Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age.

Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.<br /><br />Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this.

I cannot hate on the show. When the old (and better) tech TV had to hit the bricks, the channel was reformatted and new shows stepped in. "Attack of the Show" is the replacement for the Screen Savers, with 3 co-hosts in the beginning. They were Kevin Rose, Kevin Pereira and Sarah Lane. Brendan Moran came to be something of a co-host as well, but he mostly did prerecorded pieces for the show. Kevin Rose decided to leave the show, and eventually there was a contest to see who would be the third host, but that didn't pan out for some reason.<br /><br />Eventually (I just learned this from this very IMDb messageboard) Sarah Lane and Brendan Moran moved on because (hey, this is what I read) the two got married. That was a big secret to me! Now there is a new female co-host, the not-as-hot (my opinion) Olivia Munn. She's hiding something in those tops she wears, while Sarah Lane had a perfect body and she wasn't afraid to show it.<br /><br />AHEM! Sorry.<br /><br />"Attack of the Show" deals with everything young people want to know about. It's music, movies, comic books, the internet and television. This is what's great about the show. If you don't want to bother with scouring the net or waste time watching MTV, you can get all you want on AOTS. Some segments and bits they do are funny. They have regular guests and contributors who are in the industry, as well as guests who range from insignificant internet stars to actual big names.<br /><br />Even though the hosts aren't as geek as I'd like them to be, I still have found "Attack of the Show" to be entertaining, even with its latest lineup.

Worst DCOM I have seen. Ever. Well, maybe not as bad as Smart House. This was just bad. The acting and story was fine, but the effects SUCKED!<br /><br />They were so fake! The only good fight scene was between the brother and Shen. That was probably the only scene in which I was excited.<br /><br />Overall, I found this movie very boring and the film kind of ended suddenly. <br /><br />I will give it a four for Brenda Song who is a very funny actress and that one fight scene.<br /><br />4/10

its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!

Some people may call "Cooley High" the same sort of thing as "American Graffiti", but I wouldn't. For starters, in "AG", everyone was white, whereas in "CH" they're all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always know how to live life to the fullest.<br /><br />One thing that really distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in the real sense of the word.

So wonderful, so quirky, so romantic, so Italian. The film is so feather -light you float off into its refracted reality and you never want to return to the humdrum again. A kitchen sink world of bakeries, and hairdressers, and plumbing, but one that shimmers with a soft luminescence. Should the credit go to the screenplay or the direction? Take your pick -- they're both faultless. Let me get back to that New York City that lies just beyond the looking glass.

This film is, quite simply, brilliant. The cinematography is good, the acting superb and the story absolutely breathtaking. This is the story of Donald Woods, a white South African who thought himself a liberal until he found out the reality of apartheid. Kevin Kline is completely convincing - so much so that when Donald Woods himself appeared on TV some years later, I recognised him from Kline's portrayal. Denzel Washington also turns in a masterful performance, as ever.<br /><br />I urge you to watch this. It is long, but it is worth your patience because it tells such an incredible story. Remember, folks, this really happened.

I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly. <br /><br />All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.<br /><br />The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).<br /><br />Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection!

In a time of bad, if not plain awful, comedies, King of Queens is more than just a breath of fresh air, it's a complete oxygen tank! It is in my opinion one of the 5 best comedy shows of all times. Nothing has been this good since Married with Children. Kevin James and Jerry Stiller are comic geniuses! And believe me, it takes a lot to make me label someone as comic genius. These guys truly understand what is funny. I could watch ten episodes of Seinfeld and wouldn't get half the laughs from seeing KOQ just once. Other funny people in this show are Carrie, Janet Heffernan, Spence and Doug Pruzan (Carrie's boss). I'm so happy they managed to get so many seasons from this gem. The show has been a hilarious winner in a time of mostly comic losers. Check it out if you haven't!!

PREY <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...<br /><br />Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.<br /><br />In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.

The tourist season has just ended on a remote island off the coast of Scotland, winter is beginning to set in and the inhabitants, both humans and sheep alike are settling down to much quieter times ahead. Michael Gaffikin (James Warwick) a former paratrooper in the British Army, is the local dentist, he's not an islander by birth and as such his relationship with local artist and cartographer Fiona Patterson (Celia Imrie) is always being viewed with a little suspicion, not maliciously, but just out of the protective instincts the tight knit community have for their kin. The islands serenity is broken when Gaffikin out for a solitary round of golf finds the headless remains of a brutally slain woman. He immediately reports his gruesome find to Insp Inskip(Maurice Roëves) at the islands police station, Inskip arranges for delivery of the remains to local GP, Dr Goudry, for closer inspection. A quick search for the killer proves fruitless, as does a search for a missing local woman. Over dinner that night with Michael Gaffikin, Fiona realises that the dead woman might be Sheila Anderson, a woman from the mainland, who lives on the island through the winter months. A quick search at her home Dove Cottage reveals the missing remains of her body, her home proving to be the murder scene, but why did the killer drag her torso over a mile into the woods? Suspicion immediately falls on the one stranger left on the island, one Colonel Howard (Jonathan Newth)who also happened be the last person to see her alive as they came across on the last ferry together.<br /><br />Goudry asks Gaffikin for some dental expertise on the victims body, it reveals that she had been torn apart my somebody or something with great strength, one set of teeth marks on the body seem to point at a human killer, another points to that of an unknown animal of some kind. A sheep is found mutilated and then a Canadian ornithologist is found slain. With a heavy fog rolling in, the island is cut off from the mainland and any possibility of help, the radio also doesn't work, seemingly being blocked and the phone lines have been cut. Reports of UFO's and the sighting of a camouflaged soldier are compounded by the finding of an odd looking craft hidden behind rocks on the beach. Inskip is confused and refuses to listen to anything but the facts and laughs off Gaffikin's idea that aliens might be involved, but a rise in radioactive levels on the island, has him doubting himself.<br /><br />The Nightmare Man is based on the novel, Child of the Vodyanoi by David Wiltshire, it is here adapted by Dr Who and Blake's 7 scriptwriter Robert Holmes and directed by Douglas Camfield who also had directing experience on both Sci/Fi classics and the film benefits from having such experienced genre experts on board. The Nightmare Man though is on the whole, a succinctly better crafted piece, that builds its plot alongside solid character development, even down to the minor characters, time is given to giving them all a firm background. The island setting is perhaps a genre cliché that has been used over and over, but its one that I enjoy very much, the remoteness, the sense of being under siege with no way out always add to the atmosphere and here it is given an extra oomph by having an impenetrable fog close in to hamper all efforts. In many genre efforts of this kind it is very easy for proceedings to get silly and for the plot to resort to melodrama, but credit to Camfield, he holds it all together with the emphasis being on believability at all times. There is an authenticity about proceedings, the characters even speaking Gaelic at times to further this point. If there is one negative about the killer its that, we are given his/her/its POV for the killings, an acceptable cliché on its own, but when seen through a red filter and a fish eye lens, it just screams of overkill and dates the film just a little. Still though you will be hard pressed to guess the outcome or the identity or for that matter the species of the killer, given the clues presented, but it's a fun and very well acted piece. The local Scottish cast are exceptional, the local bobbies Roeves and Cosmo in particular spar well off each other and are a delight to behold. Imrie, never one i've taken to in other works, is also pretty good and displays hew womanly physique as if she were in a Hammer production. The outlandish, maybe even preposterous ending may irk some viewers, it disappointed me in some ways, but taking into account when it was made, its an understandable and acceptable addendum that if you think about it, is even more terrifying.

This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!<br /><br />While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).<br /><br />Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.

This movie is ridiculous. It's attempting to be a comedy but the screenplay is horrible. The whole movie is done in low light and you cant grasp the fact that it's a comedy. Truly is bad cinematography. You really have to sit there and watch it to realize there's a few jokes here and there going on but either way they're all inside jokes amongst themselves. This is more like a wannabe drama flick that went bad. It really is a very pointless movie.Their expressions reveal nothing but dismay and disaster which turns out that way anyway. Unless you want to be bored out of your ass, I suggest you stay away from this gag of a movie.

In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.<br /><br />The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.<br /><br />It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.

It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.

This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion. <br /><br />Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.<br /><br />Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.

All the way though i was thinking to myself "Oh god why!" At the very beginning i thought "Right it might be average," but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.<br /><br />Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.<br /><br />Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.<br /><br />You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming *yawns*.<br /><br />Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short "Oh thank god." If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!

At 2:37, a high school student commits suicide. Not shown who has taken their lives or reasons known, time skips back to the start of the day. From here we follow six separate students; Marcus, Melody, Luke, Steven, Sarah and Sean. Each student is struggling with their own moral dilemmas, all reaching boiling point, hitting to an end for one.<br /><br />After losing a friend to suicide, and surviving his own suicide attempt, writer/director Murali K. Thalluri has created a revetting drama focusing on teen life and the horrible act of suicide. Suicide has been a topic that has been kept in the shadows, 2:37 is Thalluri's attempt to bring it to light. If you have been touched by the act of suicide or anyone who has, 2:37 becomes all the harder to view.<br /><br />With heavy and hard subject matter, Thalluri also tackles everyday teenage life crisis's. Sex, pregnancy, sexual identity, bullying, friendship, Thalluri manages and shows them in an extremely realistic manner. The factor on Thalluri's talent is his subtlety. He respect his subject and the problems that everyone will have suffered through at sometime. It verges near documentary at times, it has such a painful realism; the interviews with each character spliced through the film only heightens this.<br /><br />2:37 has a distinctive similarity to Gus Van Sants film Elephant. While the core of each film is different, both tackle teen life. Like Sant, Thalluri utilizes long tracking shots, with time skipping back and forth, to show each characters interaction from different perspectives. A defining point to Elephant was its ethereal ambiance. With spare conversation, little development of characters, and the long tracking shots, Sant created a haunting and mesmerizing atmosphere to a coming dread. While there resides this dread in 2:37, the emotional connection to the characters reaches a higher level Sant couldn't reach. As time goes by, each characters fragility creeps out, dragging you along their emotional roller-coaster.<br /><br />The real hit in this film comes with the inevitable suicide, foretold at the very beginning. The hard part about this scene is the complete intrusion and discomfort we have as an audience watching someones life end in a gruesome fashion. Though many films that have shown suicide, gloss over the act or romanticizes the act. Thalluri shows the pain and agony involved with this act and that its not the best solution. With unknowns in the leads and their first major roles; Teresa Palmereach, Frank Sweet, Joel Mackenzie, Marni Spillane, Charles Baird and Sam Harris all show immense talent and promising acting careers.<br /><br />Compelling and revetting, 2:37 is an absolutely unmissable film.

The quote above just about says it all for "Slipstream". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.<br /><br />Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.<br /><br />If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.<br /><br />Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming "The End" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.

Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles.

The jokes are obvious, the gags are corny, and the characters are walking characatures - but I couldn't stop from laughing at his highly entertaining movie. No matter how many times I see it, I still get a kick out of this one, and I recommend it highly for all lovers of mindless entertainment. It contains many quotable moments, and some of the best sight-gags I've seen to this day. If you've had a bad week and you need a chuckle, rent this one on your way home Friday night to give your weekend a good start.

These slasher pics are past their sell by date, but this one is good fun.<br /><br />The valentine cards themselves are witty, and well thought out.<br /><br />The film has one Peach of a line... "He's no Angel...." when he in fact IS Angel!!! Watching Buffy reruns will never be the same!<br /><br />The cast is a sizzling display of young talent, but the story does not give them enough real depth. Denise Richards on the DVD extras seemed to think the girls on set bonded well together and this would give the feeling that you empathised with their characters. Sorry but NO!<br /><br />The direction is very good, managing to show very little actual gore, and relying on your imaginations implied threat. Much can be said also for the similar manner in which Miss Richards and Heigel do not remove their clothes...:-(<br /><br />Essentially, the main directorial plus, lies within the "borrowing" of various other ideas from previous slasher flicks. Psycho's shower scene is tributed, along with Halloween's "masking". <br /><br />Murdering someone hiding in a bodybag though is a pretty original one as far as I know!!!<br /><br />Light viewing, not very scary but a few good jump moments. If it was a choice between The Hole and this though, choose The Hole. Slasher movies have had their day, and this is just another slasher. A very good slasher, but nothing groundbreaking!!!

The only reason I gave this episode of "Masters of Horror" a 2 instead of a 1 is because the two lead actors are good, and it wasn't shot on VHS. The story, the dialog, and the plot are ridiculous. <br /><br />Talking / Driving zombies who come back to vote and sway the political tide against the war! Give me a break! What next, zombies who come back to go skydiving? Maybe zombies who come back to host QVC shows? <br /><br />I never supported the Iraq war, but I do support the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces; and "Homecoming" was disrespectful in that it mocks the TRUE horror of war. <br /><br />With zombies being mass produced in today's market... this is the SPAM of zombie-related entertainment. How "Homecoming" made it onto "Masters of Horror" is beyond me.

Like most, I thought 'another crocodile movie'. So far we've had Primeval and Rogue in the last 12 months, what can they do that's new? Where both those films were about action and violence, this one's about fear and tension.<br /><br />The performances aren't Oscar-worthy when there's nothing going on, but in times of distress or terror, these people suffer so much it's like torture. There are holes in the plot and maybe crocs don't really behave like this as others have pointed out, but the fear is so effective it's a stretch to say you'll enjoy this movie. It'll leave you feeling as uncomfortable as The Passion of the Christ.

There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.<br /><br />I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.<br /><br />The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).<br /><br />The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.<br /><br />Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."<br /><br />Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."<br /><br />This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. <br /><br />But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.<br /><br />This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination."

If you haven't seen this yet, you really should, on DVD. I can't believe how much I enjoyed it! It is amazingly realistic and believable. True, much of it is speculated, and I would have liked to have known more about what was speculative and what were proven facts (there aren't many of them), but it handles everything quite well with a "Cruel Mother Nature" theme. It will remind you of the nature programs that you've seen on Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel, only the animals here are Dinosaurs. They act natural; they eat, kill, mate, play, and fight for survival. You will actually find yourself rooting for some of them and against others.<br /><br />For the most part, the effects are excellent. At times they will look a little too much like CGI's, but then you will see them in a different angle that makes them look more realistic. In some cases, you will actually be convinced that you've seen a dinosaur. My favorites were the Coelophysis, the raptors, the diplodocus, the iguanadons, the allosaurus and the arctic bipeds. I was most disappointed with the T-Rex, however, which looked a little too computer generated at times.<br /><br />In any case, you should definitely see this production. It is educational, well made, and very entertaining. For what it is, its an A!

Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb "credits" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.<br /><br />Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.<br /><br />I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again.

Ab Tak Chhappan is a fictitious story surrounding a police department in Mumbai, India. Sadhu Agashe is a hard working, hard-edged cop heading up a plain clothed crime squad who makes a name for himself by killing dangerous criminals in staged police encounters rather than locking them up in prison. His loyal officers obey him without question but a rift forms when one of his officers, Imtiaz, becomes frustrated by Sadhu's high ranking status and is secretly competing with him for criminal kills and status. A new recruit is also pushed into the fraternity and Imtiaz is angry when Sadhu allows him to take the lead on his first case. Further change comes in the form of a new police commissioner who disapproves of Sadhu's tactics and everyone gets caught up in internal politics.<br /><br />I was surprised to see such a well directed action thriller coming from India. The camera work is excellent, the story is well told and the tension is high when the drama unfolds. The acting, pace and political subterfuge convinces the viewer that they are a fly on the wall witnessing the blood, sweat and tears from a close up and personal view and that the events are based on reality which is no doubt why we are told that it is not at the beginning of the film although it is likely that the director, Shimit Amin, has taken liberties with factual accounts. Nevertheless, Ab Tak Chhappan is an extremely polished piece of film-making.

Let's keep it simple: My two kids were glued to this movie. It has its flaws from an adult perspective, but buy some jelly-worms and just enjoy it. <br /><br />And the Pepsi girl was excellent!<br /><br />And Kimberly Williams was pretty gosh-darned hot, although she's not in the film very much, so don't get too excited there.<br /><br />Not that's it's really a bad thing, but it is the kind of movie you watch just once. Don't buy the DVD.<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br />Did I mention Kimberly Williams? (That was for the dads.)

It was 1 a.m. in the morning and I had nothing else to do. Don't judge me... please.<br /><br />We're back in time during the Spanish settlements. A group have made their way onto an island. It doesn't take too long before they encounter a large "reptile", which gobbles up their horse. Soon they're captured by the natives and in order to gain freedom they must kill the "reptile gods." THE CG sucks; it reminds me of the CG of early console video games. The encounters were lame. The only positive thing I have to say about this was the hottie native running around in a skimpy outfit. Otherwise it's just a middling effort.

Lackawanna Blues is and excellent movie. The casting was perfect. Every actor and actress was perfectly suited for the role they played. Their chemistry together was amazing. The acting was superb. I felt as if i knew the characters. I could almost 'feel' them. They reminded me of people that I knew as a child growing up in the 50's and 60's. Oh, the memories!! My personal belief is that this movie should have been on the big screen for all to see. I have watched this movie so many times, that I can almost recite the lines as the characters are saying them. I can't even list my favorite part, because I have SO MANY favorite parts. Thank you for bringing back a part of my youth that I never see in this day and age...and that is Black people loving each other, looking out for each other, respecting each other, caring about each other, and doing all we can to help each other. Gotta go now. I have to go watch it again.

Saturday June 3, 6:30pm The Neptune<br /><br />Monday June 5, 4:30pm The Neptune<br /><br />Few celebrations of ethnic and cultural identity succeed as mightily as Carlos Saura's brilliant interpretation of Isaac Albeniz' masterpiece Iberia Suite. At the approach of its centennial, Saura drew together an unprecedented wealth of talent from the Spanish performing arts community to create this quintessential love song to their homeland. The twelve "impressions" of the suite are presented without narrative in stark surroundings, allowing the power of each performance to explode before Saura's camera. Creative use of large flats and mirrors, moved throughout the set, combined with screens, shadows, fire, rain and rear projection add glorious dramatic effects to the varied selections of song, dance and instrumental performance. Photographs of Albeniz reappear throughout the program, connecting the passion of the music to its great creator. Saura encompasses all Spaniards on his stage from the beautiful elegance of elderly flamenco dancers in traditional costume to children joyously dancing with their instructors.

As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clichéd movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.<br /><br />This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.<br /><br />If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are "Interstate 60" and "Art of Travel" which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.<br /><br />This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.<br /><br />Dean

Many of the reviews and comments I have read about this movie say that this is a rather stale film and performance by Clara Bow. Although the story-line was rather typical of Clara's later silents, I still find it somewhat heart-stirring and incredibly fun. Clara plays a happy-go-lucky Hawaiian girl who will stop at nothing to win the man she loves...never mind that this man is married! Clara's lack of modesty was shocking in the day, but I believe it lends to the sweetness and general fun of the movie. Though definitely not a brilliant story-line (quite typical, actually), this movie is a nice showcase of Clara's ability to make the audience laugh.

As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my "to rent" list when I saw it was available.<br /><br />The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.<br /><br />Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want "fair" in terms of exploitation, you got it.<br /><br />I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.

I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.

I found out about this film because Jewish Ben Chaplin from Game On was in it. Game On is a funny British sitcom and apparently he left because he wanted to break into Hollywood and star in this film. He failed thank God.<br /><br />The film is a very simple romantic comedy with Janeane Garofalo playing an ugly woman who uses her neighbour Uma Thurman to date Ben Chaplin because she thinks Ben Chaplin won't like her because she's ugly. The film is just bad for so many reasons. The plot is unbelievably predictable from the overtly slapstick bits to the serious mushy bits: ugh just that montage where all three of them are having fun and then the photograph bit. Those two scenes made me cringe! Janeane's character is sickeningly arrogant (and guessing from her role as stand-up "comedienne" and arch-feminist is in real life too). She claims that the film is "anti-feminist" when in fact it's just realistic. Men more often than not go for looks over personality. It's interesting to note her hypocrisy too. She'd been a feminist and "comedienne" for years before taking this role and then suddenly decides afterwards that the film was bad. I imagine she hated the idea and script of this film before it was released but she made sure she kept that quiet so she could get paid for this travesty of a film. I mean come on! She acted in it for Heaven's sake! What this film was really was anti-men if anything. It portrays men as stupid animals whose brains are in their groins with the men doing stupid things to attract the attention of Uma Thurman's character Noelle.<br /><br />There are other bad things about this film too like Ben Chaplin's character being the British man every American girl finds cute and Jamie Foxx being the token black best friend of Chaplin and of course Foxx had to try and mimic his accent a few times for good measure. Is that the best the script writers could come up with? Blimey they've never done that before except with every Hugh Grant and Dudley Moore film ever made. There's also a truly awful phone sex scene which is just grotesque and proves how cheap the film is. The other comments on here all say how Janeane Garofalo isn't ugly but is actually beautiful. Erm was I watching the same film as they were? She's certainly no looker and the only good thing about this film was that she was rightly cast as the ugly one. Although having said that, I fail to see the appeal of Uma Thurman as well: she's lanky and gaunt looking.<br /><br />I guarantee three things about this film if you've never watched it:<br /><br />You will know what the ending will be;<br /><br />You will find the phone sex scene painfully embarrassing and;<br /><br />You will be bored after ten minutes.<br /><br />Watch at your own peril.

This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person.

Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.

The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.<br /><br />If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.

Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. "Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life." How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred. <br /><br />The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong. <br /><br />The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film "Where the Truth Lies" 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship. <br /><br />You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in "Separate Lies," yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss. <br /><br />Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002. <br /><br />Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney. <br /><br />Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in "My Best Friend's Wedding" 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in "An Ideal Husband" 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV. <br /><br />Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in "East is East" 1999.

I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out

Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to "net" a very good evening of entertainment.

I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.<br /><br />While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.<br /><br />The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.<br /><br />IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.<br /><br />I wish I had on this one.

Look, this is a low budget horror film that suffers from all of the problems that go with low budget movies. But you must see this just to watch Lisa Erickson as Julie. She is SMOKIN' hot and a great little actress to boot! These types of horror movies often unearth a rare gem and The Power gave us Lisa Erickson! Nothing I enjoy more than sitting down in my studio apartment with a Coke and putting in this film. My friends Bob, Bill and Dennis agree.. Lisa is not only brilliant, she is a hottie. The movie itself often plods along and the rest of the actors are not very helpful in that regard. But as soon as Lisa hits the screen, things really start hopping. The others are clearly not in her league. This is not the Exorcist but as I said, if you want to see a fun little movie with a hot little actress, this is the one to see!

It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner <br /><br />The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents <br /><br />After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures <br /><br />Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ?

I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.<br /><br />I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.<br /><br />Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...<br /><br />Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.<br /><br />In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.<br /><br />Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else...

I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his "vision" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.<br /><br />I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.<br /><br />I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout.

1983's "Frightmare" is an odd little film. The director seems to be trying to combine the atmosphere of classic '30s/'40s style horror movies with the shock factor of the then-exploding '80s slasher genre. It isn't totally successful (mostly due to very obvious budgetary restraints, and the less-than-professional caliber of its cast of young actors) but it still has its moments, mostly due to the classy performance (classier than the movie deserves) by the late German actor Ferdinand Mayne, who plays an aging old time horror movie star (ala Vincent Price) named "Conrad Ratzoff." At the beginning of the movie we meet the has-been horror star as he's shooting a commercial for dentures and we quickly learn that ol' Conrad is a bit of a hoity-toity, prima donna jerk-off. Just when you think he couldn't be any more un-likable, the commercial director berates Conrad for blowing a take for the umpteenth time and the old goat pushes him off a balcony to his death. Nice, huh? Conrad then visits some fans at a college campus horror movie club, unfortunately he suffers a heart attack in the middle of his speech to them and eventually ends up back at his mansion waiting to die. Still feisty even at Death's door, he manages to do away with a despised business associate by smothering him with a pillow before he finally kicks the bucket himself. Conrad is then laid to rest in true Hollywood style in a high tech neon tomb with video screens above the casket, which will play personal video messages from Conrad himself for visitors who enter to pay their respects.<br /><br />It is at this point that the kids from the college Horror Movie Society decide to pay Conrad's grave an after hours visit, breaking into the tomb and taking his body back home with them for an all night party. (Not exactly my idea of fun, but hey, these are characters in an '80s horror film. Logic has no place here.) The college kids spend the evening having dinner with Conrad's body seated in a place of honor, posing for photos with it and even dancing around the room with it, before parking Conrad and his coffin in the attic, planning to return him to his crypt in the morning. In the meantime, Mrs. Ratzoff, distraught over the theft of her husband's body, has called in a psychic friend to try and "reach" Conrad through a seance. You can pretty much figure out the rest from here. Since Conrad wasn't a very nice guy in life, it's not much of a stretch to assume that he won't be any friendlier in death. Psychic Lady makes contact with Conrad and he re-awakens in predictably ticked off fashion, then spends the rest of the movie strolling around the corridors of the students' ridiculously huge house, picking off the young grave robbers one by one. This is where the movie falls apart. Endless scenes of teens wandering around empty hallways saying "Hello? Is anyone there?" are intercut with occasional bursts of violence (we do get a pretty gnarly decapitation scene, which is the highlight of the movie) before the last two survivors finally figure out (WAY later than any semi-intelligent people would have figured out the same thing...but again, we're in an '80s horror film!) that the only way to stop the mayhem is to get Conrad's body back to its crypt where it belongs. The sluggish pacing is padded out with a lot of weird lighting and dry ice fog effects backed by a soundtrack made up almost entirely of sound effects rather than music(thunder, moans and groans, howls, etc.) that becomes severely annoying after a while.<br /><br />I can't really recommend "Frightmare" to anyone who didn't grow up watching cheap movies like this on late night cable back in the '80s. "Modern Horror" fans will doubtlessly find "Frightmare" incredibly slow moving and goofy. If you came of age in that magical decade, however, you may get a blast of nostalgia from "Frightmare." Fans of Jeffrey ("Re-Animator") Combs may also want to check it out, as the future Dr. West appears in an early role here as one of the unlucky film students.<br /><br />I will advise the reader to avoid the version of this film on the EastWestDVD label (paired with Roy Ward's "Vault of Horror" and sold at dollar stores) because the print quality is terrible. I'm told the film has gotten a deluxe release via the fine folks at Troma, which seems appropriate. If you're a Troma kind of person then "Frightmare" will be right up your alley.

People watch movies for a variety of different reasons. This movie didn't have the big budget, there's no special effects, no car chases and there's no explosions. Actually reality doesn't have much of these either. At least not in my life. <br /><br />This is a very real movie about very real people, none of them perfect in any way but together they are put into a situation where they learn to explore and accept what is different and that in turn makes order out of chaos. I am not prepared to limit the possibility of parapsychology, since I'm neither an expert nor use the full extent of my own brain.<br /><br />So watch this movie for the characters. It is brim-full of a whole cast of wonderful quirky folk. <br /><br />Within the first three minutes Kiefer Sutherland enacts Detective Michael Hayden's life superbly and he keeps developing the character throughout the movie. Excellent acting, very believable. <br /><br />Henry Czerny could not have been cast better and the rapport between his 'Harvey' and Kiefer's 'Mickey' enhances the oppositeness of their characters.<br /><br />I thoroughly enjoyed the cranky landlady, 'Mrs Ramsay', I'm sure she and my mother-in-law are good friends!!!<br /><br />There's a host more of these wonderful characters but space is limited here so watch the movie and enjoy them.

I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.

As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!

A group of friends break down in the middle of nowhere (one had a flat tire, the other's Jeep mysteriously won't start). One of them takes the tire to a run down service station and that is the last anyone sees of him. When the remaining foursome go in search of their friend, they come across nice Mr. Slaussen who offers to help fix the jeep and offers cool drinks and refuge from the heat in his equally run down, hermit-like house, which happens to be occupied by very realistic looking mannequins. He goes with the one guy in the bunch out to work on the car and leaves the 3 girls in the house. Before he goes he warns them not to leave and go up to the house behind his shack; he warns them about "Davy", his brother who is lurking about and isn't all there. Of course, one of them decides to venture out in search of a working phone and is never seen again. Is it Slaussen? Is it Davy? The mannequins?? Tourist Trap has the usual horror requirements (jiggly big boobed girl, goody two shoes girl, curiosity getting the better of people and never working out!), but it stands apart from the rest of the 70's genre in it's twist of an ending. I started to feel sorry for Slaussen (Chuck Conners is a terrific, creepy, over-the-top performance)at a point in the film, and you almost see the character of Molly doing the same. This is a gem if you can find it; I had taped it off of cable when I was younger, and walking through a used video store I spotted a VHS copy that was totally overpriced, but well worth it. Fans of Tanya Roberts won't be disappointed either. Best part of the film for me was the scene with the soup (and crackers!!)<br /><br />I gave it a 7 because some of the movie was and still is hard to explain.

Most Lorne Michaels films seem to fail because they're essentially just extended versions of skits that barely managed to make people laugh in five-minute segments. "Tommy Boy" is a character right from "SNL" - a big fat lovable (in their opinion) goof who doesn't know anything.<br /><br />David Spade gets the Thankless Overwhelmed Everyman role. He's paired with the Annoying Overweight Slob and they endure Miserable Misfortunes as they travel cross country to Save Daddy's Business.<br /><br />The plot, for starters, is really faulty. The whole premise - daddy dies and rich stupid son has to save the family biz - can be traced back to just about any movie you want. Like any SNL style film it is reduced to a simple motivation - empty, shallow; just a reason to see a fat guy and a thin guy be "funny" together.<br /><br />The movie's biggest "influence" is the 1987 comedy classic "Planes, Trains & Automobiles." That movie is great because the plot isn't stale and recycled. It's basic, yeah - a guy traveling home for Thanksgiving gets stuck with a slob. But it's real, dammit. It makes all the difference. The characters are real, the situations are far more real. "Tommy Boy" is pure slapstick and its ridiculous situations undermine the characters - we feel nothing for them, and we don't care about what's happening on-screen. "PTA" walked the careful line between outrageous and utterly believable and relate-able - "Tommy Boy" is simply absurd, with jokes like a simple deer-in-the-headlights turning into a crash turning into a struggle with a dead deer that really isn't dead, then awakens and wrecks their car.<br /><br />The whole wrecked car thing is stolen completely from "PTA" and it's eerie how much stuff in this film actually does resemble the Steve Martin/John Candy movie.<br /><br />Farley is simply way too obnoxious to find likable - I've never enjoyed watching him in any movies and this hasn't changed my mind. Spade's given very little to do, serving as the movie's most thankless character.<br /><br />Dan Aykroyd is wasted as the Evil Baddie who plans to destroy Daddy's Business. The ending is a joke, and not in a "har-har funny" way. More like a "oh god are they serious?!" way.<br /><br />Some people dig it, that's cool. But I just can't get into it, nor do I appreciate all the stuff it "borrows" from - not just counting "PT&A" - without any credit whatsoever.

Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french critics (specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high). Shot in saturated black and white, this deliberately cerebral film (made for TV, and mercifully, only an hour long) is told in the form of a conversation between an art connoisseur and an off-screen narrator as they ponder through a series of paintings (which are shown in the style of tableaux vivants) and try to find if they hold some clues about a hidden political crime. (The awful Kate Beckinsale film Uncovered has a similar argument). Borgesian is a word I read a lot in reviews about this movie, but I would say almost any Borges story is more interesting than this film.

Many teenage sex comedy movies come and go without much fanfare, however, every so often a movie might come along thats honest, funny, entertaining AND memorable. The Last American Virgin is a special movie that has found its place and has stood the test of time blending all four ingredients. This film follows three friends (Gary, Rick and David "The Big Apple") misadventures into the world of first-time sex and true love. Along the way they learn hard lessons and the value of true friendship. We follow hopeless romantic Gary (The main character) on his quest to win over the girl of his dreams which leads him down an uncertain road with a surprise twist at it's ending. If you haven't been lucky enough to see this movie yet, by all means take a look...sprinkled with many memorable 80s songs throughout the movie to keep things moving at an even pace. L.A.V. truly is an original film, a rarity among films of it's genre.

I loved this show from it's first airing, and I always looked forward to watching each episode every week. The plot, characters, writing, special affects were outstanding! Then the sci-fi channel screwed up yet again and canceled a very entertaining, well written show. I say bring it back, I know all of the actors would come back. I would suggest buying the DVD's, I am. I hope the sci-fi channels executives get word of these comments, and realize that they need to be more involved with their viewers. I only watch one show on that channel now, (Ghost Hunters), but I am fairly sure that shortly they will cancel that too.

I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven.

Did the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?

I was never so bored in my life. Hours of pretentious, self-obsessed heroin-addicted basket cases lounging around whining about their problems. It's like watching lizards molt. Even the sex scenes will induce a serious case of narcolepsy. If you have insomnia, rent this.

This movie is awesome on so many levels... and none of them are the level that it was intended to be awesome on.<br /><br />Just remember this: When you're watching Shaun of the Dead and other recent zombie movies... be they good or bad... THIS is the formula that they are using. THIS is what makes zombie movies so great.<br /><br />And what makes it BETTER than great is the story behind the movie. A simple web search will provide you with everything you need to know.<br /><br />All in all, it doesn't linger. There's never a point where you think to yourself "c'mon, get on with it"... it moves quick and corners nicely. This is the sporty, little Italian number of zombie flicks.<br /><br />So awful, it's wonderful! If your tongue spends an ample amount of time in your cheek... rent it, buy it, love it.<br /><br />As a great trivia note: If you're watching it on DVD, you'll notice that there is sound effects during the menu screen, underneath the musical score... Well... that's because that music was lifted straight from the trailer... which is probably the only working print of that music that still exists which is long enough to loop.

The Ladies Man is laugh out loud funny, with a great diverse cast as well as having some very stupid but excellent scenes (including the funniest love song ever written).<br /><br />Ferrell is his usual quality self in a brilliant side role.<br /><br />Tim Meadows plays an idiot surprisingly well and has written himself some of the funniest lines you'll find in any comedy out there.<br /><br />It is definitely worth a purchase as watching it every 6 months or so will lead to you still laughing as hard as you did first time round.<br /><br />I am distraught to think at the time of writing this that it has a meagre 4.7 /10 and i urge you to vote! <br /><br />And remember kids- "Theres more motion in the ocean"

when i first heard about this movie i thought it would be like The Duchess(2008), but when i saw the first 30 minutes of The Young Victoria i knew this wouldn't just be a solid movie. Almost everything in this movie is great, the costumes are really amazing and the settings are also beautifully shot.<br /><br />The only thing that really let me down are the performances. Emily Blunt(The Devil Wears Prada) is the star of the film, bringing Victoria to life and with this movie she shows that she is a great actress and maybe picking a first Oscar nomination for her performance. Rupert Friend is almost bland as Prince Albert but he has great chemistry with Emily Blunt. Paul Bettany is also solid as Lord Melbourne although i expected more of him. Jim Broadbent and Miranda Richardson both have supporting roles but are forgettable.<br /><br />To me the film feels like unfinished. Maybe that the screenwriters changed too many things in the script, i don't know but that's how i feel about the movie.<br /><br />But overall it's a great movie about the early years of Victoria with a Great performance from Emily Blunt.

A flying saucer manned (literally) by a crew of about 20 male space explorers travels hundreds of millions of light years from earth to check in on a colony founded some 25 years ago on a 'forbidden planet.' What they find is a robot more advanced than anything imaginable on earth, a beautiful and totally socially inept young woman, and her father, a hermit philologist haunted by more than the demons of the ancient civilization he has immersed himself in.<br /><br />On the surface, this story is a pulp scifi murder mystery. Some compare it to Shakespeare's Tempest, but this is a stretch, and, in some ways, an insult to the scifi genre. Stripped of what makes it a scifi film, sure, its The Tempest, but how many hundreds of films can you say something similar about? <br /><br />Underneath, this is a cautionary tale about progress and technology and the social evolution necessary for its appropriate and safe use. Yet the film still proceeds with all the hopefulness for our future that we have come to expect from shows like Star Trek.<br /><br />Anne Francis is not the only reason why this film is best described as beautiful. The special effects, and even the aesthetics of the backdrops are powerful enough to make the uninspired directing and uneven acting almost unnoticeable. If it were not for the goofy retro-art-deco-ness of 1950s sci-fi props, you might think you were watching a 1960s piece.<br /><br />This is a classic of that very special sub-genre of sci fi I like to call 1950s sci-fi, and, though not, in my opinion, the best it is certainly a must see for anybody interested in sci-fi film and special effects. The clever plot, now rendered trite by its reuse in six or seven episodes of Star Trek, Lost in Space, and even Farscape, is worth paying attention to, and will sustain the interest of most scifi fans. Trekkers will be particularly interested in the various aspects of the film which seem to have inspired themes of Star Trek's original series aired about 12 years later, though they may find themselves disappointed by the (relatively mild) 1950s sexism and the lack of any kind of racial integration. While I do not mean to nitpick, the lack of social progress manifest in this film was the one major problem I had with it. <br /><br />Some will probably see this film simply to catch a glimpse of young, good-looking Leslie Nielsen in one of his first starring roles. Unfortunately, Nielsen's performance is only average, and at times down-right poor (especially at the climax of the film). Walter Pigeon, though quite excellent in other films, over-acts his role as well. Ms Francis, Earl Holliman, and the amazing Robby the Robot are the stand-out actors in this crowd, though on the whole the character actors filling in the ensemble do a good job. The problems with the featured performances, I think, are as much the fault of the director and the editor, as anything. Though they certainly got most of the film quite right.

I just saw this film on DVD last night, and decided to check out the reviews this morning. It seems that "I, Robot" has polarized the critical viewing community here on IMDb (and given rise to a lot of insults and name-calling, too).<br /><br />I find this somewhat surprising, as this film is not great (or even good), but neither is it terrible (or even really bad). What this film really is, is...depressing. Depressing that the US film-goer population is so ready to lap up insipid, clichéd re-heats, and acclaim them as spectacular new works. This film as "retread" written all over it, from the plot line (an uneasy mix of Asimov and modern-day uber-action) to Smith's character (a smart-mouthed cynic with a backbone of titanium), to the special effects (that borrowed from Matrix and a few others).<br /><br />"I, Robot" is, sadly, quite possibly the perfect action movie for today's audience: superficial plot, insipidly snappy dialog, and lots and lots of adrenaline. Smith is mediocre, but we already knew that (he seems to be Hollywood's latest unsuccessful attempt to create a black Bruce Willis). The story has lots of holes in it, of all sizes, but I don't think most people drawn to this film are critically-minded enough to notice. Perhaps a blockbuster by today's standards, but very B-movie compared to true winners.

This was a fine example of how an interesting film can be made without using big stars and big effects. Just tell a true story about the struggles of two African American women over a turbulent century.<br /><br />This movie challenges us all to look at our own personal prejudices and see that people are people, not white, black, etc.<br /><br />Good movie with a good message.

I have bought the complete season of Surface. watched it in 3 days! I was so captured by the the plot, theories and basically everything about this show. The actor who plays Miles is great. Mile's sister, mother and father acted like real life family would. You could connect on so many levels it's fascinating.<br /><br />I find animals are so wonderful, you can almost connect with them as a parent is to a child. It would be something if a creature of this sort of nature truly exists.<br /><br />Am sadden, that Surface is not having a second season or at least four more shows. I have so many questions that need to be answered and hopefully maybe they will create more or maybe in a book.<br /><br />Love the show very much. For those who haven't watched Surface, if you like sci-fi you need to watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.<br /><br />Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.<br /><br />If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.<br /><br />The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.

Liam Neeson portrays the Scottish legend Robert Roy Macgregor from the early 18th century. He is a true actor. He captivates the audience with his charisma as he does in all his roles. Jessica Lange is excellent as his wife Mary. Mary is such a beautiful woman. It's her love that makes Rob Roy the legend, but it's his passion that makes her love undying. They need each other. Tim Roth as the evil Cunningham is perfect; in one way or another, upon watching the movie, you will find Cunningham disgusting. The Scotland scenery is beautiful. The environment and conditions of the times are depicted quite well. If you like history, romance, passion and love, you'll enjoy Rob Roy. There is violence and blood, but it's unavoidable in telling this story as it should be told; no gratuitous violence. And you do have to listen carefully if you're not used to a Scottish accent. One important point that makes this movie so good is that no one actor or actress is glamorized; they get dirty and actually look unattractive in various scenes. It's their skill as actors that attracts you, they don't rely on marquee names, popularity or sex symbol appeal. This is something special.

When i watch this movie i too get excited when seen bed scenes of miss world. She has beautiful and charming body. When cute lady do bed scenes and show her fully nude body... i think male have hard to resist....i think its time for cute girls like hrishita bhatt also do nude scenes. At least no one wants to c nude body of ugly women like Seema biswas to c in bandit queen.I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed

They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.

Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director. <br /><br />The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ("left wingers") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight). <br /><br />However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory. <br /><br />What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.<br /><br />I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10

Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.<br /><br />The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!<br /><br />The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?<br /><br />The acting is superb.<br /><br />The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.<br /><br />I have had more fun doing the laundry.

worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..

Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).<br /><br />I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.<br /><br />Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.

I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100 times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now it is a classic!!!!

I saw it at the Legacy Theater in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City this morning. I'm going to assume that one's level of enjoyment during this movie will largely be based on one's level of acceptance of Joseph's story.<br /><br />However, that aside it was very well made, well acted, and had a nice score. If you get to Salt Lake City, it is a must to see it in the Legacy Theater. I have never been in a nicer theater as far as picture quality, sound quality and ambiance in my entire life...I wonder if the Church would let me watch Batman Begins there! Being that I'm LDS and regard Joseph as a prophet, I was touched in several places and was brought to tears quite a few times...which I presume is expected since they handed out tissues BEFORE the movie started! Anyway, I'm told that this film is available in several LDS Visitor Centers around the globe, if you have 70 minutes check it out because whether you believe Joseph Smith or not, he tells a fascinating story.

Adenoid Hynkel, a lowly soldier in World War One, rises in subsequent years to become the ruthless dictator of Toumania. He creates an aggressive, antisemitic war machine and cultivates a little toothbrush moustache. Sound like anyone you know?<br /><br />From the safety of Hollywood, Chaplin uses this soapbox to exhort Europe to take up arms and defy Hitler and Mussolini. Given that the United States in 1940 had more than a year of neutrality ahead of it, and no strong desire to embroil itself in Europe's civil strife (remember, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round) it is surprising that Chaplin was allowed to distribute this immoderate polemic.<br /><br />The story involves on the one hand the the vulgar and repellant Hynkel and the reign of terror over which he ineptly presides, and life in the jewish ghetto where every single person is friendly, humane, brave, etc., etc, Chaplin is Hynkel, and he also plays The Jewish Barber, the little hero of the ghetto (The Tramp in all but name). Needless to say, Chaplin writes, directs, stars, composes the music and does the catering.<br /><br />In 1940 the full truth was not yet known about the Third Reich, and Chaplin can be forgiven for having something less than perfect historical foresight, but even by the standards of the day he gets Hitler badly wrong. A comedian and a sentimentalist, Chaplin tries to ridicule Hitler by making Hynkel silly and hapless. All this does is to humanise him. When Hynkel the not-very-warlike soldier fools around with the big gun and the upside-down aeroplane, he becomes endearing rather than despicable. As dictator, he inspects his subordinates' technical innovations which don't work (the parachute hat, the bulletproof uniform etc.) and these passages are meant to make us think that the real-life Nazis are incompetent and can be swept aside. In fact, Hynkel's regime is made cute and likeable by its bumbling bodgery.<br /><br />In truth, Chaplin's day had already passed when he made this ill-considered polemic. At heart, he was still a dinosaur of the silent screen (check out the humour, with gags like staggering up and down the street semi-conscious, or the pantomime of the coins in the puddings). The hero Schultz is meant to represent a yardstick of European decency against which Hynkel can be judged, but Schultz looks more like a character from operetta than a Nazi. Is it in any way believable that a Schultz figure (if such had existed) would say to the Fuehrer's face, "your cause is doomed to failure because it's built upon the stupid, ruthless persecution of innocent people"? And how does Schultz come to be in the cellars of the jewish ghetto? If he is the object of an exhaustive manhunt, why does he persist in wearing his Ruritanian uniform? Chaplin did not yet know the full horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but the Nazi concentration camp which he offers us is hopelessly out of kilter with the grim spirit of the age. As usual, Chaplin thinks in terms of 'silent' comedy set-pieces, loosely pegged onto the narrative clothes line. There is the knockabout scrapping with the stormtroopers, shaving a man to the accompaniment of Brahms, and the globe ballet (watch for the segment filmed in reverse).<br /><br />Paulette Goddard is the unremittingly perfect Hannah. Just as the people of the ghetto are impossibly nice, and the jewish haven in Osterlich is ridiculously idyllic, so Hannah is quite literally too good to be true. Brave, defiant, resourceful, hardworking and (of course) beautiful, she is the canary of judaism in the ghetto cage. "Gee, ain't I cute?" she asks, after the Barber gives her a make-over. Too cute by far, is the answer. She doesn't come close to ringing true, because Chaplin has made her a caricature. The 'wouldn't it be wonderful?' speech which Chaplin puts into her mouth is typical of the author - too wordy, too emotionally cloying.<br /><br />Jack Oakie is great as Napaloni, the fascist dictator of Bacteria. He brings a whiff of much-needed comic brio to the proceedings, but the film's underlying weakness remains. If Napaloni is silly and ineffective, how can we fear him? And anyway, the stuttering stop-start of the back-projected train is a fine Chaplinesque example of a gag that is persisted with far beyond its comic worth.<br /><br />And where did the Jewish Barber acquire that immaculate Hynkel uniform?

"Milo" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people("Friday the 13th",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.

This is one of the best horror / suspense films that Hollywood has made in years or maybe even decades.Even though in my opinion this movie was predictable in parts, it has everything that a good film in this genre should had CHILL, THRILLS, AND yes a lot of GORE!! HOUSE OF WAX SURE DELIVERS!!! In parts it was sort of far-fetched,the acting was not that great,but my overhaul rating for HOUSE OF WAX is an eight out of ten......if you enjoy being at the edge of your seats, this is just the right movie for you,I have to admit,it was sort of neat seeing the whole town made out of wax...... I myself enjoy these museums, but after seeing this film I will now look at them in a whole new different way!

Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's "The Town the Dreaded Sundown".

Created in 1928, and originally named Mortimer before Walt Disney changed his name (because his wife convinced him), Mickey Mouse has become the staple of the Disney brand. I always thought this cartoon was the first ever cartoon to feature Mickey, it is in fact his third, but it doesn't matter, for a six minute animated short it is enjoyable. The story sees Mickey piloting a steamboat until Captain Pete takes him off the bridge, stopping to pick up cargo, and Minnie Mouse missing the boat. Being lifted on she drops her music sheets and a goat eats them, Mickey helps her crank it's tail and play the tune, and getting some other animals to be percussion, until Pete comes along again to stop him, making Mickey peel potatoes. Mickey Mouse was number 53 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 31 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Very good!

Highly regarded at release, but since rather neglected. Immense importance in the history of performing arts. A classic use of embedded plots. One of my favourite films. Why hasn't the soundtrack been re-released?

The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.<br /><br />This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old "Santa kills" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.

The IMDb plot summary in no way describes the essence of this film. It should have read 'Be prepared to be catapulted back to the prison of the 3rd pew from the back of your family's church at 8 years old, listening to the preacher drone on about God's will while all you can think of is getting back home to your Lego'.<br /><br />It starts off well intentioned, building intrigue by planting some real and surreal clues such as Renny's 'how did the cut on my thumb heal so fast?' moment. It then slowly morphs into a Christian jamboree, sacrificing its plot completely in a wash of evangelistic-induced babble. I believe I counted the use of the word 'pray' about 53 times in a five minute span near the end. After the 31st, I tried to twist the context of the word to its synonym, 'prey'. Sadly, this little mind game of mine made the film at least bearable for the last 20 minutes. Plus it made me laugh whenever a character would say 'prayer' ('preyer' to me) as it became totally zany. Indeed, even my Catholic wife sunk in her chair from boredom, almost to the point of ending up on the floor.<br /><br />For all the salivating Christians who ranked this film 8-10 stars, I suggest sticking with your theology-reinforcing safety standards like Circle Square, The Ten Commandments, anything from Narnia, Jesus Christ Superstar and the like. Stay away from more cerebrally challenging subject matter in films such as Jesus Camp, The God Who Wasn't There, What Would Jesus Buy, or the soon-to-be released Religulous.<br /><br />Maybe Robert Whitlow's book is better.

TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is possibly the best movie of all of Mary Pickford's films. At two hours, it was quite long for a 1922 silent film yet continues to hold your interest some 80 years after it was filmed. Mary gives one of her finest performances at times the role seems like a "greatest hits" performance with bits of Mary the innocent, Mary the little devil, Mary the little mother, Mary the spitfire, Mary the romantic heroine, etc. characteristics that often were used throughout a single film in the past. The movie is surprisingly frank about one supporting character's illegitimate child for 1922 and at one point our Little Mary is thought the unwed mother in question! If the Academy Awards had been around in 1922, no doubt the Best Actress Oscar for the year would have been Mary's.

I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.

Although there are some snippets in this 4-part documentary hinting at the necessity for recreational drug law reform, these are not very well-developed, in contrast to the many snippets from those who feel that the drugs that happen to currently be illegal are a scourge for which the only imaginable solution is incarceration of even those who are guilty even of mere possession of such drugs.<br /><br />Although this program, as a whole, leaves the viewer with the impression that the drug war is largely a futile exercise and a waste of money, and for that it deserves some praise, almost nothing in this documentary addresses the very real problems that total war against those who merely possess illegal drugs obviously causes and contributes to--very real problems that most drug warriors themselves would tell you, if asked, they think the drug war is designed to solve. For example, while many minutes are spent on the surge in violence associated with the rising popularity of crack cocaine in the 80's, at no point does this program even hint that the very laws designed to suppress crack cocaine make it impossible for drug sellers to enforce their contracts and business arrangements in courts of law, forcing them to resort to violence to stay in business. But instead of seeing the laws as an important cause of the violence, the drugs themselves seem to take the brunt of the blame. Inexplicably, alcohol prohibition, the violence that ensued, and the subsequent reversal of prohibition, is totally ignored by this program.<br /><br />This program will help to perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of drug users, and it is these that are the primary force in driving the very expensive and very problematic drug war. The possibility of incorporating drugs other than alcohol into a happy and successful life is not really touched on. Use of any drug in excess is probably going to cause personal problems, but not all users do their drugs in excess, just like not all alcohol users are alcoholics.<br /><br />If you want a point of view from someone who believes that adults have a moral right not to be incarcerated and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system just for using drugs that the government, for mostly very arbitrary political reasons rather than reasons based on sound social policy and legitimate science, has decided to totally prohibit, whose users it has decided to not-so-metaphorically wage war against, just forget about it. None of that is in here.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is hardly in the category of anti-drug propaganda. It is mostly an interesting neutrally-presented history of drugs in 20th century United States like marijuana, LSD, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, and Oxycontin. But there is a significant element of various people's points of view with regard to drug laws, and most (but not all) of that is not very thoughtful or well-informed and slanted in favor of the drug warrior mentality, especially with respect to drugs other than marijuana. <br /><br />The criminal justice system, along with its often harsh life-ruining penalties, is obviously not the only answer or the most appropriate answer to every single social problem, but unfortunately there's an epidemic in this nation of an as-yet unnamed disease whose primary symptoms are a lack of imagination with respect to social policy when it comes to certain drugs, a lack of compassion for fellow humans, a prejudice against people who use the drugs that are not governmentally-approved, perhaps a vested interest in the growth of the prison/policing industry, and a horrid apathy with regard to human dignity. It's morally wrong to kidnap or incarcerate people unless you have a very damn good reason for doing so, and the mere possession of an arbitrarily selected group of drugs is clearly not such a reason. This is really the primary issue when it comes to drugs, yet this program ignores it.<br /><br />So, in sum, the parts of this program that neutrally present history without feeding stereotypes of drug users that are at the heart of the drug war mentality are pretty good and interesting and entertaining. But when it comes to presenting a rational non-radical point of view with regard to drug policy, and giving the viewer examples not only of people with drug problems but also the many people who successfully incorporate drugs into happy and successful lives, it's pretty disappointing.

Considering this film was released 8 years before I was born, I don't feel too bad for over-looking it for such a long time. Back in January of 98 though, I attended the Second Annual Quentin Tarantino film fest held in Austin,Texas. The particular theme of films this night was "Neglected 70's Crime Films" and boy was her right. "The Gravy Train(or The Dion Brothers, as it appeared this print)" was an absolute gem. Wonderful performances, quirky characters, smart plot, hilarious comedy, and just an all around great time. Rarely do you see a Crime film that is so entertaining and fresh. Margot Kidder in one of her earliest film appearances is extremely sexy as well. I hope some cable network gets a hold of this film and allows many more to see it. In the meantime, go to an indie video store and hope they have it.

The movie was actually a romantic drama based on three sisters who had desires to become a famous girl group. In their endeavors, the oldest sister meets a drug dealer and street hustler called Satin, whom Sister goes after because she believes he is the "big time" who will give her everything she ever thought she wanted out of life. Though he could be accused of killing her, he really kills only her spirit and will to live, after which she becomes a drug addict and ultimately dies from an overdose. The story isn't about the street life or the Italian mobster who tries to buy Stix off, then threatens him, it's about how love can overcome even the worst tragedies in life as portrayed in song and style and the character that was the life in the times for young women trying to be "discovered" back then.

First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm. <br /><br />It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea. <br /><br />My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied.

Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.

The year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, "War of the Worlds". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900 … using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.<br /><br />IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as "spoilers". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.<br /><br />This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented – in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on – as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s – and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic "feel". Some of effects are really awkward – such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.<br /><br />This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative – as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians – a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles – is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England – plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.<br /><br />The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms "the rout of Mankind". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up "a prolonged and cheerful hooting". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate – who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).<br /><br />This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due – in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman – also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother ("Henderson") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.<br /><br />This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds – and not some wholly distorted version of it – see this film!

Of the elements that make this the best at this point, I have to say #1 is Christine McIntire. Shemp's scene when poisoned and her reaction are truly magnificent. I imagine that, as one poster suggested, Christine was trying to hold back laughter during that scene, but it actually made her seem even more deliciously evil, to be smiling at Shemp's possibly dying.<br /><br />Another character who helps this stand out is the Goon. His look was a great cross between horrific and comedic goof-ball. Hardly a character I would choose to meet in a dark alley or, for that matter anywhere. I would have preferred a bit of true whodunit mystery in this, but hey, when a short is this good, who's going to complain. Not I.

Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.<br /><br />I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.<br /><br />GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.<br /><br />BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.

Everyone, my name may sound weird, but there was nothing else! <br /><br />Any way, I haven't seen anything like this before so it was crazy! Of course that's a good thing. It is a humorously interesting movie and my absolute all time favourite thing is how they intertwine other things into one! Like chicken little,, the fish pretending to be King Kong and Runt the pig saying, "Twas beauty who killed the beast", War of the worlds scene and more. Walt Disney company has NOT lost his touch maybe not for this one. Also, how they made it like they were watching a movie and it was like a home cinema. <br /><br />However some parts don't fit. Like in the original lion king, weren't Timon and Pumbaa with Simba when he beat Scar? In this movie, they are not! they were fighting the hyenas backstage. Ther's more, the reason being why Pumbaa isn't so confident is because he was pushed away by the other animals and also, it's just Timon, Timon, Timon. Anybody realise that only Timonn's story was told, whereas pumbaa only had flashbacks?<br /><br />But apart from that , IT"S GREAT!

Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the "real" story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story.

By now, the game's stale, right?<br /><br />The jokes have been done. Its all over. The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after all.<br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />The game is still intact, the jokes are here, folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that matter.<br /><br />The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always select "You don't need to see my identification." Its worth the price of the game by itself.

I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog – and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.<br /><br />The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that cliché? Marry in haste, repent at leisure... <br /><br />In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.<br /><br />How many more clichéd situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.<br /><br />This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn – during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative – all against the backdrop of the "average" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard? <br /><br />And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938 – soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.<br /><br />However, I'm glad I saw it – as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.<br /><br />As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.