the Genie and other creatures in the movie. They're just there trying to make a living just like everyone else which gives them a real feel even though they're all just fantasy beings.<br /><br />-It's literally impossible to watch this movie and not notice where the makers of "Aladdin" got their inspiration. The characters from this movie are pretty much the same characters in that movie from the talkative Genie right down to the flying carpet. It's not an entirely bad thing in my eyes since it's nice to know that I'm not the only one on the planet that has a deep passionate love for this amazing movie. I first saw this as a kid in the motherland and thought it was the greatest thing in the world and upon watching it again last week I still think it's amazing. That's a true testament that a great movie can withstand the test of time. Sure, the effects look a wee bit outdated and cheesy but it was made way back in the 40's so give it a break. Not everything looks outdated though since most of the stuff can still hold its own today when scrutinized under today's standard.<br /><br />-If you ever wanted to see a live action version of "Aladdin" then you should get your wish with this but the angry cynical bunch will probably do good in avoiding this since this won't be their cup of tea.

Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the "sex scenes", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.<br /><br />This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.<br /><br />The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.

This film made for French TV deals with the tragic effect it has for a close knit family. When Leo, the young man at the center of the story is diagnosed as having the AIDS virus, announces it to his parents, they just can't believe it. The film is a character study on how this family deals with its subject.<br /><br />The director, Christophe Honore, has to be congratulated for bringing this frank account to the screen. Nowhere but in France could this story make it to the movies because of the subject matter.<br /><br />The news has a devastating effect on Marcel, the young brother who hears about what Leo has contracted, in spite of the way the parents want to shelter him from reality.<br /><br />Yaniss Lespart and Pierre Mignard do a convincing job in portraying the brothers.

I saw this film when it was released to the minor cinemas in the UK some 50 years ago; and the memory remains of a great musical score, and the tragedy of the storyline. I saw it again on video recently. The sound track was poor and the picture grainy; but it is one of two films that I saw again the next day, the other being Gladiator. The music theme is intensely tragic, and from the outset one knows that it heralds failure or death. Certainly one of George Sanders best performances; as a man working the black market to get pay back for what he lost in the war, but nemesis waits; Patricia Roc plays a refugee from Eastern Europe eaten with despair. He is attracted to her, selflessly wants to help her, and then falls in love with her, but she is too proud and hurt to accept help. Their love destroys him, and inevetably the girl and the doctor (Herbert Marshall), who brought the nemesis. The storyline is of complex intertwining destinies, where subsidiary characters are not who they appear to be. This is as a film, which diappointed the critics and struggled at the box office; but for the adolescent who saw it, and the retired gentleman who saw it again it is one of the greatest films (taking into account its age)whose story is more akin to an opera.

I had my reservations about watching The Return to Lonesome Dove after seeing and enjoying the original so much. Without Tommy Lee Jones reprising his role as Woodrow Call or Anjelica Huston as Clara, I figured it just wouldn't seem authentic enough. Upon viewing 'return' I can honestly say it's a worthy successor. The actors really make the show with Jon Voight, Rick Schroder, and Oliver Reed all preforming at their very best. I admit the story might not be quite as engrossing as the first, but 'return' definitely has it's share of excitement and captures the romance of the old west in a way that few other films have. Anyone who still has reservations can rest assured that The Return to Lonesome Dove succeeds in capturing the 'feel' of the original and will not disappoint. Do yourself a favor and check it out, Ol' Gus would be proud!

Movies about dinosaurs can be entertaining. So can Whoopi Goldberg movies. But Whoopi AND dinosaurs?<br /><br />After the first 20 minutes of "Theodore Rex", I had come to one conclusion: this movie is evil. Evil, vile, wicked and reprehensible in its spite for the audience. Nothing this bad is made by accident; this is the visual equivalent of a torture chamber.<br /><br />First of all, Whoopi does not make good action movies (watch "Fatal Beauty" if you think I'm lying), but the film makers don't care - she's a tough cop here, yet again. <br /><br />Seen a million cop buddy flicks this week? Well, here's number one million and one, pal.<br /><br />Don't like cute, humanistic animated dinosaurs since that Spielberg TV show about them? Too bad, here's another one and he's a cop, too!<br /><br />You one of those people that hates car chases, shoot-outs, sloppy dialogue, boring futuristic FX and seeing talented people (Goldberg, Mueller-Stahl, Roundtree) stuck in a movie that looks like a tax write-off? A BIG tax write-off?<br /><br />And you read this review all the way to the end. You DESERVE a sequel. Seriously.<br /><br />No stars, not a one. And if they really make a sequel to "Theodore Rex", Hollywood deserves to be attacked a whole herd of wise-cracking foam rubber dinosaurs.<br /><br />Now, I'd pay to see that.

If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original "Lady and the Tramp" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.<br /><br />If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like "Bella Notte" and "The Siamesse Cats Song" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />"Lady and the Tramp 2" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.

This picture came out in 1975 and it was the second in the three part series of the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svenson takes over the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, and Luke Askew plays the role of Mobster Pinky Dobson. The last that we saw Sheriff Pusser he was laying in a hospital bed after him and his wife who was killed in ambushed Sunday morning drive. After Pusser recovers he goes after the men that killed his wife. Is Pusser able to complete the revenge that he's after or does the mob try to take him out before he successes. The only thing that bother me about this picture that this was an actual true story. How could you leave in a town with this kind of crime and yet don't do anything about it. Since there was real no name actress in this picture I can't give it 10 weasel stars but I can give 8

Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.<br /><br />It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.<br /><br />My grade 10 out of 10

Trite and unoriginal. It's like someone watched Immortal Beloved and Amadeus and decided to mix them together and, in the process, steal other formulaic plot parts from other movies to make another one. As with most historical movies nowadays, there are some inaccuracies as history is manipulated to better suit the story, which is understandable for the most part. For example, during the remaining days of Beethoven's life, it was necessary for other people to write down what they needed to say in order for him to understand them. That, of course, would have been a nuisance to have to show on screen. The script, although filled with some quotable lines, doesn't quite capture the feel of that time period and, coupled with some bad acting, seems rather contemporary. Diane Kruger is nice enough to look at but she still has lots to improve on her craft. Ed Harris doesn't work for me as Beethoven and I mostly blame Gary Oldman for that. Overall, not a very good interpretation of the musical maestro's life. Better just find yourself a copy of Immortal Beloved.<br /><br />http://iwascalledclementine.multiply.com/reviews

Takashi Miike's incursion into kiddie territory won me over almost immediately because he demonstrates nerve and bravery in dealing with fantasy elements. This is a fairy tale that dares to be dark. Even as a kid, I thought that there was something sinister about most fairy tales; horrible things happen to people in most children's books. Miike understands that these classic tales are a bit scarier (and more disturbing) than what they appear to be at first glance. The filmmaker takes the archetypical story of a kid on a wondrous quest out of the preschool classroom. He accentuates the very real fears of a world filled with never-ending hazardous missions. Westerners like to downplay the seriousness behind bedtime stories written specifically for kids. I appreciated the fact that Miike was more honest than most American filmmakers. He goes for the jugular of the story but he also shows signs of restrain. But a self-possessed Miike is still stranger than most filmmakers. I thought it was a great film. Highly recommended.

One reasons why they call the 80's, "The Awesome 80's" is quality television. Shows like the Wonder Years, War of the Worlds (the series), V, Amazing Stories, and many more have always left an impression to each "fortunate" one of us that in time will always find a way to reawaken itself. To top that, here comes Monsters! A series quite unique of its own, and a theme fully dedicate to - monsters. May it be the good, the bad, and the morbid.<br /><br />If you're a fan of classic shows or if you have the fascination of horror films then this one is absolutely for you. Provided you can find this rare gem. <br /><br />Even the newer generations will be in awe with some of the episode with its grittiness, it's indiscriminating use of gore effects or its story telling power and simplicity. I guarantee, because I'm 23 :).<br /><br />Be sure NOT to miss this!<br /><br />Although, it's a show seemingly forgotten by the modern world, it will always be with those who can always remember...

James Cagney (The Yankee Doodle Dandy Boy) was just starting his career and was able to perform as a gangster and also a social worker for a Boys Reform School which is being run by corrupt politicans. The reform school inmates are underpriviledge minors from the streets of New York, like the "East Side Kids" who were poor and uncared for during the great Depression. In the final scenes, there is a trial held by the reform school boys with flaming torches and a barn which is set on fire and a big leap by the corrupt warden. I noticed that they did let the horses out of the barn first. This film is not shown very often and I really can understand WHY!

"Yokai Daisenso" is a children's film by Takashi Miike, but as you might expect, it's probably a bit too dark & scary for younger ones. However, older children may well eat this up, that is, if you play it dubbed in English.<br /><br />The story is that of a young boy, who has moved with his mother to the country, to live with his grandfather, after a divorce. During a village festival the boy is chosen as a "Kirin rider", a great honor, but with that honor comes much danger and adventure, of course.<br /><br />Meanwhile, evil doings are at hand as a woman in a white mini skirt, go-go boots & a beehive hair-do, teams up with an evil Yokai to turn people's resentments and discarded items against them. And this evil has manifested itself as a flying city in the form of a monster that heads for the City of Rage itself, Tokyo. One quite funny scene has two derelicts watching the monster fly over the city...says one, "Oh, it's only Gamera". <br /><br />The young boy has befriended Yokai, which are monsters of a kind, mostly benign, that have isolated themselves away from humans, and all the Yokai in Japan band together to fight the evil.<br /><br />In many ways Miike & crew have taken the late 60's/early 70's Yokai films and turned them into a modern action adventure film for (older) kids that also combines some strange mechanical monsters that made me think of "Transformers". The look and feel of the film is great, the effects are entertaining, and some of the humor will just sail right over kid's heads, but still, older ones might enjoy it. As for adults, there's not much here not to like, if you're a fan of Japanese monster movies you'll enjoy the heck out of this.<br /><br />Cool & fun stuff, kind of dark at times but perhaps that's just Miike..and what a wild ride. 8 out of 10.

It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.<br /><br />Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month.