Datasets:

Lowerated

/

imdb-reviews-rated

like 0

Follow

FACT RATED MEDIA PVT LTD 2

If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!

The movie was gripping from start to finish and its b/w photography of the American heartland is stunning. We feel we are right there with them as they cross the big sky country and then into Mexico and back to America again. Near the end of the movie, the reflection of the rain on Robert Blake looks like small rivers of sweat and tears rolling down his face. In the end, we follow them up the stairway to their final moment. <br /><br />The two criminals, performed by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as Perry Smith and Dick Hickock could be seen on any street in any town. Hickock is a smiling boy next door and Smith, the guy with stars in his eyes from the wrong side of town. This point is made in the movie and it always surprises us that criminals are no different in appearance than anyone else. Evil, even the most vile, is part of the human condition. These two delusional men kill an entire family, looking for a safe that isn't there. Once on the run, they start writing bad cheques, carving out a trail for the authorities.<br /><br />There are many fine supporting actors. I like John Forsyth as the detective on the case, Alvin Dewey. Also, Will Geer shines in a brief but excellent scene as the prosecuting attorney.<br /><br />I have often wanted to see this movie all the way through, having only caught it in short snatches; I did finally get to it after buying the DVD. The result is the finest classic crime movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Don't miss this brilliant movie. To me, this is what great film-making is all about.

This is a great show with total freshness and innovation. That usual chair (couch for a woman) host, that mandatory band playing monotonous tunes, the same old jokes, the same pattern copied from the days of Nebuchadnezzer ....probably the pattern of Johnny Carson, copied by one and all, Latterman, Leno, Conan... Daly, this show does not seem to have any of these.<br /><br />I fell in love with this show within the first 10 minutes and I am going to stick to it. Though it's too early to say that, this show seems to be devoid of any intellectual pretension most talk shows try so hard to project, and I hope that that is what would make this show different from all the rest. I hope that this show will last long!<br /><br />Returning back after months, I still love this show, and I love his self-deprecating humor (For example, his affirmation that only pothead loners would be home to watch his show at Saturday midnight and thus, the jokes are funny only to the stoned guys) which, however, does not involve the usual monkeying of Conan O'Brien, for example (I know it's a cardinal sin to be repelled by O'Brien's antics; but I do really dislike his style and repetitiveness). <br /><br />I again watched it the other night with Tom Arnold in it. Ferensen's spoof of Trading Spouses (and Nanny 911 in an earlier episode) are hilarious. Idiot paparazzi are fun, especially when a security guard cautions them against taking people's pictures, and (if I am not mistaken) they start taking his pictures shouting "Gary Coleman".<br /><br />Added on 16th April, 2007: Coming back once again, I am left confused by the neighbor and her dog. I cannot decide if it is a joke or a real thing. Either way, it was funny as hell.<br /><br />I do not expect Spike Feresten to read these pages, but maybe he does. He is crazier than a bunch of monkeys and so, I would better write down my suggestion here for him: I would like him to do a full 30 minute show with Crazy Gideon, the star of late night TV commercial. I would like Crazy Gideon to have an interview in Spike's talk show, sing a song (and play guitar), do a skit in the line of SNL, and also to answer questions from the audience regarding his potential mayorship of Los Angeles (I know, Crazy Gideon may not be aware of this, but there are websites detailing why he would be the perfect candidate for the post of the mayor of LA).<br /><br />God willing!<br /><br />Returning back on 14th July, 2007: Someone wrote here that the people who praised Spike's talkshow must be bribed by Spike. I confess that Spike really bribed me, but I must also confess that Rockefeller named me in his will and last night I had sex with Cindy Crowford.

It's all about getting what you want when you want it. And the message of Bluebeard's Eighth WIfe is to be careful what you wish for, until what you wish for wishes for you.<br /><br />Most men have heard the stories about what happens when your sexual frustration isn't relieved and a certain part of your anatomy turning blue. Misogynistic pirates aside, Cooper plays a very wealthy man who is very accustomed to getting what he wants whenever he wants it, learning only too late that it wasn't what he expected and never learning his lesson until he runs into the feisty Claudette Colbert. Through a twisted (in soul and in practice) business deal, he ends up marring/buying her with the intent of bedding her, but she will have none of it (literally) and frustrates him at every turn, and corner, and room, and tourist attraction.<br /><br />The film has definite French sensibilities which means it has strong double-entendres and boudoir humor for the day and a sharp edge you're not accustomed to (and may not enjoy seeing) in either Cooper or Colbert. The whole reason I watched the film was because they are "likable" actors, and the whole point of this movie is that they're unlikable people, or at least likable people who have developed unlikable traits to protect themselves, they think, from the world. <br /><br />If you can accept it on its own terms you'll find satisfaction in this witty and sophisticated film...and satisfaction, as we said, is what it's all about. Such a movie with such a cast only comes around, after all, once in a...ummm...blue moon.

Now i have read some negative reviews for this show on this website and quite frankly I'm appalled. For anyone to even think that the Sopranos is not Television then i'm afraid i don't know what the world has come to. Let me tell u something. I started watching many T.V shows like Lost, Prison Break, Dexter, Deadwood and even Invasion. But all of those shows lost their touch after the first season, especially Lost and Prison Break which i refuse to watch because the companies took 2 genius ideas and butchered them by making more than one season. Then we have The Sopranos. I can honestly say that this is the only television series that i have ever watched where i have been enthralled in all of its season, and more importantly all of its episodes. There is no department that this show doesn't excel in. Acting- Nothing short of superb. James Gandolfini is one of my favourite actors and i feel that his acting is absolutely stunning in every episode, after i heard that HBO wanted Ray Liotta to play Tony i felt that it would've been the better choice, however after watching the first few episodes, i knew that HBO had done a great job in casting James as Tony. The raw emotion he displays is superb. Then we have everyone else, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Lorraine Bracco, Dominic Chianese (whom i remembered as Johnny Ola in the Godfather Part 2) and my personal two favourite characters Tony Sirico and Steve Van Zandt Paulie 'Walnuts' Gualtieri and Silvio Dante. All of these actors perform to the best quality, and all giving an excellent performance in each episode. Then we have the story, never have i been so sucked into a T.V show before. The story is nothing short of excellent. Each episode is directed superbly and the Score of this show is just fantastic. I feel that The Sopranos is one show that i can watch again and again and never get bored of. Its got everything from hilarious humour to brutal violence, but nonetheless it is and will always be the best thing to ever grace the Television, and I challenge anyone to find a real flaw in the show. Not just say its too violent, or they feel that the character of Tony is immoral, i mean it is a mafia show at the end of the day, i don't think that the characters are going to be very honest or loyal to God. I implore everyone to watch this show because believe me, you'll be hooked from the very first episode, i was and i have even gotten a few friends who had firstly refused to watch the show, hooked on it. Trust me when i say that this show is a Godsend compared to the crap that comes on T.V. After you've watched the first season, you'll inevitably agree with me when i once again say that this show dominates Television, and no T.V show current or future will ever upstage the marvel that is The Sopranos.

I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.

Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks "all faggy." Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like "can we family style her" and "hey man, I'm 'bating here!" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over.

This is a great, ridiculous horror movie that captures the essence of the mid to late 80s' obsession with how evil metal music supposedly was. I can remember being freaked out by metal teens when I was a kid. It doesn't help that I found a desecrated grave in my hometown's graveyard when I was ten. Turns out this weird metal kid had dug up some old bodies and used their bones in some weird sacrifice to satan. So maybe stuff like deterred me from metal for awhile, but I love it now, as a 24 year old.<br /><br />I bought this DVD used for 6 bucks and I expected it to suck due to the lame cover, but to my surprise, it ruled. It is all about the extreme demonic power of metal. And you gotta love a scene where a guitar shoots lazers and vaporizes headbangers in the crowd. This movie is awesome, if you love 80s metal and bad movies, this one's for you. 9/10!

While not quite as good as A Murder is Announced, which was not only delightful but almost surpassed the book, this is an excellent adaptation. And you know what, it is a huge improvement on the Geraldine McEwan version. Now I don't take pride in bad mouthing the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, two or three of them were surprisingly good, but others started off well but ruined by either a poor script, a confusing final solution or both. The Geraldine McEwan version suffered from a plodding pace, and both of the above problems, and I would consider second worst of the ITV adaptations, worst being Sittaford Mystery, which even on its own merits turned out dull and confusing. This adaptation of the book Nemesis is a huge improvement, it not only respects the book, despite a few liberties, but it pretty much rectifies the problems the ITV version had. Despite the added character of Lionel coming across as rather irritating, more to do with how he was written than how he was acted, and one or two moments of sluggish pacing, this is solid as an adaptation of a decent book. It is beautifully filmed, with nice photography and period detail, and the music as always is excellent. The performances are wonderful this time around, and make the most of an in general well-done script, with Joan Hickson brilliant as always as Miss Marple, and solid turns from Liz Fraser, Helen Cherry, Joanna Hole and Anna Cropper. Margaret Tyzack is outstanding though in a chilling and moving performance as Clothilde. Overall, well worth watching, better than the recent version in pretty much all departments. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Good Lord, what were they THINKING??!!!!!! Here is your spoiler warning, even though I don't think it'll really matter. You won't be seeing this piece of trash anyway.<br /><br />A group of handpuppets go chasing after a group of really stupid people, who go on a really stupid hunt for them to try and kill them, and the puppets complicate things by letting them live out their really stupid fantasies. In other words, the whole thing is really stupid.<br /><br />You KNOW it has to be bad when even Mike and the Bots can't save something!! And they didn't! I know, some of their lines were funny, like what to add to the sign "HIT" and the hand comments, but, geez, this was pretty dang sad.<br /><br />All I can say is DO NOT WATCH THIS PIECE O CRUD. IT IS NOT WORTH YOUR EYES.

I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes) <br /><br />The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.<br /><br />The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.<br /><br />Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.<br /><br />Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.<br /><br />If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.

This movie is among my favorite foreign films, some of the others are Amilee and My Life As a Dog. The similarities with those movies as with so many great foreign films, is that it takes a mundane slice of life and transforms it into a profound heartfelt lesson. <br /><br />In Japan, a man who is bored with his mundane life and the rut of his married life, sees a beautiful Japanese woman staring out the window of a dance studio. In the instant that it takes his train to pass, he is enthralled by her. But is it only by her beauty, by her faraway glance, or a connection that they will both discover that they share? <br /><br />Shall We Dance has memorable wonderful characters who have to deal with painful realities by transcending them through the world of dance. Breaking traditional moulds and stereo types of Japanese society, they risk all for happiness and find that joy is not too far away. It is one of those movies that is so magical and meaningful and, in itself, transcends the mundane by showing the true magic and miracle that life can be.

As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.

This film is a lyrical and romantic memoir told through the eyes an eleven year old boy living in a rural Cuban town the year of the Castro revolution. It is an obviously genuine worthy labor of love. <br /><br />The names CUBA LIBRE and CUBAN BLOOD are merely attempts to wrongly market this as an action film. DREAMING OF JULIA makes much more sense. It has more in common with European cinema than with RAMBO and the revolution is merely an inconvenience to people's daily lives and pursuits. That fact alone makes the film more honest than most works dealing with this time period in Cuban history.<br /><br />The excessive use of the voice-over narrator does undermine the story but the film makes up for it with unqualified clips from Hollywood films that say so much more visually than the narrator could.<br /><br />The comparisons to CINEMA PARADISO and are fair game as the film does wax melancholy about movies, but there is an underlying pain at the loss of a lifestyle that surpasses lost love. <br /><br />The revolution, like the film JULIE, never seems to have an ending.

I saw ZP when it was first released and found it a major disappointment. Its script seemed forced and arch and too fakey '60s. It's politics too upfront and ridiculous. And let's face it, I was still under a love-spell known as BLOWUP : and I still haven't completely shaken it. Now the "love" is twisted up with all sorts of nostalgia it evokes and, oh well . . . Good Luck to me!<br /><br />But time marches on and time has been kind to ZP and time has been a teacher to me. I revisit this film about every ten years and it just gets better and better with age. And ZP is it's own "experience"and is only really linked to BLOWUP through its creator, the late,great Mr. Antonioni.<br /><br />Twelve years ago, I had the great good fortune to see an absolutely pristine print, projected at its correct size (immense), restored by an Italian government cultural agency who knows a good work of art when they see it and knows the importance of keeping such a thing of beauty in good shape. To this day I remember the gasp from the audience when the first shot of Death Valley appeared. It was like a thousand volt visual shock Antonioni had intentionally delivered to wake us up to a new level of awareness. And indeed what follows from that point is an entirely different sort of "place".<br /><br />What is astonishing to me is how this film is coming into its own.<br /><br />I remember the second time around seeing it --- the early 80s --- I had begun to feel affection towards the film as a whole and towards Daria and Mark in particular. Whereas, before these two seemed like a smart-alecky shadow version of Zefferelli's Olivia and Leonard (read: Romeo and Juliet)they now were engaging me --- particularly The Girl in her insistent slo-motion-ality. She-took-her-time . . . To Live. Everything, EVERYTHING dies around her.<br /><br />Upon exciting the theater the daylight of Reality quickly began to erase my new found "enjoyment". The encroaching shoulder-padded, big haired 80s whispered "But that's a hippie fantasy --- let it go"<br /><br />The force of Antonioni's vision had, I had realised, already worked itself inside of me the FIRST time around so I answered "80s" with an "Uh-Huh" and guarded my "love" secretly, possessively and jealously.<br /><br />But, this, then is what good art does it lives inside of you, and, if you wish it has its way and "loves" you back: secretly, jealously, and possessively. And you get "changed".<br /><br />Was thrilled to see that Turner Classic Movies had decided to show ZP in its March lineup. Undoubtedly, ZP must be seen on a gigantic screen so that it can truly take you into its constructed environment. But, hey, sometimes even a glimpse of the Beloved in a newspaper photo is no better than no glimpse at all.<br /><br />Today reality hit, ZP has been withdrawn mysteriously and replaced with the whiney antics of ALICE'S RESTAURANT.<br /><br />So, it is still too "difficult", too "disturbing", too "what"?<br /><br />Maybe it's that, as with all good art, it Lives while everything dies around it. <br /><br />Peace.

Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...

This is an interesting, hard to find movie from the early 70's starring Jan Michael Vincent as a young man who doesn't make the cut as a marine. Dressed in 'baby blue' outfits to humiliate them as they are sent home, the failed recruits are sent packing. Vincent stops at a bar and runs into a very young Richard Gere who has just returned from a tour in the Pacific as a hard-core Marine 'Raider'. Gere's character is already jaded and contemplating desertion, and he takes advantage of Vincent's innocence, stealing his 'baby blue' uniform after getting him drunk and beating him in an alleyway. Vincent's character, whose name is Marion, takes Gere's outfit and is suddenly transformed into a Marine 'Raider'. Marion hitch-hikes his way into Wyoming and stops at a little Norman Rockwell-like little town. In the local café he meets Rose Hudkins, who immediately catches his eye. Staying with Hudkins parents, Marion attracts all sorts of attention from the towns folks. Mr Hudkins suspects Marion and wonders how a Marine 'Raider' could still be so innocent. The story also brings up the Japanese Internment Camps, as the towns folks go 'hunting' 3 escapees. Marion is shot accidentally during this hunt. But there's still a happy ending, which befuddled me a bit. I would have preferred a little more drama! Anyway, this captures JMV at the peak of his 70's performances. BUSTER AND BILLIE, BABY BLUE MARINE and WHITE LINE FEVER in the mid-70's were amazingly good JMV performances. He was both an action star and a heart-throb all at the same time!!! He made a lot of quality movies during his career, and continued to do so up into the mid 80's with the great TV show Airwolf. He does a very good job in this as 'Hedge', quietly observing the way people treat him (in his uniform) as he travels across the country. He must have performed some of the stunt work as well- there is a harrowing river scene at the end of the movie-and it looks like he's the guy getting tossed down the river to me! But really, at the height of his popularity, this movie could have done so much more with JMV's talent and his looks. Innocence can only be so interesting. Evil, as explored in "Buster and Billie", is much more dramatic! Anyway, Glynnis O'Connor is delightful as Rose. The whole look of the movie is like a Norman Rockwell painting. The outdoor scenes are gorgeous - must have been filmed in Canada.

Johnny and June Carter Cash financed this film which is a traditional rendering of the Gospel stories. The music is great, you get a real feel of what the world of Jesus looked like (I've been there too), and June gets into the part of Mary Magdalene with a passion. Cash's narration is good too.<br /><br />But....<br /><br />1. The actor who played Jesus was miscast. 2. There is no edge to the story like Cash puts in some of his faith based music. 3. Because it is uncompelling, I doubt we'll see this ever widely distributed again.<br /><br />I'd love to buy the CD.<br /><br />Tom Paine Texas, USA

Jäniksen vuosi is one of Jarva's most political movies. It takes stance strongly against modern day society's authority status in the life of the common man, and how it has estranged men from the nature completely. It challenges the whole concept of freedom and wealth in our welfare society.<br /><br />Vatanen (Antti Litja) - smothered buy the concrete jungle with all its rules and regulations - tries to rattle the chains of the society by escaping it all in to the wilderness of northern Finland - only to realize that the concept of a 'free country' isn't all that unambiguous, in other words, the society has the common man by the balls.<br /><br />Still the thing that makes Jäniksen vuosi so exceptional - besides the visual and humouristic brilliance - is how it seems to illustrate the whole political atmosphere in Finland in the 70's, as well as the whole identity of Finland as a nation. Vatanen is like an archetype of a classical finn in his solitudeness and social distantness. Since nature has always played such an important role in the national identity of us Finns, the whole idea of that being slowly taken away by the modern society makes Jäniksen vuosi emotionally exceptionally moving.

I love Jamie Foxx.<br /><br />And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.<br /><br />And I walked out of this one.<br /><br />Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.<br /><br />The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.<br /><br />I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. <br /><br />This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.

After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others.

Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive.

Wow! I picked this off the rental shelf because I loved Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller in 'Trainspotting.' This is a phenomenal movie; it has action, romance, suspense, intrigue and wit. When I wasn't laughing, I was at the edge of my seat. This is definitely a film I would recommend to people with an appreciation for intelligent dialogue and a fresh perspective of the 18th century. This film has everything to keep ME happy!

I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.<br /><br />It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...<br /><br />The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.<br /><br />This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.<br /><br />rating: 8/10

Mexican Werewolf in Texas is set in the small border town of Furlough where Anna (Erika Fay) lives, her best friend is Rosie (Martine Hughes) & she has a Mexican boyfriend named Miguel (Gabriel Gutierrez) who are determined to track a beast down that has been terrorising the town, killing livestock & several residents including some of their friends. Local Mexican legends speak of the Chupacabra, an evil creature from myth & legend. Erm, I'm struggling now because not that much else actually happens...<br /><br />Written & directed by Scott Maginnis I won't beat about the bush here & simply say that Mexican Werewolf in Texas is awful, period. The script only ever mentions the word Werewolf once & the rest of the time it's referred to a Chupacabra, in fact I suspect this wasn't really conceived as a Werewolf flick at all. The 'Werewolf' creature looks mostly hairless & more like some vicious dog, there is no reference to anybody changing during the full moon & it actually attacks during the day on a couple of occasions, there is no transformation scene & at the end when it is killed it doesn't change back into anyone either. To be honest apart from the title there's nothing here to indicate a Werewolf film at all & even then the title is just a rip-off of the highly popular An American Werewolf in London (1981). This is the type of home made crap that I personally think is killing the horror genre, how long has it been since there was a true low budget horror classic like Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Evil Dead (1981), Halloween (1978) or Friday the 13th (1980) which were all made on shoe string budgets, maybe The Blair Witch Project (1999) but that's it in recent years & crap like Mexican Werewolf in Texas has absolutely no chance of ever being considered a classic. The character's are awful & things just happen around them, the dialogue is rubbish, the pacing is terrible, the story sucks & virtually sent me to sleep & as a whole this film is just crap, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to describe it.<br /><br />Director Maginnis does nothing to make this watchable, there's the annoying hand held camera type cinematography which could easily give someone a headache & quick 'blink & you'll miss something' editing which just annoys & irritates in equal measure. It's not scary, there's no nudity, there's no tension or atmosphere & the special effects are awful. The monster really does look poor & it's no wonder Maginnis keeps it in the shadows or cuts his scenes so quickly you never get a good look at it. There's virtually no colour to the picture either, it's either almost pitch black or over saturated desert sand oranges which makes the thing an eye sore as well. The gore consists of some fake guts (blink & you'll miss them!), a few bloody wounds & a severed arm, big deal.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $300,000 I admit the budget was low but I simply refuse to accept that for making such a rubbish film, there are plenty of low budget horror flicks that make their meagre budgets go far. The whole thing has the look of a home movie, it has no style & is throughly bland & dull to look at. The acting sucks too although you probably already knew that.<br /><br />Mexican Werewolf in Texas will probably con a few people into renting/buying/watching it because they might mistakenly think it's a sequel to John Landis' classic which it most certainly isn't & it isn't even a proper Werewolf flick either. Don't be fooled this is awful & I'm fed up of having to waste time/money on home made amateur crap like this.

I found this to be a surprisingly light-handed touch at a 1950's culture-clash movie. John Wayne would hardly be one's first choice as a cultural attache, being about as diplomatic with his good intentions as a bull-run in Harrods. But this time he was left to play a part that was far more passive than his usual bluff persona, and he accomplished his task with style. The Duke was a guy who really could act well. His facial expressions and body language could be extremely subtle.<br /><br />Despite his considerable presence both as an actor and in terms of screen time, he failed to dominate this movie. Many of his good intentions came a cropper. He had authority over nobody, and the intermittent narrative was provided by the titular geisha to whom he was the barbarian.<br /><br />The story of American attempts to curry favour with an isolationist Japan was one of political intrigue rather than swashbuckling or hell-for-leather battles. I cannot comment on the accuracy of its research but the strangeness of the Oriental culture to western sensibilities was demonstrated well. There was a great deal of minutely-choreographed ceremony entailing what looked to this observer like authentic costume and props. The set pieces were complex and detailed. A lot of money and thought had been applied to it.<br /><br />The fractured romance between Wayne and his geisha added a little extra element, and stopped the movie becoming just a political or flag-waving effort. Script was good without being too wordy. There was a great deal of Japanese dialogue, but the lengthy periods of translation didn't interfere with the narrative. It was nice to see plenty of genuine orientals on the set. Whether or not they were Japanese, I couldn't say. But anyway they looked the part. At least the leads were not played by cross-dressing Caucasians, unlike other efforts such as 'Blood Alley' (yes, I know they were Chinese) 'The Inn Of The Sixth Happiness' or even 'The King And I'.<br /><br />Frankly, I enjoyed this more than any of those other movies. The script was better for a start. I never liked the songs in 'The King And I', and wasn't impressed by the heavy-laden anti-communist subtext of 'Blood Alley'. I confess to never having seen this work before and found it compared very favourably to many of The Duke's more popular outings.<br /><br />Recommended.

I was so glad I came across this short film. I'm always so disappointed that short films are hard to come across, so when I saw this and saw that it was nominated for the Live Action Short Film at the Academy Awards, I was so pleased that I actually had a film that I was rooting for.<br /><br />The plot is pretty simple, the director, writer, and star Nacho Vigalondo tried coming up with a reason people would suddenly break out into a song and dance number like they do in movie musicals. The result is extremely entertaining and the song is actually really catchy.<br /><br />It's a well made short film, well edited and the actors all do a great job. And the last shot of the film is perfect.<br /><br />I highly recommend this film.

I thought before starting with these movie that it might be a good one, but when i started with it i found it really awful. They said movie is being made in Afghanistan but i think 95% of the movie is shot in India. you can see Indian made cars. you can see lars drinking bisleri(an Indian water brand), Hindi written on the road, you can also see temples in Afghanistan *hahah* its really funny and many more stuff which proves its not shot in Afghanistan. I think one should not waste his/her time watching this movie.. pure time waste.. i would recommend to do something else instead of watching this movie or may be might heart is better idea but don't watch this waste of time

Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.<br /><br />The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.<br /><br />The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.<br /><br />The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.<br /><br />Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! <br /><br />In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.

In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. <br /><br />They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.<br /><br />They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.<br /><br />They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).<br /><br />They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.<br /><br />They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).<br /><br />They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.<br /><br />They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.<br /><br />That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.

One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.<br /><br />There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.<br /><br />However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.

OK, so it owes Pulp Fiction, but in my opinion has it's own voice and identity mainly because of the music-video direction style, sketch-like narrative and great performances. Thomas Jane delivers great (the drug-dealer show-down is extraordinary), Aaron Eckhart likewise. James LeGros has a short and effervescent appearance-great humor-"they got the Wong house". The Porzikova interrogation and rape scene is memorable, as is Mickey Rourke's cameo appearance-"take a peak".<br /><br />Great Hollywood popcorn B-production with strong performances of A-level aspirants and renegades(Rourke).<br /><br />Well, take a peak, it's worth.

As far as I know the real guy that the main actor is playing saw his performance and said it was an outstanding portrayal, I'd agree with him. This is a fantastic film about a quite gifted boy/man with a special body part helping him. Oscar and BAFTA winning, and Golden Globe nominated Daniel Day-Lewis plays Christy Browna crippled man with cerebral palsy who spends most of his life on the floor, in a wheelchair and carried by his family. He has a special left foot though, he can write with it, paint with it and hold things with it. He learns to speak later in the film, it is very good for a guy like him. Also starring Home Alone 2's Oscar winning, and Golden Globe nominated Brenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown and BAFTA winning Ray McAnally as Mr. Brown. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Director for Jim Sheridan, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Film, Best Make Up Artist and Best Adapted Screenplay. Daniel Day-Lewis was number 85 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 20 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 9 on Britain's Finest Actors, and he was number 15 on The World's Greatest Actor, and the film was number 28 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Outstanding!

All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, "More tail than any man in the past time." I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel!

I do regret that I have bought this series. I expected more action, more objective picture and more consistency. This is just a pure propaganda series, very dark, without any charm, or romanticism, it is just boredom itself. I find the actors work quite weak as well. O'Donnell might seem charming as Robin (with Batman), but in this picture he lacks any charm. Probably while he becomes older, he is loosing his childish charm but does not gain any charm of a grown up. It comes as no surprise, that it was not shown in a lot of countries and is being sold in the UK for 40% of the recommended price and was not even released in the Netherlands.

The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you.

This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!

As far as I know this was my first experience with Icelandic movies. It's such a relief to see something else than your regular Hollywood motion picture. Too bad that movies like this one have a small chance of succeeding in the big world. I can only hope that people watch this by accident, by recommendation or other...<br /><br />Because it's really worth while. I left the cinema feeling really sad. I couldn't get the tragic destiny's of the characters out of my head. And it impressed me even more when I thought of the complexity of the film. Not only was it a tragic story, it had excellent comic reliefs and a very good soundtrack.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, watch it! It's really thought provoking and made me ponder a lot.<br /><br />

Very typical Almodóvar of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.<br /><br />The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a "very select" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do.

Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour ("You're just making it up as you go along!" "Yup, but I do it brilliantly"), action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of "get on with it". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you laugh, then made you cry, and made you go "eek".<br /><br />In terms of character development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky). Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional wrench when he confirms his future path.<br /><br />While "The rise of the Cybermen" had more of the sinister build up to terror, "The Age of Steel" is an all out blast. Like "Alien" compared to "Aliens" - both true classics, but in different ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so.

A Brother's Promise is a wonderful family film. This is a biography of Dan Jansen, a champion Olympic speed skater. The movie depicts this athlete's life from a young age through full adulthood. The love and support of the family members is evident throughout. How Dan and the rest of his family handle winning and losing races is a life lesson for all of us. The commitment and determination of Dan's coach and his teammates, shows what it takes to make a real team. How Dan and his family deal with a devastating illness of a loved one is depicted without undo sentiment or sugarcoating. The faith of the family is shown in basic terms and is obviously a major part of their lives. This is a powerful family film which can be meaningful for a person of any age.

Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...

Director Sidney Lumet has made some masterpieces,like Network,Dog Day Afternoon or Serpico.But,he was not having too much luck on his most recent works.Gloria (1999) was pathetic and Find Me Guilty was an interesting,but failed experiment.Now,Lumet brings his best film in decades and,by my point of view,a true masterpiece:Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.I think this film is like a rebirth for Lumet.This movie has an excellent story which,deeply,has many layers.Also,I think the ending of the movie is perfect.The performances are brilliant.Philip Seymour Hoffman brings,as usual,a magnificent performance and he's,no doubt,one of the best actors of our days.Ethan Hawke is also an excellent actor but he's underrated by my point of view.His performance in here is great.The rest of the cast is also excellent(specially,the great Albert Finney) but these two actors bring monumental performances which were sadly ignored by the pathetic Oscars.The film has a good level of intensity,in part thanks to the performances and,in part,thanks to the brilliant screenplay.Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a real masterpiece with perfect direction,a great screenplay and excellent performances.We need more movies like this.

I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??

I loved this film. I thought it would be easy to watch, and easy to forget. I ran out after watching this to buy the DVD, obv not easily forgotten!<br /><br />The script is brilliant, and the casting couldn't be more perfect. Each character has their moment, and I laughed hard throughout this film, comedic timing was spot-on.<br /><br />

It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.<br /><br />I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless/alien/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, "take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in" sort of way.<br /><br />Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.

First of all, I should point out that I really enjoyed watching this documentary. Not only it had great music in it, but the shots and the editing were also wonderful. However, all these positive things about the film does not change the fact that it plays to the orientalist "East meets West" cliché that bothers many Turks like myself. Okay, this film tells the story of traditional and contemporary Turkish music in a very stylish manner which is a good thing, something that would show ignorant Europeans and Americans that this country is not just about murdering Armenians and Kurds. However, the problematic of the film is that it looks at what it defines as "east" from the eyes of the "west". I mean, like one jazz musician says in the film, maybe there is no east and west, maybe it is just a myth, a lie created by the ruling leaders of "western" countries in order to keep fear and hostility alive so that they could continue ruling the world and "keep the cash flowing"? <br /><br />Why don't you think about that?

STMD! is not a terrible movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many scenes and unintentionally poor in all the rest, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. Special effects are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher flicks is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the whole movie just doesn't gel. What was needed was some snappier dialogue and more tongue-in-cheek humor.<br /><br />I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imagination or humor, but these are sadly lacking in this film.

First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.<br /><br />Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10<br /><br />I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie

i am not exactly how sure the accuracy is with this movie, but i can tell you that i was thoroughly entertained by this movie. the character of gust,played perfectly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, was one of the most unique, yet entertaining characters in recent memory. this movie informed,yet managed to avoid preaching to the audience. it made me laugh, made me sad, made me feel alive, and glad to be spending the time to watch the movie. it takes no time to understand what is going on, and takes you on a roller coaster ride of genuine, human emotion. i thought i knew my history, apparently i didn't know it at all! i give this move 9 out of 10, and recommend it for all adults, and young adults, and the young at heart, just not the young. but as soon as they are allowed to see "r" rated movies, make it a priority.

I must have seen this a dozen times over the years. I was about fifteen when I first saw it in B & W on the local PBS station.<br /><br />I bought a DVD set for the children to see, and am making them watch it. They don't teach history in School, and this explains the most critical event of the 20th Century. It expands their critical thinking.<br /><br />Impartially, with the participants on all sides explaining in their own words what they did and why, it details what lead up to the war and the actual war.<br /><br />Buy it for your children, along with Alistair Cooke's America. Watch it with them, and make them understand. You'll be so glad you did.

Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth!

and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.<br /><br />As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.<br /><br />I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.<br /><br />I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it.

So real and surreal, all in one. I remember feeling like Tessa. Heck, I remember being Tessa. This was a beautiful vignette of a relationship ending. I especially liked the protesters tangent. It is nice to see symbolism in a movie without being smacked over the head with it. If you get the chance to see this, take it. It is well worth the 30 minutes.

Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence. <br /><br />Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie. <br /><br />I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good.

A friend lent me this DVD, which he got from the director at a festival, I think. I went in warned that some of the technical aspects of the movie were a bit shaky and that the writing was good but not great. So maybe that colored my judgment but I have to admit that I liked this movie.<br /><br />The standouts where the actors. Youssef Kerkor was really good as Ernie, the main character, kind of pathetic in a likable way. Adam Jones (who also directed) and Justin Lane were excellent as the roommates who drive Ernie mad. The Bill character (Justin Lane), who spends a lot of the film dressed like a panda, was by far my favorite; he seemed the least one-dimensional, and reminded me of an old college roommate so much I called the guy after watching the DVD. Really kind of lovable, and very funny. Some of the other acting was good, some was so-so, but none of it was bad. I also really liked the vigilante duo. Ridiculous and funny.<br /><br />I'm giving this one high marks, even though it has some issues, because you can tell when you watch it that these people cared, and decided to make their movie their way. Well done to Adam Jones and crew.

Shawshank, Godfather, Pulp Fiction... all good films. Great films. But nothing, and I mean nothing lives up to the greatest Christmas movie of all, Santa Claus.<br /><br />The film is so great and has so many messages, I cried while watching it. Seriously, this is one of those movies you need to watch 10 times. When we see Pitch get told he will have to eat ice cream, we see the sadness in his eyes, and we feel the deep sorrow, and then we wonder... what is so bad about this ice cream? Is it implying that we as humans are treating ice cream as good when all it does is make us evil? Think movie makes you think.<br /><br />This movie has the best rendition of Santa Claus ever. Unlike other Santas, he is a normal person. We see him imprisoning children and spying on kids dreams, and we wonder; is the Santa we believe in really that good? Also, this Santa actually mentions Christ, the whole meaning behind Christmas.<br /><br />You owe yourself to watch this cinematic masterpiece. We should just stop making movies and air nothing but this epic 24/7. Whether it's Christmas or not, this movie gets a 500/10. Whoever says this movie is bad is an ignorant fool.

I really cant think of anything good to say about this film...not a single thing. The script is a nightmare.. the writer blurs the line between chemical and biological traits and doesnt seem to understand the difference. You'd think they would at least get a technical advisor. The performances were bad by most of the cast... although I dont really blame them.. the material really stinks. The editing was equally bad.. I'll just stop now.. its all bad 2/10

Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.<br /><br />We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.<br /><br />Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.<br /><br />[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art. <br /><br />[DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.] <br /><br />

This is a stereotype plot. A young fighter tries to enter a competition when he is not ready and is not selected to represent his fighting school. This leads to separation from the fighting school and naturally he finds a strange new master to teach him to fight.<br /><br />The fights are not of high standards. They are way too "simple" in a way that 1+1 is simple to every adult. The fighter has trained and enters the ring, but does not do what he trained and gets an ass kicking. The coach yells do this and do that with no success. And after some more of this ridiculous beating he suddenly does what he is told and hits his opponent once. This results in a turning point in the fight, although our hero has been taking a beating of his life up until that point. Think about the Rocky movies and you'll have a good point of reference of how much beating he really takes. The fights are also shot poorly.<br /><br />There final thing that screws this film up is the stupid romance. Cheesy music and awkward moments are not what I call entertainment.<br /><br />These guys really could have made some quality entertainment, but the director wasn't up to the task. Or the other crew in my opinion. Maybe they had a small budget, I don't know, but what matters in the end is that this movie is bad and deserves the rating of 3 out of 10.

This production was quite a surprise for me. I absolutely love obscure early 30s movies, but I wasn't prepared for the last 25 minutes of this story. If, by any chance, you're not convinced in the first half, hang in there for the finale. Of course, you must look at the blatant racism as being purely topical. A fascinating viewing experience, but I think THE CAT'S PAW is not available on video/DVD yet. Watch your PBS listings!

It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.<br /><br />The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.<br /><br />It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.<br /><br />It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.<br /><br />2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.

From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.<br /><br />My Grade: D-

As a huge baseball fan, my scrutiny of this film is how realistic it appears. Dennis Quaid had all of the right moves and stances of a major league pitcher. It is a fantastic true story told with just a little too much "Disney" for my taste.

This film takes you on one family's impossible journey, and makes you feel every step of their odyssey. Beautifully acted and photographed, heartbreakingly real. Its last line, with its wistful hope, is one of the more powerful in memory.

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.

This show is great for many reasons..The father and mother can communicate with their kids this day in age. Its so great to see a real family instead of some stuffy overacting family. I watched this one time and became hooked.It so great to see a black family on TV worth watching. This show left too soon but on its way out it dealt with pregnancy, sexy, drugs, bad dates,death etc .The best thing about the show was that it dealt with it in a real humorous sort of way. Great show for the family ..I cant tell you how many times I have sat up watched this show late at night sometimes and laughed my head off. Great pg 13 rated show.I loved everybit of this show.

This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind "Batman Forever" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.<br /><br />Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how "Batman Returns" can be considered at all disappointing.<br /><br />True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in "Batman," a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.<br /><br />Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's "Richard III"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.<br /><br />There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.<br /><br />Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton.

The Quick and the Undead is, finally, the first movie to actually render its own storyline null and void. It is, essentially, one gigantic plot hole.<br /><br />Aside from that, the acting was quite bad, character motivations nonexistent or unbelievable and there wasn't a single character worth hanging our hat on. The most interesting cast member (who had great potential to be a dark horse protagonist) got snuffed halfway through the proceedings.<br /><br />What the Quick and the Undead DOES serve as is an excellent example of how to do good color-timing. It looked excellent, when you take into account budget considerations.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it plays out like a guy got his hands on a hundred grand and watched a few westerns (most notably The Good, The Bad and The Ugly) and then just threw a bunch of elements haphazardly into a movie... "you know, they have movies where characters do THIS! Does it fit here? No, but who cares! They do it in other movies so I should do it here!" <br /><br />Maybe a good view for burgeoning cinematographers and colorists (first-year film-schoolers). Otherwise, a must-miss.

I was stunned by this film. Afterwards, I didn't even want to see any films for a long time- any other film would be so unsatisfying by comparison.<br /><br />For many, it may be the worst of Antonioni- very slow, without an engaging conventional story line, microscopic examinations of human emotions and interactions- and the worst of Wenders- verbose, confused transcendentalism. It is composed of short distinct episodes linked by Wenders' typical meandering hero's stream of consciousness, so it doesn't produce the temporary oblivion of escapist cinema.<br /><br />But for fans, the worst is the best and the disjointed story line is sketching a single poetic image that stretches across the film. Wenders and Antonioni create a discourse between their segments that seeks out the heart of things.<br /><br />

Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.<br /><br />I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.<br /><br />I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!

The one of the most remarkable sci-fi movies of the millennium. Not only a movie but an incredible future vision, this movie establishes a new standard of s/f movies. hail and kill!

This is the second Hitchcock film to appear on the list and the second Hitchcock film I've seen in full, the first was Rope, which I really enjoyed. With Saboteur Hitchcock was more room to roam free, whereas Rope took place all in one room. I didn't enjoy this one as much as Rope but that's not saying this is a bad film, it just seems like an average flick that could have been something more.<br /><br />It seems like a film Hitchcock would make as a break in between his more serious ones. As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get my on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a miss opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.<br /><br />The film doesn't feel like it should either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving.<br /><br />The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.<br /><br />In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically.

It is always difficult to bring a 450 pages book down to a three hours film. I read the book before, and I found the BBC production dealing with this difficulty in the best way possible. The qualities of the book haven't been lost: the dense and lively depiction of a fingersmith patchwork family in London in the 1860s, the cold and obscene cruelty in which Maud is brought up, the characterization of different social groups by different ways of speaking, the unexpected and surprising twists of the story, the way the film makes the spectators look different at the same scenes when they are told first from Sue's point of view then from Maud's one. The main actors do very good, and especially the growing love between the two women is convincingly developed, with a first culmination in a very tender love scene between the two and finally forgiving all the evil they were ready to do and did to each other, because they still love each other.<br /><br />For each of her books the author, Sarah Waters, has thoroughly investigated what life was like in British 19th century. While in Tipping the Velvet it was the world of the vaudeville theaters and the beginning of social movements, in Affinity the dreadful reality of women penitentiaries and the fashionable evocation of spirits, in Fingersmith she depicts the public ceremony of hanging people in London and the inhuman treatment of persons supposed or declared disturbed in asylums based on the reading of sources and scientific research. This is very well transferred to the film so that the corresponding scenes show a high grade of historic truth. I highly recommend this film production because it offers three hours of colorful Victorian atmosphere, vivid emotions, and suspense.

This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies. <br /><br />Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.<br /><br />Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be.

Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.<br /><br />What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one "Bible", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion. <br /><br />Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, "Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament." If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, "Is no other way." The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher. <br /><br />But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of "Ghost Hunters" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching "Ghost Hunters", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a "right place at the right time" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to "perform" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.<br /><br />Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.

For a long time, 'The Menagerie' was my favorite 'Star Trek' episode though in recent years it has been eclipsed by 'City on the Edge of Forever.' What I used to prefer about 'Menagerie' was that it's more hard-core Star Trek with this fascinating back-story to the then-current Trek storyline. I still think it's fairly ingenious the way Gene Roddenberry incorporated the original pilot into a two-part episode. Though the 'new' part of the story is largely an excuse for Kirk and a few others (and us) to watch the pilot, the idea of Spock being court-martialed is a clever one. You can poke holes in the plot if you want. For instance, given the Talosians' mind-control abilities and Captain Pike's condition, why is it even necessary to physically bring Pike back to their planet? And there are other confusing questions about Pike and Commodore Mendez... best to not think too hard about the details and just enjoy ST's only two-parter.

Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****

When it was released this film caused a sensation. I watched it and was thrilled. Beautiful, usually young, naked women filmed in the classy style we knew so well from director Hamiltons photography. His photographs never become porn and the same is true for this movie. Today I saw it again and was bitterly disappointed. The soft core in extremely slow paced scenes, all filmed with some Vaseline on the lenses, actually is all there is. There is no real story, the characters remain beautiful and beautifully filmed bodies, but they are not real creatures with a soul. Actually nothing happens. It is like Hamilton is photographing using moving pictures rather than stills. And this gets so boring after a while. I even didn't watch the whole thing the second time, for I fell vast asleep. That is all that remains of this masterpiece: it is a very good sleeping pill. And you will never become addicted to it!<br /><br />Back then 7 out of 10, now 3 out of 10

Largely forgettable tale in which mercenary Kerman & employer Agren travel into the jungle in search of Agren's missing sister.<br /><br />Despite its connection to the cannibal movie family, this film is more of an extreme version of Rene Cardona's "Guyana - Crime of the Century". Lenzi clearly aims to exploit the (at that time) topical Jonestown massacre, by depicting a rogue, self righteous zealot with a penchant for bigamy and just a hint of megalomania (played with ruthless intensity by Ivan Rassimov) leading his motley crew flock into self inflicted oblivion. With sister in toe, Kerman & Agren attempt to stop the rot, but after several failed coups, they end up fleeing into the "Green Inferno", only to run afoul the locals and their notorious appetites.<br /><br />One in a string of excessive gore fests that emerged in the late seventies/early eighties, where every new addition seemed to engage in a one-upmanship contest with its predecessor, by attempting to contrive the most gory and graphic display ever brought to motion pictures. This inferior instalment employs all the motifs and gimmicks of the others, but with much less success.<br /><br />Was it the so called "Amazonian natives" who looked like they were Bollywood rejects (this film was made on location in Sri Lanka), or the inept "decapitation" and "castration" scenes that seriously diminished the authenticity that was apparent in "Cannibal Holocaust"? You can decide. Without spoiling the conclusion, it appeared as though Lenzi put more emphasis in his shock and awe climax than in the basic requirement for a cohesive ending, where all loose ends are resolved. Most unsatisfying.<br /><br />As with the others, where the extent of the graphic depictions of violence toward humans is limited (thankfully), the filmmakers have spared no extreme in inflicting the worst possible cruelty on hapless animals in their pursuit of the most sadistic shocks. Unfortunately, the only thing shocking about this film is that it rates a mention among others of the ilk, that deal with the subject matter more convincingly.<br /><br />If there are any redeemable features at all, Kerman is an affable if somewhat one-dimensional leading man, and his bevy of scantily clad co-stars (Agren, Lai and Senatore) provide some visual respite from the relentless slayings.

Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.<br /><br />The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.<br /><br />The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.<br /><br />0 stars

Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.

How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.

This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. And thats compared to Alexander, Fortress 2 and The new world.<br /><br />I should go back to blockbuster and ask for my money back along with compensation as it was a truly traumatic experience. For the first ten minutes i was changing the zoom on my widescreen TV because the actors seemed to be out of screen. I didn't think it was possible to make such a bad film in this day and age, i was wrong. While typing this message, I've thought of a good reason to buy this movie. A joke present at Xmas. I'm blaming the Mrs for this one as she picked it, thanks babe.<br /><br />Be warned.......A true shocker all round!!!!!!

If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.

This is one of the worst movies, I've ever seen. Not only, that it is a comedy, which isn't funny, but it's also very badly made with an over the top direction full of unnecessary split screens and other effects.<br /><br />The two "heroes" with their fantasy language are just annoying and it confused me quite a lot, that they touched each others genitals all the time. But the worst of all that nonsense is the cheap attempt to give that movie some appeal, by referring to German history and to show sensitive aspects of the "heroes", which finds its climax in showing how Erkan and Stefan cure a mentally ill woman with their "joyful" lifestyle (!). But I hadn't expect anything better by director Michael "Bully" Herbig, who also made two not funny TV-shows, a not funny western movie and a nearly not funny SF-comedy movie. But Erkan and Stefan had been- just a little- better in some of their stand-up programs. For me the only good thing about the movie is Alexandra Neldel, who is very beautiful to me.

I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...

A number of contributors have mentioned the age difference between Stewart and Novak. She was 25 and he was 50 when this movie was released. I think that the difference didn't matter for a suspense drama like Vertigo, but it does matter for a romantic comedy. We can easily understand, that is, why his character would be attracted to hers, but it's less clear why hers would be attracted to his.<br /><br />Still, the movie works as a light romantic fantasy. The scene where she stares at him across the cat's head, with her dark painted-on eyebrows flaring and the sounds of her humming and the cat purring, is true magic. It's a little jarring, therefore, when the scene shifts to the top of the Flatiron Building, and we see the age difference very sharply. As he embraces her, she reaches up to run her fingers through his hair, but stops that motion and just brushes her fingertips lightly against his toupee.

Family problems abound in real life and that is what this movie is about. Love can hold the members together through out the ordeals and trials and that is what this movie is about. One man, Daddy, has the maturity and fortitude to sustain the family in the face of adversity. The kids grow up,one all be it, in the hard way, to realize that no matter how old they or a parent is, the parent still loves their children and are willing to provide them a cushion when they fall. ALL the actors portraying their characters did outstanding performances. Yes, I shed a tear along the way knowing I had had similar experiences both as a young adult and later as a parent. This true to life is one which every young adult, and parent, would do well to see, although some will not realize it until they too are parents. A must see for those who care about their families.

The only conceivable flaw of this film is it's title!! Please stop comparing it to the first! I did in my previous review only to separate it from the first. If you haven't seen the movie and are curious, TOTALLY forget about the first and invent a different name for this. There is nothing alike and has a mood all its own. This is a great exponent of screwy mid-80s comedy. I seriously doubt such big names in this cast did the movie because they were broke or even wanted to remake the first. Anybody who ever wanted to give a kick to the snobbish aristocracy should love this little opus. I maintain, the only reason this is in the IMDB bottom 100 is because of its title. I usually hate movies like these (i.e. adam sandler, will farrell, farrelly bros....), but this movie just keeps me laughing hysterically. I dunno, maybe it's like a bad relationship I can't get out of or just a ridiculous guilty pleasure. Either way, this is the single most underrated movie of the 80s behind 'The Stunt Man.'<br /><br />Robert Stack- WE LOVE YOU!!! (1919-2003)

Salva and his pal Bigardo have been at the margin of the law during most of their lives. We see them panhandling in a car of the underground, where their pitch to get donations is so lame, no one gives them anything! Salva, who is a hardened petty criminal doesn't even have any redeeming qualities, that is, until he discovers a reality show on television that gives him the idea of what to do next. Religion and show business prove to be a winning combination, something that Salva capitalizes on.<br /><br />He and Bigardo have been in jail after the accidental death of a priest that was critical of the duo. Salva shows he is a natural for the reality show. He transforms himself into a Christ-like figure who is an instant success in the program. Espe, who is a no-nonsense woman who is show's producer, can't escape from the way Salva pays her unusual attention. Ultimately, Salva is the victim of his own success in the end.<br /><br />Jordi Molla, whose first directorial job this movie is, had some success in the way the film satirizes the role of television. Spain, which was vulnerable to these types of programs, has seen its share of the bizarre, which is what the director felt is an assault on the viewing public and wanted to set his story from the point of view of the people that are making a fortune out of the naive audience.<br /><br />The ensemble cast has some good moments in the film. Mr. Molla, like any actor who decides to direct his first feature, would have been more effective concentrating on the picture in front of the camera. Candela Pena, a good actress, is one of the best reasons for watching the movie. Juan Carlos Villedo, David Gimenez Cacho, Franco Francescoantonio, Florinda Chico and the rest responded well to the new director.

These kinda movies just don't get the credit they deserve. This is my 2nd all time favorite movie, (Stand By Me being 1st.) The reason I watched this movie was because Wil Wheaton was in it and he is my most favorite person in the whole world and I think he done an amazing job in this movie and so did Sean Astin. I just watched it last night actually and it just amazed me. Everything in the movie is very exceptional. The script, the acting, the screenplay. I was on the edge of my seat 80% of the time, and if my mom wasn't in the room I would have absolutely balled whenever Joey Trotta (Wil Wheaton) died. I did not see that coming!! At all!! I was real surprised when I heard that it wasn't real popular back in the 90's. I was born a few years after it came out so, of course, I didn't go see it in the theaters, but im sure I would have if I would have been alive. If any of my friends watched this, they would be like, "uhh okay?" but thats just cause their not cool enough to appreciate work like this. If you haven't seen this movie, or are wanting to watch something that is the bomb, this is the movie for you to watch.

As a big-time Prince fan of the last three to four years, I really can't believe I've only just got round to watching "Purple Rain". The brand new 2-disc anniversary Special Edition led me to buy it. Wow, I was really looking forward to watching it, but I wasn't prepared for just how electric it actually is. Prince's musical performances throughout the movie are nothing short of astounding - he REALLY has the moves in this one. I am very familiar (from repeated listens) with the classic "Purple Rain" album and all its songs, but to see them in the context of the movie completely alters your perception of the tunes and lyrics - like COMPUTER BLUE, THE BEAUTIFUL ONES, WHEN DOVES CRY and PURPLE RAIN itself. There is something indescribably hypnotising about the scenes where Prince and The Revolution perform. The closing songs BABY I'M A STAR and I WOULD DIE FOR U show how much energy and sheer talent Prince was brimming with in his mid-20s (he's overflowing!), it blew me away. It even makes Michael Jackson seem inanimate even in his peak years.<br /><br />Prince shows you how to win the girl of your dreams - drive her to a lake, make her jump in, then drive off - absolutely hilarious stuff in hindsight.<br /><br />Some of the scenes are very 1980s and unintentionally hilarious but this adds to the film's overall charm. Morris Day is the coolest cat on the block (and hilarious), and when his group The Time perform THE BIRD you get to see Morris Day and Jerome Benton light up the stage Minneapolis funk style - I love their dancing in this bit, and how Benton provides Morris with a mirror mid-performance.<br /><br />I already can't wait to watch it again, I really can't! Extras are terrific - particularly seeing a young Eddie Murphy pre-Beverly Hills Cop admit he is a "Prince groupie".

A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.

After several extremely well ratings to the point of SUPERB, I was extremely pleased with the film. The film was dark, moving, the anger, the pain, the guilt and a very extremely convincing demon.<br /><br />I had initially expected to see many special effects, and like a lover's caress, it blew me away with the subtlety and the rightness of it. Brian, I am again blown away with your artistry with the telling of the story and your care of the special effects. You will go a long way, my friend. I will definitely be the president of your fan club.<br /><br />Eric Etebari, the best actor award, was the number one choice. You made Jr. Lopez look like a child compared to Kasadya. :) <br /><br />Overall, the acting, story line, the high quality filming and awesome effects, it was fantastic. I just wish it were longer. I am looking forward to The Dreamless with extremely high expectations.

But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.<br /><br />Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie.

One of the two Best Films of the year. A well filmed, well written, well put together film with an outstanding cast. Lau Ching Wan and his friends (Dayo Wong Chi Wa, Anthony Wong Chau Sun, Francis Ng Chun Yu, Jordan Chan Siu Chun, Cheung Man Tat) had great chemistry before the film and their friendship shows in their performances. Theresa Lee plays her comedic role well (Though much like a female version of Michael Wong, her gag seems to be the foreign born Chinese surrounded by native HKers.), and I found myself cheering for innovative explosive scenes, something I haven't done since 1. the fan boys took over alt.asian-movies and 2. John woo's Hardboiled. Sure the ending was expected, but I feel better cheering for cops than a bunch of young gang members. Highly enjoyable.

I managed to see this at the New York International Film Festival in November 2005 with my boyfriend. We were both quite impressed with the complexity of the plot and found it to be emotionally moving. It was very well directed with strong imagery. The visual effects were amazing - especially for a short. It had an original fantasy approach to a very real and serious topic: This film is about a young girl who is visited by a demon offering to help her situation with her abusive father. There is also a surprise twist at the end which caught me off guard. This leans towards the Gothic feel. I would love to see this as a full feature film. -- Carrie

Why else would he do this to me?<br /><br />Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.<br /><br />Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.<br /><br />To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?<br /><br />How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?<br /><br />Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.<br /><br />Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.<br /><br />That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...<br /><br />Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!<br /><br />fade to black<br /><br />my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.<br /><br />But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.<br /><br />

Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about "Trigger Man", I know I am trying to. - MERK