Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

The Color Purple is about the struggles of life and the love that helps those people strongly affected by the struggles of life. Every character had an element of the color purple in them. The movie touches on love, lost, hope, hate, and triumph. whether it be Celie having lived through hell and losing her sister, and Shug coming into her life to show her love again, Albert not being man righting his wrong toward Celie, Shug shunned by her father and confesses to him in the end, Sofia and her stubborness good and bad, and even Nettie, they had their emptiness and hardship through the film but was overcome in the end and that's the sign of a good movie. Good Job to all the cast and crew.

Peter Watkins' rarely seen Punishment Park is a brutality-laced, uncompromised political weapon set across a never ending desertscape. An unapologetically left leaning anti authoritarian abuse fest, the escapades at first appear to be so over the top militaristic and sickening that it could come off as some distant fantastical dystopian alternate history, one Harry Turtledove would even enjoy. But once we delve deeper in and really pay attention to the abhorrent diatribe spouting out of those presiding over the tent topped tribunal, as well as the shotgun toting guards overseeing the bloody affair, our eyes are truly opened. Suddenly we realize just how prescient Watkins' film-making is, as much of this is the kind of neo-con talking points about youth culture and the legality of divergent thought tossed around by politicians today. Granted, much of it was drivel pouring out then as well, but it really shows us how little has changed, and informs of how, in some ways, we are closer to such a world where Punishment Parks would be a real and frightening operation.<br /><br />The main players in nearly every scene are seasoned non actors, mostly chosen for their rash political views and desire to get them on camera. This lends an unprecedented heap of authenticity to the entire experience as we never, even for a second, question the reality of all the chaos. Shot documentary style with 16mm film, this appears like a gritty documentation of some despicable government test project that was classified until found years later. At least it appears to have that history to it now, maybe not as much when it was (barely) released. But this gives an added weight to all the proceedings and helps draw you into this incredible not-so-alternate universe of torture for convicted dissidents.

Dudley Moore is fantastic in this largley unknown classic. This film is very witty film that relies hugely on the actors talent. Without Dudley Moore, John Gielgud, Liza Minnelli, and a few others, this film could have been a disaster. It is not always well shot and at times has some very corny music that tries to force a mood (the "psycho"-like music at the wedding fight), but the acting overcomes it. The character Arthur is hilarious, with his drunken comments. But he develops well into a more mature, well rounded character as he learns to live by his own free will. The end is fairly corny, though. I wont give it away, but it could be improved. Worth seeing many times.

Although I didn't like Stanley & Iris tremendously as a film, I did admire the acting. Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro are great in this movie. I haven't always been a fan of Fonda's work but here she is delicate and strong at the same time. De Niro has the ability to make every role he portrays into acting gold. He gives a great performance in this film and there is a great scene where he has to take his father to a home for elderly people because he can't care for him anymore that will break your heart. I wouldn't really recommend this film as a great cinematic entertainment, but I will say you won't see much bette acting anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I love action and revenge flicks, I've seen many of them since I was a kid, including Dolph Lundgren's latest "The Mechanik" which is quite good. And Tony Scott certainly know how to use a camera and even might be a genius shooting and editing films.<br /><br />But with "Man on Fire" (and even more then with "Domino"), Scott shows that rather than using his film-making "genius" skills intelligently, he uses it puposelessly to show off and compensate a lack of substance that his material doesn't offer him. "Man of Fire" is close to 2 hours and half when it really should have been at least an hour less.<br /><br />The way Scott shot and edited this film also makes you wonder if he really wants you (the audience) to sit through his film because his constant camera moves and flashes really are a torture for the eye and makes you wanna leave the theater or turn it off after 5 minutes into it.<br /><br />At times where the MPAA and studios have questionable attitudes regarding ratings, violence and making PG-13 movies, I find also suspicious that a $70 million movie is made of a B-movie script with a character who cuts fingers, puts a bomb in a man's ass and blows a guy's hand with a shotgun, all this to avenge the death of a little girl who ISN'T even dead! Go figure then why a studio will pass a better script because of the language or violence... Thus said...

The movie concerns about Philip(Leslie Howard)he's a serious but handicapped medicine student .He falls fatally in love with a heartless, predatory waitress called Mildred(Bette Davis).She leaves him ,engaging with others(Alan Hale,Reginald Denny).Meanwhile he is romanced with another suitors(Kay Johnson,Frances Dee)but she goes back in a mutually destructive affair.<br /><br />Easily the best and first of numerous films versions of Somerset Maugham's novel. Bette Davis as the cockney cruel waitress winning yet another magnificent interpretation with an alluring and smouldering performance ,absolutely hypnotic in her account of the bondage that occurs from the beginning to the finale.Davis rose the stardom with her performance.Her role as tough and crude domineering woman will be repeated several times in posteriors acting . Leslie Howard as the essentially good and decent student subtly destroyed gives an excellent and melancholic performance.He was an awesome actor(Gone with the wind)besides producer and writer and dead in plane crash during WWII. Both will play again in ¨Petrified forest¨(1936). The atmosphere film is elaborately recreated in the RKO(Radio Picture Inc) studio is entirely convincing. Remade in 1946 by Edmund Goulding, with Eleanor Parker and Paul Henreid; and in 1964 by Ken Hughes with Kim Novak and Laurence Harvey . The motion picture will like to classic cinema buffs. Rating : Very good but a little bit dated.

Scoop *** out of **** Woody Allen is definitely not my favorite director, but I enjoyed "Match Point." It was an excellent dark romantic thriller that luckily did not star Woody Allen. It did have the beautiful Scarlett Johansson in it.<br /><br />"Scoop" is Woody Allen's latest film and though he appears in this one, it's OK. It also features Scarlett Johansson and the two of them work perfect together.<br /><br />Johansson plays Sondra Pransky, a young college journalist who gets the scoop of a life time from the ghost of Joe Strombel (Ian McShane.) Joe heard the scoop while on a boat with the grim reaper and a bunch of other souls the Reaper has taken. One of those souls is the secretary of Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman.) She tells Joe that Peter may be the serial killer roaming the streets of England. Joe, with the scoop of a life time, travels back to the living and gives this info to Sondra, during a magic act. Sondra is at some magic show with Magician Sid Waterman (Woody Allen.) She becomes a volunteer to go in a disappearing box and while she is in the box, she gets the visit from Joe. Not knowing what to do, she enlists the help of Sid Waterman to help her crack the case.<br /><br />This film has a nice light-hearted feel to it compared to "Match Point" and yet it all works. Johansson and Allen work great together. Allen's humor fits perfect for this story and role. Hugh Jackman is terrific as Peter Layman, the "suspected" serial killer.<br /><br />This is a fun little movie to see if your ever looking for one to watch. The cast ensemble works well together and the story flows and you sometimes forget that your watching Woody Allen be himself. I say give it a chance because you just might like it.

If you are planning to watch 'Partner' and are on IMDb reading reviews about it, you have already wasted too much time over this stupid, idiotic, awful movie.<br /><br />It's a horrible, horrible, horrible copy of the movie 'Hitch.' I choose to ignore all the other warnings and bad reviews I had heard about this movie, and wasted a precious 20 minutes on it - I thought that after all its David Dhawan who is making it, and it has Govinda - how bad can it be? But after 20 minutes of watching this nonsense, I couldn't take it any more, and turned off my computer.<br /><br />Overacting by everyone in the movie, stupid dialogues, total time waste - I gave it a 1-star rating because that's the lowest you can do. If I could go lower, I would have given it a -100 rating.

This is one of the best action films I have seen. Geena's portrayal of the tough as nails, 'Charly'/gentle mother 'Sam', was superb and Samuel L Jackson just keeps you laughing all the way through, with his classic one liners. Sure, there were a few holes in the actual story, but this fast-paced flick keeps you on the edge of your seat to the end.<br /><br />I felt Geena was a perfect choice for the role of Sam/Charly and her versatility as an actress is evident for her role as the mother in the recent movie 'Stuart Little'. Both Samuel and Geena were well supported by David Morse, Brian Cox, sweet little Yvonne Zima and newcomers, sexy Craig Bierko, and Melina Kanakaredes. This film accentuates the growing trend of strong female character and the diversion away from traditional male/female stereotypes as we see Sam/Charly (Davis) and Mitch (Jackson) hurtling from one disaster to the next.<br /><br />While I and many others loved this movie, it is fair to say that there will always be people that don't and that's fine - each, to their own. I highly recommend this film to action fans, for its hilarious scenes and fast-paced action.

As is often the case, films about self-loathing characters do not usually make for good drama. 'Downloading Nancy' is no exception. It's supposedly based on a true story about a woman who's murdered at her own request by someone she meets over the internet.<br /><br />The protagonist is Nancy (Maria Bello) who is married to Albert (Rufus Sewell). Albert is a successful software developer who has developed a golf game which his company has successfully marketed to various bars and bar/restaurants. Unlike most human beings, Albert has virtually no positive attributes (except for his ability to be successful in the business world). Throughout the film, Albert has a grim and dour expression on his face. He has no sympathy for his wife with all her emotional problems and resorts to patronizing prostitutes. When his wife asks for sex, he punishes her by masturbating in her presence instead.<br /><br />Nancy is equally one-note as a character. Not only has she had a loveless 15 year marriage but was sexually abused by her uncle when she was growing up (thankfully there are no flashbacks of that back story in the film). Her self-loathing takes the form of self-mutilation and a result, she's forced into therapy. However, she has such contempt for her therapist that no progress can be made.<br /><br />Finally, Nancy is so depressed that she contacts Louis over the internet. He's sort of a sadomasochistic gigolo, who has sex with women for money while inflicting massive amounts of pain to boot. It's revealed that Louis has two children but no longer sees them (the children's mother no longer wants anything to do with him).<br /><br />Nancy's plan is to first have painful sex with Louis and then have him kill her. There's a particularly unpleasant scene where Louis has sex with Nancy while slashing her vaginal area with a broken piece of glass. These scenes are shown as flashbacks after Louis pays a visit to Albert who ties him up and strikes him with a golf club. It seems that Louis has a two-fold plan in going to see Albert: 1) berate him for his treatment of Nancy and 2) enjoy the beating he receives. It takes awhile before Louis will reveal Nancy's fate—first, he forces Albert to do him the favor of taking his dog to a relative so someone will care for it in the future. Nancy's fate of course is that Louis finally ended up choking her to death (but showed some hesitation first as he made it clear that he had some 'feelings' for her). We soon learn that Louis is imprisoned for life for Nancy's murder.<br /><br />What exactly are we to take away from a film such as Downloading Nancy? Are we supposed to feel sorry for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence? Is that the main point of the film? Is sympathy for Nancy actually warranted? I don't think so. The film's writers create a straw man in the character of Albert—someone who is so cut off from his emotions that he is the one that is held responsible for Nancy's decline. But are people so one-dimensional in real life? I think not. They have the repulsive Louis, a man who makes a living by inflicting pain, come over and berate Albert for neglecting Nancy. Furthermore, his expressions of love towards Nancy (before he kills her), is supposed to show his 'sensitive side'.<br /><br />In the end, it matters little whether the filmmakers have defined where their sympathies lie with the various characters in the film. They are so bent on titillating their audience with scenes of gratuitous violence, that Downloading Nancy becomes nothing more than an exercise in poor taste and soft pornography.

An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made.

This film reminded me of The Sopranos, and not in a good way. <br /><br />David Chase's seminal mob opera only ever put its foot wrong twice, the most jarring and inexplicable instance of which took place in its fourth season, when Junior Soprano went on trial for his life. Rather than pursue this riveting (and pivotal) plot line, the writers instead chose to completely ignore it, focusing instead on Bobby Baccalieri's constant whimpering over his recently deceased wife's frozen pasta dish. <br /><br />When something of genuine interest happens in Notorious - for example that first, mysterious assassination attempt on Tupac Shakur that ignited the whole East Coast/West Coast feud in the first place, and ended up leading to the deaths of both Tupac and Christopher Wallace - the film treats it as just another bit of plot to plod through. Why exactly was Tupac so convinced that he was sold out by his own people? Did he alone nurture his subsequent affiliation with Suge Knight? And was Lil' Kim's transformation from prim office drone into sex-obsessed, vampish diva really as banal as it appears here?<br /><br />None of these questions are even fleetingly addressed by the film's screenwriters, who are far more interested in depicting Wallace's turbulent love life to zero compelling dramatic avail. These sequences (including a brain-frazzlingly clichéd groupie indescretion in a hotel room) are so toothless and bruisingly manipulative that the only real comparison to be made is with a network TV movie.<br /><br />The storytelling, in both structure and content, is simplistic and trite. But more fundamentally, as a biopic; as something designed to celebrate its subject and educate the uninitiated on the intricacies of their life and work; the film is almost entirely worthless. The reliance on meat-and-potatoes genre plotting, coupled with the lifeless musical performances (an area in which a film like this should soar, surely) result in a film that appears to have been designed only to satisfy the whims and demands of those involved, leaving Wallace's questionable status as a giant in his field as the preserve of the easily persuaded and previously converted only. <br /><br />And the final twenty minutes, in which Wallace's posthumous cultural identity is broadly painted as being akin to that of a latter day saint, quite frankly made me feel like throwing up. <br /><br />On that score, much as with any other, Notorious is crass, calculating and compromised.

I recently stumbled across a TV showing of "Passion...." (having missed the opening scenes). Ms Currier in to be praised for having the vision and courage to bring such a strange de Balzac tale to the screen. I am grateful to the entire cast and crew for their parts in producing such a thoroughly fine motion picture. It must have been arduous shooting so many scenes in the desert. And I cannot comprehend how her trainer coaxed such a fine "performance" from the leopard, Simoon. (This adverture calls to mind another suspenseful adventure, "Naked Prey"). Why isn't this film more well-known?. Hope I can find it on video.

No doubt intended as a totally campy joke, "Full Moon High" portrays 1950s teenager Tony Walker (Adam Arkin) accompanying his father (Ed McMahon) on a trip to Romania. Sure enough, Tony gets bitten, and grows fur and fangs whenever there's a full moon. A particularly interesting aspect in this movie is that he can't age as long as he has the werewolf curse, and that he has to fulfill a destiny - even if it takes twenty years.<br /><br />But otherwise, the movie's just plain funny once it gets going. Ed McMahon's character is an over-patriotic right-wing yahoo (he thinks that everyone should have listened to Joe McCarthy), Kenneth Mars's coach/principal is a tense dweeb, and then there's more. One of the most eye-opening cast members is Demond Wilson - best remembered as Lamont on "Sanford and Son" - as a bus driver who gets a big surprise. But probably the funniest scene is the changing of the presidents; then gag with Gerald Ford really summed him up! Anyway, it's a real treat. Considering that Alan Arkin - who plays a zany psychiatrist - just won an Oscar on Sunday night and thanked his sons, I wonder whether or not he remembers co-starring with two of them in this movie (aside from Adam, his son Anthony also has a small role). Quite funny. Also starring Elizabeth Hartman.<br /><br />PS: director Larry Cohen is probably best known for the killer baby flick "It's Alive".

So-so thriller starring Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis, who join David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes on a road trip out west. The latter couple are researching notorious murder sites for an upcoming book; Pitt's a serial killer on the lam (unbeknownst to Dave) and Juliette is his poor, not-all-there companion. This is a good cast and the story moves along, but Pitt isn't belivably scary as a serial killer, although it is one of his better earlier roles. The best thing is here is Michelle Forbes, who always manages to shine, whether in her roles on `Homicide: Life on the Street' or in the brief series `Wonderland.'<br /><br />Vote: 6

Describing Stalingrad as a war film may be a bit inaccurate. Sure it centers on the longest and bloodiest battle in world history, in the most expansive theater of the most costly war in terms of lives, money, and matériel that has ever occurred. Yes it contains action scenes depicting bitter battles and terrible destruction. The visceral storytelling and harsh images though make it something more than a war film, even more than an anti-war film. Stalingrad is instead a film about absolute and undeniable hell.<br /><br />The film is fraught with visual descriptions of the worst kind of war, one that is intensely personal and close, where days are spent in taking one city block, only to have it re-taken in a surprise assault. The early form of modern urban warfare that the Germans came to call Rattenkrieg (Rat Warfare) is depicted in brutal and uncompromising terms. The characters war in sewer tunnels, rail yards, and from building to building in the hellish bomb-scape of ruined Stalingrad, only to be defeated by the unforgiving Russian winter.<br /><br />The film deals with the issue of Nazism and the vilification of Germans in that period in the way that many other films from both Germany and the rest of the world do. Its characters are a group of soldiers swept along by the winds of war and simply attempting to make it out with themselves and as many of their comrades as possible alive. The characters do not fight the Soviets out of any ideological hatred between National Socialism and Soviet Communism, not for any grand dream of Grossdeutschland or racial superiority. They fight only because if they do not the enemy will kill them, and if the enemy does not then their own officers certainly will for refusing to fight. This portrayal adds another layer to the suffocating envelope of trapped hopelessness that pervades the film.<br /><br />A sort of ground based companion to Das Boot, Stalingrad frames the epic struggle of World War Two in a personal light and from the unexpected perspective of the ordinary German soldier as a sort of hero made tragic by circumstance and a brutal government that would pervert his sacrifice.

Devil's Experiment: 1/10: Hardcore porn films fall into two categories those with a semblance of plot (Gee that is one lucky pizza boy) and those without (Anal Amateurs 36). Devil's Experiment falls solidly into the latter category. <br /><br />It is of course the horror version of hardcore porn. An almost completely plot less 43-minute wait for the money shot. Shot on video in 1985 it consists of three relatively non-descript Japanese boys torturing one fairly unattractive Japanese girl. The tortures range from the banal (slapping her 50 times, kicking her a hundred), the silly (tying her to an office chair and spinning her around), the fear factor (a bath of maggots and sheep guts) and finally the money shot. (A well executed eyeball piercing). <br /><br />That's it, no plot, no motive, just Blair Witch tree shots and torture. The girl looks bored and with the exception of yelling, "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition" during the office chair scene I was bored silly. Staring dumbfounded at the screen, waiting for the money shot. Just like hardcore porn.

Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans.

No, there is another !<br /><br />Because every Star Wars fan had to have an opinion about I, II & III and because that opinion was biased since we missed so much the atmosphere and the characters of the original trilogy, I will state the good points of "The Return of the Jedi" and a few corresponding bad points of the prequel. Of course, I loved the music, the special effects, the two droids, but this has been overly debated elsewhere.<br /><br />What we get in the original trilogy and in this particular movie : - A strong ecological concern - Anti-militarist positions - Fascinating insights about the Jedi Order and the Force - Cute creatures - Harrison Ford's smile - A killer scene : Near the ending, when Vader looks alternatively at his son and at the Emperor. The lightning of the lethal bolts reflected on his Black helmet. And when he grabs and betrays his Master to save Luke, thereby risking his own life ! Oh, boy !<br /><br />What is wrong in the prequel INMHO : - the whole "human factor" element that the original cast was able to push forward is somehow missing - The Force seems to be more about superpowers and somersaults, than about wisdom - Too many Jedis at once and too many Light Sabers on the screen - The lack of experience of a few actors too often threatens the coherence of the plot <br /><br />By the way, if you enjoy the theory of the Force as explained by Obi Web (Obi Wen, I mean) and Yoda, then you should read a few books about Buddhism and the forms it took in Ancient Japan.<br /><br />The magic of Star Wars, IMHO lies mainly in the continuing spiritual heritage from a master to his apprentice, from a father to his son, albeit the difficulties. "De mon âme à ton âme", (from my soul to yours), as would write Bejard to the late Zen master T. Deshimaru.

I absolutely love this show, but I saw the second episode first. After watching the first episode I could see why people were turned off at first. The first episode's humor is not the best, and they struggle to properly start the series. However, I still like the light and humorous attitude of the show. The characters develop much more after the episode and become truly enjoyable characters. As a first episode, it really doesn't accurately represent the rest of the show which is really quite good. The episode is not bad by any means, but as the show progresses it becomes better and better, so watch more episodes before passing any judgement on the quality of the show.

I have never watched a movie that frustrated me more than Lord Of The Dance. Frustrated because it could have been fantastic. Frustrated because the dancing might have been astounding. Frustrated because the women could have been gorgeous. How would I know though?! By the time your eyes have moved to the area of interest on the screen and focused appropriately on the spot to be admired the insane editor has moved the shot! I completely agree with the other comments here about the crappy lighting and terrible camera/editor work. It makes me nauseous just watching ten minutes of this would be spectacular movie.<br /><br />Give me an opportunity to get a front seat to the live concert and I would be there in a shot! <br /><br />Nicholas T

I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.<br /><br />It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!! <br /><br />Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.<br /><br />Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion.

The final entry in the On The Buses trilogy sees the usual wasters go about their business in Wales. I feel sure the franchise could have continued, but Harold Pinter complained that the screenplays made him look bad in comparison, and so no more were made. <br /><br />It's actually less than two minutes before we get our first dollop of sexism - a woman running for the bus finds her breasts fall out of her dress for no reason whatsoever. Still, it does at least make Stan (Reg Varney) laugh - but then what doesn't? He and Jack (Bob Grant) spend the entire movie laughing uproariously with little or no provocation. You get the impression that they'd wet themselves watching paint dry. <br /><br />As before, the only funny element is the genuinely amusing Stephen Lewis, hilarious as Blakey. He's on his own, though, with a cheesy, dated script that even wastes first-rate talent like Wilfrid Brambell and Henry McGee. Yet it seems as if only Lewis understands how to time the shaky material, wringing laughs out of even the weakest lines. Describing how her daughter fell in a river, Stan's mum laments "I hope it's not polluted." "Well it will be now" Blakey quips. <br /><br />The plot - if indeed there is one - sees Stan lusting after a young girl, but being continually thwarted by her domineering mother. It's a recipe for side splitting hilarity I'm sure you'll agree, and whether it's on a storm-lashed boat or the swimming baths, Stan and Mavis's exploits always produce the same result... abject boredom. Later conquests include Maria, an Italian stereotype, and a staff co-worker. Even Stan's mum gets a one-night stand, with Stan considerately reminding her to "put your tin drawers on."<br /><br />When one of the comic "highpoints" is Arthur Mullard overhearing Olive trying to locate a light switch in the dark ("I can't find it") and thinking she's talking about sex, then you can see why this work reaches the upper levels of literary sophistication. In fact, why it didn't get in the BFI's Top 100 movies is beyond me. <br /><br />Other rib-tickling shenanigans involve Olive (Anna Karen) breaking her glasses. I don't know what's more surprising, the lame predictability of the set-up, or the underdeveloped pay-off. The short sighted Olive follows a man in a kilt into the gents, thinking he's a woman in a skirt. The next shot sees her marched out by Blakey and redirected to the ladies. And that's it. Next, she ends up in another man's bed, and is ordered out by his wife. And... no, that's all there is to that scene, too.<br /><br />When Holiday on the Buses was last screened on British television there was a breakdown in transmission. It actually came as blessed relief.

"Broken Bow" takes us back to where it all began. Set 150 years in our future and 100 years before Kirk, Spock and McCoy. This installment of the "Star Trek" franchise, is in my opinion the first series since "TOS" to recapture the feelings of wonder, danger and excitement of "Going Where No Man Has Gone Before". Scott Bakula is perfectly cast as Jonathan Archer, the first Captain of the first "Star Ship Enterprise". He and the entire cast truly show a true reverence for the Star Trek legacy. John Billingsley is Brilliant as the alien Dr. Phlox, and Jolene Blalock is totally luscious as the tempting but logical Vulcan science officer T'Pol. Broken Bow is in my opinion the best premier episode of any of the Treks, and I believe Gene Roddenberry would surely be proud.

The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in "Women in Love." The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.<br /><br />What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.<br /><br />A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way.

I love comedies and I love independent films, but this was much too slow and the humor was extremely regional. I guess It would have been better if the main characters were likeable, but they were just typical gen-x slacker types, just like the people that have been causing trouble in high schools for forty years... I can understand High Praise for a young indie film-maker when it is deserving, but this is an extremely average film.

The reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.<br /><br />Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.

Du rififi chez les hommes is a brilliant film which studies criminal minds and allows viewers to have a better understanding of criminals who are fundamentally not different from ordinary folks like us.What director Jules Dassin shows is that criminal do have families and they care a lot for them.That is why they adhere to a strict code of honor. For them a family is not only made up of wives,mistresses and children but also include casual acquaintances and close friends.Contrary to what many might find it hard to believe,Jules Dassin has not tried to glorify crime in his film as rififi makes it clear that crime never pays.It shows that all kinds of bad activities result in some kind of human loss.Apart from its philosophical stance Rifif is worth watching for its technical finesse.While watching one of the film's most brilliant sequences about breaking of a safe,one would find it hard to believe meticulous precision with which criminal minds execute their plans.This is a scene which nobody has dared to copy in Hollywood.

AristoCats is such a terrific Disney classic that I just loved so much as a kid. Still to this day I can't resist watching it, it's just such a wonderful and charming film with great animation and lovely songs. I really miss the animation films like AristoCats, they had perfect voices not to mention the hand drawn animation that makes it perfect for the family. AristoCats is also very witty and clever, the story was just so wonderful. This film is just beyond irresistible, I think the most memorable moment for me was the cats playing the piano learning the appecio's, lol, it was just so cute with the piano playing and painting.<br /><br />Douchess and her kittens are very pampered in their huge mansion, mainly because their lady is very rich and treats them like they were her children. But when the lady feels it's time to make her will, she leaves everything to the cats and not to her butler. The butler gets angry and takes the kittens on the road and abondons them in the middle of no where. Douchess and the kittens wake up and with the help of a smooth street cat by the name of Thomas O'Malley, they head back home to their lady, but learn the coolness of being a skat cat.<br /><br />The AristoCats is just a perfect Disney movie that I feel is a bit over looked. I would always highly recommend this movie for kids or families, it could be enjoyed by anyone. The songs and story is just memorable. I will always join in for the movies best song "Everybody wants to be a cat", such a great tune. I also love those dogs that guarded the farm where the cats were abandoned, they were just so cute. This is a terrific film, please watch it, you won't be disappointed.<br /><br />9/10

I saw this film at a small screening. Even though it had a low budget, the creative direction and intelligence of the cast helped make this a small gem of a movie. It's April 8, 1994, each of the characters are in their "mid 20's" and pursuing some kind of artistic ambition (acting, music, film, writing) when they learn of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain's suicide. They quickly get inspiration to travel from San Francisco to Seattle and attend the Cobain vigil. It's here where the film really picks up and serves up a series of funny and emotional scenes. Highlights include: a visit to Jimi Hendirx's grave, Kurt Cobain's original childhood home and a campfire sing along. An honest an original piece of work.

For those who loved "Wayne's World"..."The Blues Brothers"...and hell, even "Raiders of the Lost Ark," you will find much to like (but probably not love) in "Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny," a fictional epic about the formation of the JB (Jack Black)/KG (Kyle Gass) band. Two out-of-work losers with a love for rock n'roll are met with a dilemma when KG's long-supportive mother stops sending him rent checks; JB and KG make tracks for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after a sage music-store clerk (an inspired Ben Stiller) tells them about the titular pick (a funny animated-tapestry sequence gives the backstory). Along the way, our zeroes encounter a snaggle-toothed stranger (a game Tim Robbins), Sasquatch, stoner security guards, sorority chicks, and Satan himself (an ironically-cast Dave Grohl), in a climactic sequence that has to be seen to be believed (and preferably played at high volume). Rarely do I see comedies in the theater, but "Pick" is an extremely nice change of pace...it may not go up to 11, but it hums a tune both crude and clever for a good 90 minutes. And the songs are inspired low-brow hilarity. Recommended.<br /><br />6.5 out of 10

Great movie! oh yeah! Full of energy, full of fun, presenting our generation, our alienation: a hymn to positive thinking despite this world we live in, a tale of a great party, a tale of a bunch of friends who desperately must do something in a week end and the only thing to do is The Club. But fun and extasy keep boredom away! Very funny, nicely grotesque in a few points, nicely shot... and great soundtrack!

Saw this movie when it first came out in the 1970's and hated, hated, hated it! Easily the most booooring movie I have ever seen in my life. Don't know where Leigh got his inspiration but this is one of those movies where you want to shake the characters to get them to open their mouths and communicate. The title says it all because there are no saving moments in this movie, just long, long silences with people unable to articulate what they are (presumably) feeling. If you want to watch something that will drive you to drink then this is the one for you. If you have nothing better to do for two hours then stick a fork in a toaster: the experience will be infinitely more pleasurable than anything you will get from this! Yes, Leigh came up with a lot of really worthwhile stuff much later in his career but give this one a miss.

Personally I've watched it because of Lea Thompson's appearance and I didn't really expect to enjoy the movie as such, but surprisingly I kept watching it until the end.<br /><br />Let's face it - it just one of the saga-like stories and isn't particularly original or entertaining, but strangely it just keeps you by the TV. My opinion about Will of Their Own would be much better if there wouldn't be one point that I just don't get.<br /><br />There is lovely and really touchy scene in which Lea Thompson's character is running on the street holding baby in her arms, the snow is falling, she is cold, scared, and has no place to stay, she doesn't know what to do next. And then about 10-12 years later, when things are better for her, she just leaves the same kid without any warning to take up the career she was dreaming about.<br /><br />I just don't get it - I don't see how is it possible that she would do such thing, it was the opposite action to all that she done so far in her life when all that she was doing was aimed on that child survival. After this character flip I just couldn't enjoy rest of the movie.

This film had my heart pounding. The acting was great, the erotic music and the beautiful women add up to make this one a winner. The lead actress decides to join an escort service when she realizes that her husband has no time for her. She step's into a whole new world her first client being another woman. This is a film you definitely DON'T want to pass up.

A prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, from the same creative team Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as well as new series co-creator Remi Aubuchon. Caprica is set in the twelve colonies some 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. The new series in addition to its human drama also chronicles the key steps in the development of what would become the Cylon race.<br /><br />The pilot and the series are set to follow two families; the Graystone's which include Daniel (Eric Stoltz) a computer genius and corporate tycoon and his equally brilliant but rebellious daughter Zoe (Alessandra Toreson), while the Adama's include Joseph (Esai Morales) a lawyer and his son William the future Admiral of Battlestar Galactica.<br /><br />Like Battlestar Galactica the series includes some great experienced actors in Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales and Polly Walker as well as some very talented relatively new actors including Alessandra Toreson and Magda Apanowicz.<br /><br />For fans of Battlestar Gallactica there are similarities and continuities with that series but it is also very different. In the pilot at least the science fiction elements are definitely present but are smaller part of this series. The scenes on Caprica while reflecting a more technologically advanced society also have retro feel, this is achieved through some of the architecture, the costumes and the way it is shot.<br /><br />While the look and feel of the two series have some substantial differences some of the themes will seem very familiar, religion is again very important here, while the racial theme rarely touched on in BG is far more important. We also touch on terrorism the existence of a soul and whether or not a machine can have one, as well as issues related to crime and government.<br /><br />The pilot has been released direct to DVD in an extended and unrated version prior to airing on TV, the series is set to start in 2010.<br /><br />Like Battlestar Galactica this series is filmed in Vancouver

It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one.

First time I ever saw this was at a friends house. It ended up in his parents hands by a fluke; some videostore/bicycle repair shop!! went bankrupt and treats like this was up for grabs. We saw it two times in a row and almost wet are pants how hard we laughed. <br /><br />I've seen historical documents like Ninja Mission and Plan 9 from Outer Space, and they still remain good runners-up in comparison to this one. <br /><br />Almost 15 years after first contact it is now considered the best cult movie of all times (in my circles); I've showed it to all my friends... We now have a tradition of searching for movies in the same category: the un-rateable one.<br /><br />It can't be explained or reviewed in any normal way because every scene, every take, every move, contains at least one mistake regarding editing, dialouge, directing etc.<br /><br />For any cult-movie buff this is the ultimate prize, the gem of all gems.<br /><br />Raiting: As for craft it can't be rated, because it would even be an insult to homemade videos of birthdays and weddings.<br /><br />As for pure amusement it is the funniest movie I have ever seen; funnier than any comedy ever made past or present. Anything less than a 10/10 should be regarded as an insult to good sense of hum our.

Thunderbirds (2004) <br /><br />Director: Jonathan Frakes <br /><br />Starring: Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Brady Corbet <br /><br />5…4…3…2…1! Thunderbirds are GO! <br /><br />And so began Thunderbirds, a childhood favorite of mine. When I heard that they were going to make a Thunderbirds movie, I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to see Thunderbird 2 roar in to save people, while Thunderbird 4 would dive deep into the…you get the idea. I just couldn't wait. Then came August 2004, when the movie was finally released. Critics panned it, but I still wanted to go. After all, as long as the heart was in the same place, that was all that mattered to me. So I sat down in the theater, the only teenager in a crowd of 50…everyone else was over thirty and under ten. Quite possibly the most awkward theater experience that I have ever had… <br /><br />The movie (which is intended to be a prequel) focuses on Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), the youngest of the Tracy family. He spends his days wishing that he could be rescuing people like the rest of his family, but he's too young. One day, he finally gets his chance when The Hood (Ben Kingsley) traps the rest of his family up on Thunderbird 5 (the space station). This involves him having to outsmart The Hood's henchmen and rescue his family in time before The Hood can steal all of the money from the Bank of England.<br /><br />Trust me, the plot sounds like a regular episode of Thunderbirds when you read it on paper. Once it gets put on to film…what a mess we have on our hands. First off, the film was intended for children, much like the original show was. However, Gerry Anderson treated us like adults, and gave us plots that were fairly advanced for children's programming. This on the other hand, dumbs down the plot as it tries to make itself a ripoff of the Spy Kids franchise. The final product is a movie that tries to appeal to fans of the Thunderbirds series and children, while missing both entirely. Lame jokes, cartoonish sounds, and stupid antics that no one really finds amusing are all over this movie, and I'm sure that Jonathan Frakes is wishing he'd never directed this.<br /><br />Over all, everyone gave a solid performance, considering the script that they were all given. Ben Kingsley was exceptional as The Hood, playing the part extremely well. My only complaint about the characters is about The Hood's henchmen, who are reduced to leftovers from old Looney Tunes cartoons, bumbling about as, amazingly enough, the kids take them on with ease.<br /><br />What's odd about this movie is that while I was watching the movie, I had fun. But once the lights went up, I realized that the movie was fairly bad, I was $8 lighter, and two hours of my time were now gone. A guilty pleasure? Perhaps. Nonetheless, Thunderbirds is a forgettable mess. Instead of a big "go", I'm going to have to recommend that you stay away from this movie. If the rest of movie could have been like the first ten minutes of it, it would have been an incredible film worthy of the Thunderbirds name. However, we get a movie that only die-hard Thunderbirds fans (if you'd like to watch your childhood torn to pieces) or the extremely bored should bother with.<br /><br />My rating for Thunderbirds is 1 ½ stars.

This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a "sleeper", this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie?

This has got to be the worst horror movie I have EVER seen.<br /><br />I hated it so much I wanted to come here and complain about how bad it was. Normally bad movies are no big deal, but something about this one if you hated it.. you really hate it.<br /><br />If anyone liked this you probably enjoyed Baby Geniuses, I thought I could never find a movie that was worse then that one.. I guess not.

When a friend and I saw this in the recent releases, we decided to get it despite the fact that neither of us had heard of it before. We both like Costas Mandylor and it had James Coburn so we figured it couldn't be that bad. We were wrong. It was. It was REALLY that bad. No actor or actress could have made this film worth seeing. It was like taking Titanic, The Poseidon Adventure and some nuclear bomb film and trying to cut and paste it all together.<br /><br />I must admit that there were a couple of chuckles. I did laugh when the head cabin boy is asking Alan (Costas Mandylor) if he's some "pussy marine." The other laughs this film got though had nothing to do with the writing. I would dearly love to know how the people making this movie thought that you could have a cruise liner knocked upside down and have it remain steady. It isn't tipped or anything.<br /><br />If you are looking for something to watch for Costas Mandylor, James Coburn or any of the rest of this cast, move on. Find something good that they did.

Inspired at least a little by Ivy Benson & Her All Girls Orchestra, who performed throughout the war years at the Covent Garden Opera house, this film chronicles the attempts by an elderly saxophone player to reform the (almost) all girl band with whom she played as a schoolgirl towards the end of WWII. All too brief flashbacks to the original band on stage bring us some wonderful music, and help to fill in the background to the band members, and in particular to the girls' relationships with the lone male member - their transvestite drummer (who is trying to dodge the call-up).<br /><br />Ian Holm ("Lord of The Rings", "Cromwell and Fairfax") and Judi Dench turn in superb leading performances as the recently widowed Elizabeth, and the conniving, womanizing Patrick, the drummer. The late Joan Sims is perfect as the band's leader, now playing bar piano at the sea-side, and June Whitfield glows as the Salvation Army trombone player. Cameo appearances by other greats like Cleo Laine, Leslie Caron, Olympia Dukakis and Billie Whitelaw make this an unforgettable experience. The movie is a romp down memory lane, with an all star cast of what ought, by all rights, to be a bunch of over-the-hill actresses. All I can say is, I hope I look as good at their age! Leslie Caron, in particular, is still an incredible fox, at 69 years of age. She certainly still gets my pulse going! As I watched it, I was mentally berating the casting director for not using women of the appropriate age. Afterwards, I looked these girls up, and discovered that every one of them is old enough to have been performing in the London of 1944 (although this might be a bit of a stretch for Judi Dench).<br /><br />If you like swing bands, thrive on nostalgia, or just want to see how good a woman can manage look with almost three quarters of a century behind her, don't miss this film.<br /><br />

"In the Mood for Love" a teasing allegory of loneliness and longing. Here is a film without sex, or even kissing -- and it is no doubt one of the sexiest and definetly the most thought-provoking and psychological romance I have ever seen.<br /><br />Telling the story of two people who coincidentally, live in the same apartment, and are a door away from each other. The film, like and unlike "Random Hearts," is about how two people come together via the affair of their two lovers. Only once they receive this news, they take the time to think about the consequences of an affair, and each other's feelings towards having just broken-up -- and whether or not the two people are willing enough to fall back in love.<br /><br />What's terrific about the film is the way director Wong Kar-Wai, presents each character's way of dealing with loneliness. With Maggie Cheung's character, he'll show her, in a repeated montage: leaving work, going home, watching her neighbors gamble, head to the noodle shop, leave the noodle shop, and bump into her attractive age-equal, played by Tony Leung. This is a clever, if not subtle and knowing technique to present loneliness. For it is when you are alone, when you find yourself falling into a loop. This movie worked for me because I can identify with that feeling.

i've heard a lot about the inventive camera-work and direction in this movie. i thought both were a mess<br /><br />also some truly terrible acting. the main 'heroine' in the movie is irritating beyond belief and has absolutely nothing useful to contribute in any situation. everything she does or says is stupid, and she generally just seems to mess peoples lives up. if she could fight, i might forgive her<br /><br />overall all the women in this movie are stereotypical 'broads' in need of a man to save them. and all the men in this movie are muscle bound dim wits capable of saving no one<br /><br />this is a poor movie, and i urge you to avoid it. watch something like 'the sword of doom' instead, i hear its much better than this confusing mess of a film.

Manhattan apartment dwellers have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences. The worst one is the lack of closet space! Some people who eat out all the time use their ranges and dishwashers as storage places because the closets are already full!<br /><br />Melvin Frank and Norman Panama, a great comedy writing team from that era, saw the potential in Eric Hodgins novel, whose hero, Jim Blandings, can't stand the cramped apartment where he and his wife Muriel, and two daughters, must share.<br /><br />Jim Blandings, a Madison Ave. executive, has had it! When he sees an ad for Connecticut living, he decides to take a look. Obviously, a first time owner, Jim is duped by the real estate man into buying the dilapidated house he is taken to inspect by an unscrupulous agent. This is only the beginning of his problems.<br /><br />Whatever could be wrong, goes wrong. The architect is asked to come out with a plan that doesn't work for the new house, after the original one is razed. As one problem leads to another, more money is necessary, and whatever was going to be the original cost, ends up in an inflated price that Jim could not really afford.<br /><br />The film is fun because of the three principals in it. Cary Grant was an actor who clearly understood the character he was playing and makes the most out of Jim Blandings. Myrna Loy, was a delightful actress who was always effective playing opposite Mr. Grant. The third character, Bill Cole, an old boyfriend of Myrna, turned lawyer for the Blandings, is suave and debonair, the way Melvin Douglas portrayed him. One of the Blandings girls, Joan, is played by Sharyn Moffett, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Eva Marie Saint. The great Louise Beavers plays Gussie, but doesn't have much to do.<br /><br />The film is lovingly photographed by James Wong Howe, who clearly knew what to do to make this film appear much better. The direction of H.C. Potter is light and he succeeded in this film that will delight fans of classic comedies.

Where do I start? Per the title of this film I expected some degree of authenticity, in the end I was severally let down. This is not the story of Lale Andersen or the song Lili Marlene, rather it is a Hollywood (or pick your film making hub) story loosely based on some real life characters. I should have had a clue when I heard a heavy English accent giving the intro to the movie in German; the blood red text (title, artists) should have been the 2nd clue. The story line is contrived (Lale was not tricked out of Switzerland Rolf Liebermann's parents, there is no info that Liebermann helped smuggle Jews from Germany, the original song had been recorded outside of the control of the NS regime not while under control, the record played at the station was picked up in Vienna while a Lt. was there on leave, etc, etc) the costumes are poor and incorrect for the time frames (SS black uniforms used every where from border guards to staff positions, these went away from daily use once the war started, etc), the characters are stereo types (SA bullies in a club once they were essentially out of power). Don't waste your time.

First I have to admit that I have had some doubts about the director. He has done some movies (with Jarkovsky) about the recent "czech=east" history or more precisely about families (individuals) how did they survive some historical moments. But it was always like the chines food sour-sweet. This movie was totally different. It was pure, it shows the bones of life, it shows the variations of human natures. This film is an excellent piece of art (story, acting, picture, music) but it shows you the life around you in much brighter light that we don't want to see. By the way I have saw it on a DVD (with English subtitles) but I am afraid that in the USA I wont be able to get it.

I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!

This movie is the funniest danish movie I've ever seen!<br /><br />The plot is funny, surprising and exceptionel. Danish humor is unlike any other, and it gets you every time. The entire audience laughed 90 % of the time....it was incredible. The characters are so well played, and the two actors, Mads mikkelsen and Nikolaj Lie Kaas play their best ever!<br /><br />I would highly recomend seing this movie, you won't regret it, believe me :-)

The Railway Children is perhaps my favorite film of all time simply for the brilliant acting of the cast,the warm,humane interaction of the 3 children and the people they encounter living near the railway in the beautiful English countryside. Jenny Augutter is especially believable in her role as 'Bobbie' the older sibling of her sister Phyllis and brother Peter.The adventures they discover and relationships formed in their new home and surrounding area are very real and fascinating.The scenery is lovely,the trains a part of Britain's vast history and the soundtrack is very moving. This heartwarming film never fails to bring tears to my eyes,each and every time as well as makes me homesick.I often wonder if I should have been born in that era as I think I would have fitted in just fine as people treated each other with such chivalry and decency.<br /><br />In short I consider this film somewhat of a masterpiece and a must see for anyone who considers themselves a 'sensitive or caring type'.Edith Nesbit wrote this story around the beginning of the 1900's and what a wonderful story it is.More kids today need to read this or see the film instead of playing violent video games.If we had more films of this nature ,the world would become a better place.

OMG this was the most painful experience of my life watching this. I could even finish it what is happening to Nick. Their best thing on teen Nick is Drake and Josh and thats about to go off air. The kids songs are kinda of annoying and the so are the kids. My little sister wanted to watch the show because she likes anything that comes on Disney or nick usually but after finish watching this show she said " one of the worst shows that I have ever saw so boring." My little brother actually fell asleep I envy him. In short if your 3yrs old with no brain activity you'll enjoy this show otherwise change the channel now.

I guess the previous "House" movie was a hit, prompting Universal to wring a few more drops from the monster cash-cow. The creative team must've been in a recycling mood, starting with the opening theme lifted from 'Son of Frankenstein' and some of the stock footage dispersed through the film, like one unintentionally funny bit of business where footage of Glenn Strange as the monster is mixed with clips of Karloff from 1935's Bride, and compared to how robotic Strange moved, Karloff seems to move like a cheetah in comparison.<br /><br />Previous film continuity is thrown by the wayside, concerning the miraculous death-cheating abilities of the Wolf Man and Dracula, but when Dr. Edelmann & Larry Talbot discover Frankenstein's monster with the skeleton representing Boris Karloff , Edward T. Lowe does at least acknowledge some of the past movie history, though Talbot curiously never mentions having met Karloff's Dr. Niemann. <br /><br />Since this was to be the last of Universal's horror cycle, the supernatural elements of The Wolf Man and Drac get(unconvincingly) morphed into medical ailments. Drac is told he suffers from a blood disease, a very rare sickness that allows him to transform into a bat or evaporate if sunlight touches him. >:-] And Larry Talbot just has a little pressure on the brain. Of course all of this is painstakingly explained with a 'lot' of medical jargon being related in many scenes throughout. This proves to be the biggest hindrance, as somewhere along the way the filmmakers seem to forget about actual horror or entertainment in favor of giving the monsters conditions that seem as treatable as a flu. <br /><br />As a huge fan of the old Universal horrors, it's rare that I feel so bored while watching one. The whole thing just feels like a movie that was made just because it could be, but if this mess hadn't been slapped together, the monsters might never have met Abbott and Costello, so I guess some good came of this.

This Bravo special is one of the most purely entertaining things I've ever seen on TV. Unlike Me First & The Gimme Gimmes (the worlds foremost Punk-Supergroup/Cover-Band), The Dan Band really must be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />On paper, The Dan Band is just a one-joke act- guy sings girly songs and inserts gratuitous profanity into the lyrics. If you listen to their "Dan Band Live" CD, that's all you'll get, and it'll get old quick. (I only bought it because it had some songs that weren't on the TV special.) But what's made Dan Finnerty a Hollywood cult hero is his amazing stage presence. This guy OWNS his audience for every second he's onstage. And the backup singers are a large part of the visual punchline as well. As for the actual band- they stay out of sight for the most part, but are certainly much more energetic and enthusiastic than your typical lounge-act backing band. Hopefully, a DVD version will be released soon- there were almost certainly some songs cut and although the heavy censoring adds a bit of unintentional humor, it also removes the INTENTIONAL humor.<br /><br />If there is any sense in the world, the Vegas casino owners will soon be fighting over who can build Dan his own showroom faster.<br /><br />"Re-------member my name...FAME!"

When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)

People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.<br /><br />To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.<br /><br />You may be thinking to yourself, "well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title "BUGVILLE".<br /><br />It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).<br /><br />Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.<br /><br />"Okay", you're saying. "It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?" <br /><br />My answer: Partially.<br /><br />It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is "energetic" or "lively". A lot of movies have used the selling point, "lovable cast of characters". Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.<br /><br />Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have "lovable" villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.<br /><br />The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.<br /><br />So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go.

During my teens or should I say prime time I was "eating up" all kinds of SF novels every day of the week. It was in the Sixties and Seventies when TV was not such a important leisure time killer like today, one night in the mid seventies I watched the movie on TV I think it was ARD and I was stunned. I was impressed in a way that I can almost remember each scene even today.<br /><br />Nowadays I observe my kids playing the SIMS or something like that and I think we are close to what that Fassbender Movie expressed. I also would highly appreciate if I could buy this movie on a DVD. But in vain I tried almost everything to get a hint where. The movie MATRIX cannot touch by far the quality and the state of art of this movie. And by the way by now we do not have a glue if we were a superior reality or just one of a couple simulation models. Probably after our death we definitely will know...

Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process "much like the later Cinerama." That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.<br /><br />For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.<br /><br />Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope.

Disappointing heist movie indeed, I was actually expecting a pretty cool cat and mouse stuff going on through out the movie and it does have few of those cat and mouse stuff going on, but it was just pretty stupid. And it basically showed all the good scenes in the trailer, as a matter of fact if you seen the trailer to this, you basically seen the whole film cause it is just that predictable. So basically the plot is about a few armored truck company workers that try to steal the 42 million dollars they are suppose to transport, until one of the members grows a conscience. I thought the movie would be better with it's cast of well known actors, but I was wrong. I mean this isn't necessarily a bad film but it just wasn't that good either or has any depth. This is most definitely a rental at best, just not really worth seeing it in theaters. heist <br /><br />4.8/10

Another enjoyable Warner flick. I really liked John Garfield in this, though I'm wondering why Cagney wasn't in the role. Perhaps it was too similar to ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES? I mean, it's another Dead End Kids story of sorts too, but I really appreciated them here and this film had a lot of nice comical touches along with some good serious drama. The boys work great with Garfield. A nice sequence was the whole "swimming" scene which starts out with no cares but winds up coming too close to disaster.<br /><br />One negative comment: Claude Rains was grossly miscast. As the detective, the fine actor seemed as out of place here as a nun in a whorehouse.

The only good thing about Persepolis is the shadows created in the German Expressionism-style of animation and a hint of history. This movie bored me. It was about a woman dissatisfied with her culture who tries everything else and then goes back to her roots. Here she finds great discontentment once again and finally leaves for final to let everyone else in her country figure out the situation and what they will do now that she is not there to support them. It comes to no conclusion and leaves us with a feeling that this woman has no loyalties. Mind you, she is torn between cultures and doesn't have enough of a background it seems to figure what is important and real. She is listening to ever-so-many voices and will most likely end up a world citizen of some kind than one with any ties to her native culture of Iran. The only thing I received from this movie was angst.

A young girl surviving as a prostitute.<br /><br />A cheap hustler who wants to get the big score.<br /><br />They meet each other in Thailand. You may think by the opening titles it's going to be a violent movie but it is also a story of love with two persons in their own struggle to get the money for a better way of life. This film feels like an essay sometimes because of its changes of images, but still refreshing. This story is also about Eros and Thanatos. "It's not an original joke but it is well told" says a character and that also applies to this one: We've seen the story but this way we see it. Thailand appears in hot tones, the photograph going from one colored to a multicolored place. And it captures the city as the cage of this imperfect persons. There is also a good use of the music to dot the actions.

Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.

The worst thing I have ever watch.<br /><br />The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.<br /><br />May I say more?<br /><br />The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.<br /><br />The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.<br /><br />As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.<br /><br />I learned how to "do not" make a movie.

The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home. <br /><br />cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening<br /><br />cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in<br /><br />Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.<br /><br />And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.

This is the first American film to successfully adopt the naturalistic style used by Europeans, particularly the French and Belgians, for at least a decade, and isn't it about time? Following three high school girls in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn during the last days of their summer break between freshman and sophomore years, it does what all good art should: it discovers the universal in the particular. Even though the girls' preoccupations are outwardly conventional--boys, sex, popularity, money, freedom, and clothes--we glimpse how their whole lives are being shaped, the universal interface between character and destiny.<br /><br />The naturalism is whole, complete. The film breathes, stays in the moment, inhabits real time. The story tells itself. The medium and its artifacts, for once, are not the message. The film unwaveringly, truthfully conveys the childhood perspective of its characters; it does not impose its own adult meanings or morals. Details emerge of their own, are never pushed, and thus seem all the more real and powerful for their understatement. Even though great pains have been taken to capture the authentic social reality of Crown Heights, part of the largest Black ghetto in New York City and one of the most dangerous violent places in the US, the subject is childhood in the ghetto, not the ghetto itself.<br /><br />Documentary footage of the practice sessions of a marching band, the Jackie Robinson Steppers, punctuate the film at regular intervals with an explosion of color, movement, and sound. Otherwise, the camera stays very close, very intimate, a patient, sly, and unobtrusive observer. The language is rich, spontaneous, the acting transparent. Some scenes standout, such as the girls lolling about, each revealing her deepest fantasies. Lanisha's confession of her acceptance of a death by random violence is the most shocking, one of the deepest scars of the ghetto. Her sharing with her mother her confusion and fear before the stark challenges of adult life is equally moving, and beautifully, unsentimentally affirmative.<br /><br />Social realities are respected, not propagandized: All three girls are being raised by single moms, only one, Lanisha, has a father active in her life (and, not coincidentally, of the three she is the most emotionally stable and empathetic to others, and the one with the most self-respect). Two of them suffer from asthma, a disease disproportionately prevalent in the inner city. Gunfire, an accepted daily occurrence, only momentarily interrupts their conversation. Only one of the girls, Joy, feels hope for, feels she has control over the future, while the other two to varying degrees have already accepted despair.<br /><br />This is by far the best dramatic American film I've seen in years. See it, see it, see it.

BIG FAT LIAR, in my opinion, is an absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it. When Jason (Frankie Muniz - "MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE") and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes - "ALL THAT") played those tricks on Marty (Paul Giamatti - DOCTOR DOLITTLE), I really smiled and felt good. That's what I liked most about this movie. As a matter of fact, everything that happened after Jason's essay erroneously ended up in Marty's hands was hilarious. I especially loved Jaleel White's cameo. When I first saw him, I couldn't be certain, but, when I asked my mother if it was him, she said, "Of course!" Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say, "Like I said earlier, there is a moral to this story, and that moral is, always tell the truth." Now, in conclusion, if you are a fan of Frankie Muniz, Amanda Bynes, or Paul Giamatti, I highly recommend this absolutely hilarious movie with a moral to it.

The premise of the movie had much going for it, however, despite the novelty of models selling off someone else's furniture to live the high life, this movie has nothing going for it. The characters are cardboard. The dialog is so painfully scripted, it's hard to sit through, and if there were any jokes in the movie, I missed them. Marilyn Monroe's walking into walls because she doesn't want to wear glasses is completely unbelievable & not funny. Grable's stupidity is also too ham-fisted to be believed. Bacall's gold-digging is so forced, it's annoying to listen to. Why anyone would want to sit through this is beyond me.

Reed Diamond plays a man suffering from amnesia who's been in a mental asylum for over a decade after he was found wondering the back roads with blood on his hands. The doctors want to test out an experimental new drug that'll return his lost memories if it works. But when the drugs give him hallucinations of a demon, he chooses to escape instead. While outside he befriends a young boy whose stepfather (Greg Grunberg) mistreats his mother, won't let her near the darkroom in his basement & acts suspicious in general.<br /><br />While the general 'mystery' of the film is a tad easy to identify way before it's revealed, I found Mr. Diamond's acting to be enthralling enough to keep my attention throughout. (In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a huge fan of his since Homicide and his brief, but extremely pivotal, role in The Shield up through Journeyman & Dollhouse) Not a great film nor a good one, but serviceable enough. Although I did like it better than the previous films that I've seen from Director/writer Michael Hurst (Room 6, Pumkinhead 4, Mansquito)<br /><br />Eye Candy: one fleeting pair of boobs in a hallucination<br /><br />My Grade: C-

This is by far the worst horror/thriller I've seen in my 29 years. If someone offers this to you for free tell them NO. This movie makes you a dumber person for knowing you watched it. The plot isn't even the worst part of this movie.....its the acting, camera work, lighting, and sound. there is absolutely nothing to like about this movie. whoever paid to have this film made is broke now. I hope the director never gets the greenlight for another movie. In its defense this movie was made quickly to try to capitalize on the actual BTK killer's capture but I've seen movie of the weeks that looked like Oscar winners compared to this.

Recovery is a well-judged and balanced drama of a sensitive subject that doesn't sentimentalise the main characters. David Tennant and Sarah Parish bring to the fore the complex and conflicting emotions of a couple deeply in love struggling to come to terms with the personality changes they both endure and also must make to survive a tragic accident.<br /><br />Tennant, as Alan, brings humour as well as a dangerous lecherousness, as an engineer recovering from a memory loss brought on by a road accident. Alan is not portrayed simply as a victim but as human being with feelings doing the best he can to make sense of his new life. Sarah Parish's Tricia is not a clichéd stand-by-her-man housewife who will do anything to support her husband. She struggles with falling out of love with Alan, as the man she once new and loved is now a completely different person - a stranger to her.<br /><br />Contrary to some opinion, this - in my view - makes perfect Sunday night viewing. Too often, we are shown soft family dramas or detective series, like Heartbeat, which rot and putrefy the brain. Programme commissioners seem to think that the traditional day of rest is also a day when our minds go to sleep. More challenging and thought-provoking drama like Recovery would seriously change the situation.

Rather than go on location and make a realistic film about drug addiction in the Windy City, contrarian director Otto Preminger decided to go the opposite way and make his movie appear as artificial as possible, thus flying in the face of the fashion set by men like Kazan, Huston and Zinnemann, who were making their pictures all over the world. Nelson Algren, on whose novel the movie is based, went on record as despising it. What, one wonders, was Preminger up to, and why did he do the movie this way?<br /><br />The sets in the film are so minimal as to suggest a Mr. Magoo cartoon. Louie, the drug pusher, is attired as to resemble the sort of gangster the artists at Mad magazine used to draw. Arnold Stang, wonderful comedian that he was, seems out of place in a serious picture like this, and his very appearance, topped off by an exaggerated and over-sized baseball cap, elicits laughter. Robert Strauss, another actor best known for humorous roles, is likewise out of place, as his large, heavily jowled face and Runyonesque delivery of lines seems more appropriate to a Jerry Lewis movie. Against all this, stars Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker have to work overtime to just keep the viewer from snickering. Sinatra is jittery and manic throughout, suggesting a man ill at ease with himself, hence wholly appropriate for the role of a drug addict. Miss Novak, plant-like and sublimely deadpan, is sympathetic and seems a product of the artfully dingy slums she graces in the film. Parker is pure Hollywood and very hard-working as the crippled and crafty Zosch. She is never convincing, but then neither is the film.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone interested in a realistic depiction of the lives of drug addicts in America. The Caligari sets alone make it unbelievable. Preminger may have been aiming for a dream effect, as the cardboard backgrounds give the proceedings the surreal feeling of a nightmare operetta, perhaps harking back to Preminger's early days in Vienna.

First of all, I would like to clarify that I consider this one of the funniest films I have ever seen. I have watched it almost 10 times just because I've wished to spread the deliciously tasteless innards of this film to other unsuspecting victims. It has the captivating essence of a hand-held camera recording of a distant nephew's seventh birthday. It has all the writing of a WWE match. And most of all, it has the consistency of a face scraped along a sidewalk. This movie is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The film begins with an almost instantaneous mutilation of three, drunken teens in the desert. This scene convinced me that I was onto something big when I picked this film from the DVD rack (being drawn to the box because of the graphic of a velociraptor yelling the word "RAPTOR" on the front of it). The scene contains such treasures as tomato sauce, spaghetti intestines, vain attempts at humour and rubbery dinosaur puppets that repeat throughout the course of the movie. This movie is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The film contains erratic backdrops and prop use that causes one's mind to melt at the thought that someone could just have so little shame when it comes to creating a film. An example is when a truck, in the middle of the night, is parked beside a cliff wall. The very next day, they find it in an open grassy area. The driver couldn't have driven it there since he had his face bitten off by an unnamed bipedal carnivore (I will explain why it's unnamed in a second). So, my only guess is that either the velociraptor drove it, the livestock the driver was transporting did it, or Jim Wynorski doesn't think very highly of his viewers. Hell, in one part they expect me to believe that they are walking down a main street at night when the road doesn't have gutters, the fire hydrant is precariously placed next to a phone booth, and there's only a single street light. Yet, still, I feel compelled to watch and re-watch this film, just so I can find more things that will make me giggle the next time I watch it. This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The directing on this film is horrific. Long extended pauses. Strange cuts to characters that weren't even in the general vicinity of the conversation. People discussing things casually while facing the camera (and in turn, making them face the wall). They can't even give the dinosaur a coherent species, flipping between calling it a baby dinosaur and using a rubber velociraptor puppet (distinguished by the intensely long, fat, disproportionate claw). This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />The editing is prominent on this film. This is not a good thing. I am well aware that the film is a collection of scenes from other films, masterfully crafted into a single piece of crap, but there has to be a limit! Sub plots end as abruptly as they began. Explanations for the sudden disappearance of characters not being limited to, well, not being explained at all! And an ending that felt like driving a muscle car into a brick wall without a seat belt. You just never know what is going to happen because the film doesn't follow a coherent structure. This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />Now, I'm going to just have to mention a single scene (the greatest one) that occurs near the end. This is a spoiler, but not really. The final scene contains a showdown between tyrannosaurus rex and Sheriff Tanner. It is like the showdown between Sigourney Weaver and the Alien Queen in Aliens, except without all the emotional power/budget/epic battling. It pretty consists of Tanner ramming the dinosaur with a piece of construction machinery. A white bobcat. In a space of several minutes, through a series of sneakily slipped in cuts, the director manages to turn that white bobcat into a yellow forklift/crane looking piece of machinery. Now, as I said, I know that this film is made from scenes from other films, but what two films warrant a showdown with a t-rex in a construction vehicle? This film is a masterpiece.<br /><br />This film gets a 1/10 for quality of film making, but a 10/10 for how much it makes me laugh and enjoy myself.

Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.<br /><br />It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.<br /><br />To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb.

The Ghost Walks is a nifty little mystery with a great twist, snappy dialog, and best of all a pansy played to the twittery hilt by character actor Johnny Arthur which never demeans or denigrates his character. Mr. Arthur is great in his role of Homer Erskine bringing great comic relief as the secretary of the Broadway producer Herman Wood, played by another great character actor Richard Carle.<br /><br />They play off of each other superbly.<br /><br />Although the acceptable words of the time sissy and cream puff are used to describe the character of Homer, it is never mean spirited or meant as denigration, and are not spoken by the manly males of the film but by his employer, who fires and rehires him every other scene and who displays an almost exasperated affection for his devoted employee.<br /><br />There is a great scene where Homer tells his boss that he has devoted the best years of his life to him and has been everything but a mother to him.<br /><br />The mystery angle of the film is very entertaining, and the twist at the end might just leave you in stitches.<br /><br />For a low budget poverty row picture, this film has superb set decoration and great costuming.<br /><br />Director Frank Strayer ably handles his cast and this film holds together much better than some of his other low budget mystery attempts, but he had a great script to work with and some wonderful actors to carry it through.<br /><br />This film is a must see for devotees of poverty row films, old dark house mysteries (they actually managed to work in the lines "It was a dark and stormy night)and it has the added bonus of being an early representation of a gay character in film where nothing bad happens to them in the end.<br /><br />This movie is available for download in the public domain film section of the Internet Archive at archive.org.

I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about.

This is one of my all-time favorite films, and while it may move too slowly for some, it's well worth seeing. A corporate lawyer (Richard Chamberlain) is dragged into a case involving "city" Aborigines, and this is no ordinary case. OK, a man has died but it wasn't exactly a normal killing. There has also been a greater than average amount of rain lately, and the atmosphere of most of the film is somewhat claustrophobic & oppressive. The Aborigines are harboring a secret and refuse to spill the beans. This has a lot to do with white men making assumptions about "City" vs. "Tribal" Aborigines, and of course no Abo in the big city would practice tribal ways. Uh huh. Chamberlain is having strange dreams and he is somehow the key to what's happening, although no matter how many times I've seen this I can't quite grasp the exact connection. This is a very eerie and creepy film, and is a fine example of Peter Weir's ability to create tension out of nothing. The ending is a little ambiguous but I take it literally, it's the easiest way out and the scariest. 10 out of 10 and highly recommended.