Datasets:

avsolatorio

/

mteb-imdb-avs_triplets

like 1

Dog Bite Dog isn't going to be for everyone, but I really enjoyed it. Full of slapping, stabbing and shooting (but don't worry – the lead's a terrible shot), it can best be described as a violent romp through Hong Kong and Cambodia. Edison Cheng plays Pang, a Cambodian assassin in town to kill a barrister. Despite being filthy from his journey, he's almost immediately seated at a huge table in the middle of an obviously expensive restaurant. If this sounds wildly implausible to you, you should probably avoid this film. It acted as my cue to suspend disbelief, and I had a lot more fun for it.<br /><br />Chasing Pang down is Wai (Sam Lee), a young, edgy cop who likes to smack people around almost as much as he likes to smoke. Wai walks a fine line that has Internal Affairs investigating him, and his father, a legendary Good Cop, is in a coma following a drug deal that went south (the implication is that Wai is letting his father take the rap for his own corrupt dealings).<br /><br />There are a car crashes, lots of killings, and a strange and awkward love story on offer here, all played out in almost comic-book style. I suspect the humour was deliberate (nobody uses gargantuan concrete bludgeons without an eye for the extravagantly absurd), though the over-the-top nature lost a number of my fellow audience members. There are at least three points where the film might have ended, and at 109 mins it may have benefited from more ruthless editing, or the deletion of one of the narrative threads (the light-hearted stuff worked well, so I would have left out the interactions with the three fathers).<br /><br />I'm inclined to give it a (high) pass, however, if only because of the ending – I've rarely heard so many people laugh so loudly at what should have been a poignant moment. This is one to see with a group of friends who love the ridiculous

positive

Simply great movie no doubt about it. Great story and superb performances, be it Amitabh, Akshay, Shefali, Priyanka, Boman or Rajpal. Hindi film industry is going shameless with Mallika and Co, this movie is totally vulgarity free and therefore bound to fail in vulgarity addicted our Indian society. But the message and concept this movie carries are absolutely superb. Anu Malik(boring copy-cat) could have been avoided and Ismail Darbar or Himmesh Reshmmiya could have been used as musician. I think Vipul Shah should have given little bit Gujarati touch particularly in music also. Anu Malik is worst musician around and he thinks himself popstar but this is not the movie where is presence was required-He looks only good with Govinda style songs. I felt some nice serious music with couple of good Ghazals or sad songs could have made this movie more memorable.

positive

In New York, Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is an addicted executive of a real estate office that has embezzled a large amount for his addiction and expensive way of life with his wife Gina (Marisa Tomei). When an audit is scheduled in his department, he becomes desperate for money. His baby brother Hank Hanson (Ethan Hawke) is a complete loser that owes three months of child support to his daughter, and is having a love affair with Gina every Thursday afternoon. Andy plots a heist of the jewelry of their parent in a Saturday morning without the use of guns, expecting to find an old employee working and without financial damage to his parents, since the insurance company would reimburse the loss. On Monday morning, we would raise the necessary money he needs to cover his embezzlement. He invites Hank to participate, since he is very well known in the mall where the jewelry is located and could be recognized. However, Hank yellows and invites the thief Bobby Lasorda (Brian F. O'Byrne) to steal the store, but things go wrong when their mother Nanette (Rosemary Harris) comes to work as the substitute for the clerk and Bobby brings a hidden gun. Nanette reacts and kills Bobby but she is also lethally shot. After the death of Nanette, their father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney) decides to investigate the robbery with tragic consequences.<br /><br />"Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is a comedy of errors, disclosing a good story. The originality and the difference are in the screenplay, with a non-linear narrative à la "Pulp Fiction". The eighty-three year-old Sidney Lumet has another great work and it is impressive the longevity of this director. Philip Seymour Hoffman is awesome in the role of a dysfunctional man with traumatic relationship with his father that feels the world falling apart mostly because of his insecure and clumsy brother. Marisa Tomei is still impressively gorgeous and sexy, showing a magnificent body. The violent conclusion shows that the world is indeed an evil place. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Antes Que o Diabo Saiba Que Você Está Morto" ("Before the Devil Knows You're Dead")

positive

Parker (Johnathan Schaech) is an aspiring writer who is still looking for his big break. In the meantime, he works as a telephone adviser for a Manhattan psychic hotline. One day, most unfortunately, his apartment building burns down. Parker and his cat make it out alive but are now stuck with the arduous task of finding affordable housing in the Big Apple. Word comes to Parker that a lady, Samantha (Alison Eastwood) is searching for a roommate but will only accept a gay male. Since Parker is straight but the price is right, he decides to pretend that he is gay. Samantha likes him from the start and welcomes him as her new cohabitant. But, poor Parker. Sam is lovely, intelligent and very desirable. How will he be able to keep his true nature under control? Besides, doesn't Sam have a successful businessman-boyfriend anyway? This is a sweet, likable, and humorous film with two very attractive stars in Eastwood and Schaech. Naturally, the plot is a string of "how can I keep up this ruse" scenes, with Sam asking Parker for shampoo while she is showering or pleading with him to hold her in bed when she receives bad news. Also, it is necessary for Parker to produce his own "fake" gay mate, Boris, when Sam insists upon fixing him up with a man she knows. Hopefully, the gay community will not find this too offensive, as this viewer thought most issues were treated with sensitivity and subtlety. For a small scale movie, the costumes, sets, and camera work were quite nice, also. Therefore, if you love those funny tales of love, get this one soon. You will like what you see, I know it.

positive

I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.

negative

- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? <br /><br />- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.<br /><br />- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.<br /><br />- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.

negative

The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset.

positive

What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz

negative

I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.<br /><br />I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.<br /><br />Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.<br /><br />Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.<br /><br />If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.<br /><br />As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.

negative

To Be Honost With you i think everything was so good in this movie there should be no reason why it didn't go into theaters,The Deaths in the movie are awesome the fx are awesome when used,There are a few dull moments when the story's following the little girl but all in all this was a very good movie that i hope someday get's the props it should.The very first part of the movie is prob why it came straight to video with them killing a little boy but after that the story is based on a little girl and her mother who came to visit the moms boyfriend who moved out to try to become a writer,The property he buy's turns out to be where the Witch(Tooth Fairy)lives and anyone who live in her house or goes on her property will be in great danger don't wanna give anything really away just a little info if you've wanted to see this movie then do so it's worth the price of the rental

positive

When I heard that Adrian Pasdar was in drag in this movie, my expectations that I would watch the entire movie were low. The only reasons I gave it a chance were the magnificent Julie Walters and the recommendation of a friend.<br /><br />What i thought would be a broad "Mrs. Doubtfire" type of farce turned out to be a gentle and insightful comedy. Pasdar is entirely credible and empathetic as the ambitious business man who needs to release the female part of his being by cross-dressing on occasions. He transmits these needs to the audience in a thoroughly believable fashion. Julie Walters is magnificent, is as her habit, as the landlady who teaches him unconditional love.

positive

This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.<br /><br />Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.<br /><br />I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.<br /><br />*** out of ****

positive

Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...<br /><br />Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.<br /><br />Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.<br /><br />Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).

negative

This amazing documentary gives us a glimpse into the lives of the brave women in Cameroun's judicial system-- policewomen, lawyers and judges. Despite tremendous difficulties-- lack of means, the desperate poverty of the people, multiple languages and multiple legal precedents depending on the region of the country and the religious/ethnic background of the plaintiffs and defendants-- these brave, strong women are making a difference.<br /><br />This is a rare thing-- a truly inspiring movie that restores a little bit of faith in humankind. Despite the atrocities we see in the movie, justice does get served thanks to these passionate, hardworking women.<br /><br />I only hope this film gets a wide release in the United States. The more people who see this film, the better.

positive

This movie was great and I would like to buy it.The boy goes with his grandfather to catch a young eagle. the boy has to feed and care for the eagle until it is old enough to be sacrificed for the crops. the boy saves the eagle from being killed and runs away from the tribe.The eagle helps feed him by catching a duck from a small pond the boy scares up. Later the boy shoots a deer that a bully kid was claiming because their arrows were marked very close the same. Only until they check the thickness of the red lines do they determine who actually got the deer. But this was unfortunate because it made the other boys even crueler to him,and at the end he is being chased up onto a cliff but when you think he will fall off his pure love for the eagle transforms him into a golden eagle with only a necklace as a reminder of who he was.Please if anyone knows where I can buy this movie let me know.I haven't seen it for over 30 years,but still remember parts of the [email protected]

positive

OK, I have watched the original French version. But I can't imagine this being better with subtitles.<br /><br />All I have to say that this is the most boring movie I have seen in a long time. There are almost no redeeming qualities to this film. That's why I can't understand all the positive reviews. It might be realistic in a sense but some real stories are best left untold.<br /><br />I usually like slow paced movies as long as it serves the purpose of the movie. Tarkovsky's Solaris is extremely slow paced but it allows introspection and sets the mood of the film for example. But in this case, the movie is just filed with mindless dialog that manage to tell us little about the characters. None of which I could identify with or care for. In a lot of the scenes I found myself thinking: "When are they going to shut up"? The acting was pretty bad. Not in an overacting obvious kind of way. But It seems none of the actors cared about their characters and they all looked like they wanted to be elsewhere in most of the scenes. This might be due to the uninspired dialog they were given. Also the whole flow of the movie felt quite mechanical. Going from one scene to the next. It seems this movie was just written (badly) but never directed.<br /><br />This is one of the few films that I can say generated no emotional response from any of the scenes. No suspense, no fear, no anticipation, no sorrow, no introspection, no intellectual stimulation, no interest what so ever.<br /><br />A perfect example of what I call an anti-movie.

negative

I consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.<br /><br />Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.<br /><br />My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.<br /><br />This film, however, was useless.<br /><br />There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.<br /><br />To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service.

negative

This well conceived and carefully researched documentary outlines the appalling case of the Chagos Islanders, who, it shows, between 1969 and 1971, were forcibly deported en masse from their homeland through the collusion of the British and American governments. Anglo-American policy makers chose to so act due to their perception that the islands would be strategically vital bases for controlling the Indian Ocean through the projection of aerial and naval power. At a time during the Cold War when most newly independent post-colonial states were moving away from the Western orbit, it seems British and American officials rather felt that allowing the islanders to decide the fate of the islands was not a viable option. Instead they chose to effect the wholesale forcible removal of the native population. The film shows that no provision was made for the islanders at the point of their ejection, and that from the dockside in Mauritius where they were left, the displaced Chagossian community fell into three decades of privation, and in these new circumstances, beset by homesickness, they suffered substantially accelerated rates of death.<br /><br />Following the passage of more than three decades, however, in recent months (and years), following the release of many utterly damning papers from Britain's Public Record Office (one rather suspects that there was some mistake, and these papers were not supposed to have ever been made public), resultant legal appeals by the Chagossian community in exile have seen British courts consistently find in favour of the islanders and against the British State. As such, the astonishing and troubling conclusions drawn out in the film can only reasonably be seen as proved. Nevertheless, the governments of Great Britain and the United States have thus far made no commitment to return the islands to what the courts have definitively concluded are the rightful inhabitants. This is a very worthwhile film for anyone to see, but it is an important one for Britons and Americans to watch. To be silent in the face of these facts is to be complicit in a thoroughly ugly crime.

positive

This show is about three little girls. (D.J, Stephanie, and Michelle) Their Mother is killed by a drunk driver so their father Danny invites his Brother-in-law (Jesse) and his Old Friend(Joey). So the whole show is about living life. The girls go through life's troubles and have life lessons. They develop crushes, boyfriends, and many more. The whole show is basically about to go with the flow. You do not have to hold grudges you just have to let it go. I think this show is really good and fun to watch. I grew up watching this show and still watch it today. I am glad they still air this show on television. I watch it almost every day. I rate it 10/10.

positive

You don't need to read this review.<br /><br />An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.<br /><br />Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.<br /><br />The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.<br /><br />I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. <br /><br />This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.<br /><br />The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.<br /><br />Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.<br /><br />It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.<br /><br />Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.<br /><br />Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.<br /><br />Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.<br /><br />The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.<br /><br />It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.<br /><br />This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.<br /><br />The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.<br /><br />A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.<br /><br />Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.<br /><br />Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.<br /><br />This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.

positive

This is a powerful documentary about domestic abuse in the Cameroon. The "sisters" in law are female lawyers and judges who in 2004 successfully prosecuted husbands for abusive treatment of their spouses and won one woman a divorce she desperately wanted through a Muslim council. It is rather long -- about two hours -- but fascinating in terms both of the individual plaintiffs and defendants and the lawyers who successfully represented them in court rooms presided over by female judges. It will leave you, as it left me, with many questions about exactly how this change occurred. How and when did women come to occupy positions of authority in the Cameroon? Have the several cases featured in this film had a significant effect on the treatment of women generally by their spouses? Was the granting of a divorce by a Muslim court, against the express wishes of the husband, a one time event? I'm not suggesting that the film makers could have answered these questions. They made the movie two years ago, not yesterday. And the movie they made deserves a wide audience.

positive

This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.

negative

One of b- and c-movie producer Roger Corman's greatest cult classics was the Ramones vehicle (originally designated for Cheap Trick), Rock N' Roll High School. It's just a simple, technically dated story (but would serve up extra doses of nostalgia humor considering these were the kind of things that made Napoleon Dynamite characters funny--see Eaglebauer's van) about teenagers who love rock n' roll.<br /><br />Students at Vince Lombardi High School are met with resistance by the evil principal, Miss Evelyn Togar (played by cult classic favorite, Mary Woronov) who fears that Rock N' Roll turns kids into uncontrollable, amoral deviants and vows to make a Rock N' Roll-free zone. Actually, she intends to wipe out Rock N' Roll for all students, regardless of whether its at school, and she has the cooperation of most of the adults who might make the plan successful.<br /><br />But not if Riff Randell (PJ Soles) can help it. A Ramones fanatic, she has written some songs (including Rock N' Roll High School) that she wants to give to the Ramones, and in trying to do so, is rebuffed by Miss Togar who does all she can to keep her from going to see the Ramones play in town. It culminates into an ultimate revolt between the obsolete fun-hating adults and the teenagers (in an ending that is reminiscent of Over the Edge, somewhat). After the years of punk, when the fame of garage rockers, The Ramones (and others) would mark another shift in music evolution, it was great to see a movie that celebrated the fun of it all and in such a humorous, exaggerated way.<br /><br />It is mostly mild comedy, but a great feel-good comedy nonetheless when you're in the mood for something more laid back to entertain you. With Jerry Zucker (of Airplane fame) and Joe Dante (of Gremlins fame) both taking part in some of the directing, you can get the idea for what kind of humor you're in for (and not to mention, expect to see Dick Miller even if only for a few minutes in the film's finale). The story must've later inspired (and was consequently updated) by the mid-90s comedy, Detroit Rock City, which some minor character changes in the vehicle for aged glam rockers, Kizz.<br /><br />I would recommend passing on the Corey Feldman vehicle, Rock N' Roll High School Forever, released nearly a decade later. The original is still the best.

positive

Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.<br /><br />It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).<br /><br />There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.<br /><br />There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..<br /><br />Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.<br /><br />I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine.

negative

I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.<br /><br />

negative

I really do not have any clue as to why some people find the power rangers television show even remotely interesting at all. The costumes are completely ridiculous and the people playing in them also look completely foolish at the same time. There is absolutely anything remotely interesting about the power rangers. This is just a higher priced television commercial designed to sell extremely cheesy plastic garbage to the unsuspecting children around the world. From the notes, I can see that it's been banned in the country of New Zealand and from what I have seen, I can agree with their decision. Avoid this show at all costs, it's terrible and ridiculous.

negative

As a Native film professor, I can honestly say that this is perhaps one of the worst films with Native content that I have ever viewed. I would rather get a root canal than view this film again. The use of stereotyping, uncreative attempts at utilizing portions of traditional coyote stories and poor camera work were only made worse by the glib uncreative story-line and bad script. The writer and director have displayed the worst parts of a colonized approach to portraying Native people and communities. If this person is Native, they need to go home and apologize to everyone they know for being an apple and for the internalized racism and poor sense of humor that they have developed. If this person is non-native, they need to seriously re-examine their white privilege and ask themselves if they are displaying unexamined, unintentional racism, or if they are intentionally being ignorant. My only hope is that the Native actors in this film had a good time and at least got paid for their efforts. If you want to see good Native films then check out: Christmas in the Clouds, Dance me Outside, Medicine River, PowWow Highway, Smoke Signals...to name just a few.

negative

What would happened when a depressed cop works with a shrink on probation? May be a lot of fun... This movie set a benchmark in the action/comedy genre of the Argentinean cinema. Dearable characters, probable story and a pace that between laughs has some thrill. I recommended it for a pleasant time of entertaining. Peretti and Luque join their efforts to fight against a cold and daringly foe in a time when it's difficult to trust someone. This movie will surprise you, the other side of the coin of "Analyze me", but not alike, with nothing to envy. And if you like to know Bs.AS there where few scenes of downtown and the city center.

positive

This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound, film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.<br /><br />Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.<br /><br />I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful. I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ... flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone fluctuations.<br /><br />Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10.

negative

In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.

negative

The year is 1896.Jeff Webster (James Stewart) doesn't like people.There's only one friend he's got and he's Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan), an old sympathetic man.They're driving a cattle herd with them.That would be their key to richness.In Skagway they run into trouble when Sheriff Gannon (John McIntire) takes the cattle.Now Jeff only has to get it back and drive it through the U.S. Canadian border to Dawson.Now they have a group of other people with them, like the ladies Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) and Renee Vallon (Corinne Calvet).There the two men get into the gold business.Anthony Mann's and James Stewart's fourth collaboration, The Far Country (1954) is a fine western, indeed.The acting work is superb.Walter Brennan makes a terrific sidekick to Stewart.Ruth Roman is brilliant and Corinne Calvet's delightful.Jay C. Flippen is very good as Dawson Marshal Rube Morris.The great Jack Elam and Kathleen Freeman are seen in smaller roles.It's fantastic to watch how Jimmy Stewart overcome's all the troubles in his way.There's just the man and his rifle.But also he's vulnerable.

positive

I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For "tiny" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in "Strike!(1998)," when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked "Was it beautiful?"<br /><br />Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more.

negative

This miracle of a movie is one of those films that has a lasting, long term effect on you. I've read a review or two from angry people who I guess are either republicans or child beaters, and their extremist remarks speak of the films power to confront people with their own darkest secrets. No such piece of art has ever combined laughter and tears in me before and that is the miracle of the movie. The realism of the movie and it's performance by Bret Carr is not to be missed. The very nature of it's almost interactive effect, will cause people to leave the theater either liberated or questioning their very identity. Bravo on the next level of cinema.

positive

Watched on Hulu (far too many commercials!) so it broke the pacing but even still, it was like watching a really bad buddy movie from the early sixties. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis where both parts are played by Jerry Lewis. If I were Indian, I'd protest the portrayal of all males as venal and all women as shrews. They cheated for the music videos for western sales and used a lot of western models so the males could touch them I usually enjoy Indian films a lot but this was a major disappointment, especially for a modern Indian film. The story doesn't take place in India (the uncle keeps referring to when Mac will return to India) but I can't find out where it is supposed to be happening.

negative

This is a great movie but there could be more about Soylent Green. There should be more scenes of what they do to people. How people act in 2022. I think it would be neat to see if all this does happen in the year 2022 and beyond. Even if you still know what the secret is it is a great movie. So go rent or buy this movie right NOW!!

positive

As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.<br /><br />Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.<br /><br />I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.<br /><br />This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.<br /><br />Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.<br /><br />My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.<br /><br />I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.<br /><br />At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."<br /><br />This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."

negative

Slaughter High is intrinsically your emblematic 80s slasher flick. A prank goes out of hand leaving a geeky guy horribly burnt. A few years later the geeky guy returns and starts killing the people who hurt him. Now the story might sound intriguing and very entertaining, but what makes this horrible film so different from the rest of the 80s slasher flicks is that it has some humorless flaws and continuation errors.<br /><br />The acting is horrendous, however, actually not as bad as one would suspect. Though it doesn't help that every character in the film are so grody and unlikable. The lead, Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) is the easily the biggest tormentor of them all and she's the one that we are ostensibly supposed to share compassion and root for. Not to mention, the geeky guy is almost too geeky and I think that even stereotypical geeks themselves would be rudely maddened and just downright antagonized by how geeky he his, so when he gets mauled, does anyone really care? <br /><br />There is much unintentional laughter potential. Munro's lack of acting talent is quite apparent, which puts her down at the same level as the rest of the awful cast. However, the most amusement is easily when the film poorly attempts to pose Munro, who is in her mid 30s at the time, as a teenager amongst a cast of teenagers. And then when it comes to later life and Munro is playing around her real age, the rest of the cast do not pass as adults. This all goes well with a theme song that is a hilariously pose of heavy metal thrash accompanied by maniacal laughter and a voice shrieking "I'll get you." With that being said, Slaughter High really isn't a very good slasher flick, but it does have a bad cheesy entertainment value to it. Perhaps an essential for hardcore slasher fans, but don't expect dilemma, suspense, or any credibility from it. Horrible!!!

negative

OK, the story - a simpleminded loony enters a life of bored to death young chick and her kid brother and wreaks havoc in their lives - is mildly interesting one. Anyway, ideas are nothing (everyone has some...) - the execution is everything.<br /><br />This is what bothered me with this flick. And it did bother me immensely. The rhythm (directing, editing) was slow, the pace was uneven and the climax expected. We have seen those frigging highways five, six, seven times - why? Norton character's troubles were seen as a childish game, not enough deep to understand his problems / soul / blah and to root for or against him. Is he a coward, a manipulator or just a loony? References to the "Taxi Driver" were ridiculous and unnecessary and for certain not in favor for this flick (or to E.N. for that matter).<br /><br />And IMHO, it is cowardly executed at the end. Cheap emotional tricks for teenage lovers somewhere in Mid America. This guy should have killed the kid, blamed the father, create a real havoc. Or the kid should have killed the father at the end etc., but no, we have gotten cheesy ending where kids miss the loony, the father is puzzled over his own life and relationship with them and the loony, of course, dies. The happy dysfunctional family stays unharmed, safe and happily bored again so we could enjoy our pop-corns, undisturbed.<br /><br />And that scene where the loony enters the movie, oh my God, I would have to think long and hard to find something stupider than that! You do not shoot such a scene with a hidden camera and hidden crew. Creators of that movie probably thought that was a good idea but it was more than annoying. Again, if you're a 16 years old girl somewhere in Kansas nowhere or whatever-where and dream about having sex with a crazy man twice your age, OK, then you might enjoy this movie and its "message".

negative

Having heard so many people raving about this film I thought I'd give it a go. Apart from being incredibly slow, which I don't mind as long as the wait is worth it, but it just isn't. As many others have said there are so many inconsistencies and so much of this film just doesn't ring true. The reaction of the 4 men switches from shock, horror on finding the body to complete indifference whilst they fish. Surely if they were the type of men that would go on happily fishing, then they would have just reported the body and said they had only discovered it after their fishing trip....why on earth tie the body to a tree, go fishing and then tell everyone you found the body 2 days previously? Its so hard to watch a film knowing that the behaviour of the main characters is so inconsistent. As for the rest of the townsfolk, well you'd think at least one of them might show some curiosity about who actually killed the woman! The body itself, naked except for the knickers....what scenario leads to that? If she was raped then why still the knickers? If she was raped with the clothes on, then why remove them afterwards bar the knickers? If she wasn't raped, then why take all her clothes off bar the knickers....leaving yourself with evidence to dispose of? I truly cant think of any realistic scenario that would lead to that other than killing someone to steal their clothes so you can fill up your jumble sale stall! Oh well its watchable but only just and only because, despite the poor script, the acting is strong.

negative

That movie was awesome! I can't get over it's songs. I think I'm a little too old for musicals, but that movie deserves some credit here, guys! My especial favorite was Jack Wild. Me, being a British actor lover, you can't restrain me from all those nice-looking fresh faced, young men. I never knew that when Jack was doing that movie he was sixteen! He looks like an eleven- year old. He's short, that's what helps. Try posting up your replies, fellow posters, so I can relate to your experiences. Oh, and about Oliver Reed, that guy, Bill Sikes, I think that drone look is really familiar. Any idea where he's starred in before? If so, post it up, I'd really like to know.

positive

What a load of Leftist Hollywood bilge. This movie glorifies mutiny as brave and noble if it be for pacifist principles. The fairytale ends with the pacifist character, played by Danzel Washington, actually getting promoted for his treason. What is it with these Hollywood tools? Is this still payback for McCarthyism?<br /><br />If I sound cynical it's because I am fed up with movies hawking a political agenda. The military brass in this movie are portrayed as, what else? Gung-ho war mongers. Sound familiar? Ever see a movie where the CIA or any government agency is not evil? Think about it. Yet again, Crimson Tide stresses the point. The Hackman character, U-boat captain Ramsey, comes across like a raving lunatic, until the very end when, of course he comes to his senses, does a complete 360, renounces his blood lust, suggests a promotion for the treasonous Ron Hunter, and repents by retiring from the service. A guy mutinies, takes command of your boat, puts the U.S at grave risk of receiving a nuclear first-strike, and you promote him???? What hogwash!

negative

Since Educating Rita, Julie Walters has been one of my role models, and her performance in this as a woman who helps the man she loves get in synch with his feminine side is magnificent. I would never have believed her character in the hands of a lesser actress, but Walters pulls it off with gusto and panache. Adrian Pasdar gives his best performance to-date in the male lead.

positive

Okay, as a long time Disney fan, I really -hate- direct-to-video Disney sequels. Walt HIMSELF didn't believe in them. He believed in "AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" being the end of it. But this one...REALLY ticked the taco. There were so many ripoffs of other Disney films in this, it wasn't funny. Quick summary, if you don't already know...: Melody, the daughter of Ariel and Prince Eric, is born. Ursula's sister, Morganna (who basically looks like Ursula, if she were to dye herself green and go on the Ally Macbeal starvation diet) shows up and, after trying to do the newborn tyke in, and failing, prophesizes doom for the characters. After that ordeal, Ariel goes into a lapse of being like her father, and refuses to tell Melody about her mermaid heritage, and later on, forbids her to go near the sea. Well surprise surprise. Melody finds out, being the stubborn brat she is, and runs away, then makes a deal with Morgana to become a mermaid, in exchange for something. (Gee does THAT sound familiar?) She becomes one, but in her half of the bargain, has to retrieve her granddaddy's Trident and bring it back to the sea witch. While doing THIS, she runs into a couple of outcast animals, a penguin and a walrus named Timon and Pumb--huh? wait...no! that's not Timon and Pumbaa! or is it? Could of fooled me. Anyway, i'd like to reveal more, but pretty much anything that could be guessed to happen does. OK so...long story short. This movie "borrows" too much from other (better) Disney films...and does it horribly. Come on...Tip and Dash? Why not just make Dash obscenely flatulent and make it an even more obvious ripoff! Ugh. Not to mention, the total character butchery of Ariel's persona. She's gone from being a freespirited, headstrong woman, to a clone of her father. Not good at all...they're basically telling us the sweet, firey little mermaid we've known to grow and love is dead. Plus Melody herself isn't such a great character either...she's damned annoying! And bratty! Not to mention what they've done to Flounder. Ugh...anyway if you decide to see this piece of created-mainly-for-profit-reasons, no-imagination, Eisner-sponsored c******t, I suggest maybe waiting 'till its on the Disney channel or some other tv station. Because, it's not even worth the price of a rental.<br /><br /> * out of ***** stars.

negative

I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? <br /><br />Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? <br /><br />Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? <br /><br />Do we need all the "in-jokes" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) <br /><br />Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen

negative

IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!

negative

this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.<br /><br />transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.<br /><br />its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.

negative

Genre: Dinosaur, animation, New York, time travel, circus.?<br /><br />Main characters: Rex the Tyrannosaurus rex, Elsa the pterodactyl, Dweeb the Parasarolophus, Ooo the Triceratops, a boy called Louis, a girl called Cecilia and Captain New-eyes. ? Actors: John Goodman (Rex), Yeardley Smith (Cecilia), Martin Short (Stubbs the clown), Felicity Kendal (Elsa) etc.?<br /><br />What happens: Four dinosaurs (see above) are fed some "brain grain cereal" and are now cuddly, friendly dinosaurs who are going to be nice to children. They go into New York, with big plans…<br /><br />My thoughts: This is a cute animated film. The animation of the dinosaurs when they go cuddly and friendly is a bit floppy and not-so-good, but they look pleasant all the same that way. I like the dinosaurs when they are cuddly and friendly, they are nice, friendly and good. I like (almost) all the characters featured, especially Elsa and Cecilia, but of course I like the others as well. Overall, I like this film a lot! :-)<br /><br />Recommended to: People who like good children's animated films, people who like dinosaurs, John Goodman and people who think that circuses aren't always what they seem… Enjoy! :-)

positive

My 2 year old likes the Doodlebops show, it seems to keep his attention for awhile. The characters are interesting, vibrant with primary colours and all. There's not much educational content that the intended target audience could benefit from, but they do seem to have a theme each show and try to teach kids about sharing and respect and other basics, so I like it for that. It's well produced with high production values. But it's really just an average show like most of the shows on TV these days. We don't buy into the merchandise angle and have our son wearing everything Dooblebop. I don't think we'd spend money to go to a live show, if they ever came to town. Going to The Zoo or the Science Centre is a far better experience for everyone involved and in my opinion is money better spent.

positive

The makers have chosen the best people for the job, and set the scene wonderfully. Every interior is full of detail that tells you all about the people who live in it. Whether the period is the 20s (the first story), the present (ie 1950) for the middle story, or the 1910s (the last), costumes and settings are lovingly observed and created. I love the fussy costumes of the two old ladies in the sanatorium - exquisite lace overlaid by the finest Shetland shawls. Roland Culver as Ashenden is very appealing, but never mind the soppy young lovers, it's Raymond Huntley as the man who resents his wife's health and independence who harrows our emotions. He usually played comical, pompous types, but here he is subtle and convincing and very impressive. The China Seas (great 30s film starring Gable and Harlow) stole the plot from the Mr Know All episode (and also nicked a story by Kipling). I wish we saw more of Naunton Wayne as the jealous husband - though he has a good moment looking melancholy in a Mexican hat. I love that posh bird who plays his wife, too.

positive

I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).<br /><br />The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.<br /><br />It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.<br /><br />Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.

negative

What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch <br /><br />PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly

negative

The story-line of "The Thief of Bagdad" is complex, owing to its being told in flashbacks and having three separate and equally important strands woven together. The screenplay by Lajo Biros and the dialogue by Miles Malleson keep the story moving skillfully at all points.The young King Ahmad of Bagdad is angry at his vizier Jaffar for executing a man for having different ideas. He discovers while in disguise that people blame him for Jaffar's deeds and hate him. He is imprisoned by Jaffar, where he meets Abu the young thief. The two escape and take a boat to the city of Basra. There the companions spy when men clear the way so none will see the Princess of the city passing by. Ahmad falls in love with her and visits her in her garden. He tells her he has come to her from beyond time and wins a kiss. Then he is captured. When Jaffar comes to win the Princess of Basra for himself, Ahmad attacks the evil vizier who blinds him and turns Abu into a dog. Jaffar then asks for the Princess's hand, and he gives the gift of a mechanical flying horse to the Sultan of Basra. The blind Ahmad then tells his tale in the marketplace, accompanied by Abu as his dog. The Prince has fallen into a sleep and nothing can wake her. So Jaffar sends his servant Halima for Ahmad and the dog, in hopes the prince can rouse her. He does awaken her. She boards a ship to find a doctor to cure Ahmad, but she is captured by Jaffar who then throws the dog overboard. She then allows Jaffar to take her in his arms, on his promise to restore Ahmad's sight and turn Abu back into a thief. The princess sees a vision of Ahmad; he is in a boat; Jaffar sends a storm to beset him and Abu is shipwrecked on a deserted island. Abu finds a genie or djinn who wants to kill him now that he is free after many centuries spent imprisoned in a bottle. Abu tricks him into proving he really came from so small a vessel, then corks him in again. For freeing him, he gets three wishes. His first is for sausages. In the meanwhile, the Princess pleads with her father to refuse Jaffar; but Jaffar shows the Sultan a new mechanical toy, one of whose six arms stabs him to death. Abu makes a second wish, to find Ahmad. The cunning genie flies him to the goddess of the All-Seeing eye. Abu has to climb a great web to get to the gem that is the eye, battling a giant spider, then scaling the goddess's statue. Abu gazes into the 'eye' and sees Ahmad in a canyon. He has the genie take him to Ahmad. Ahmad uses the eye to see the princess. She smells a flower and forgets everything at once. Abu wishes they were in Bagdad, but the genie laughs and leaves; Jaffar tells the Princess that she is in love with him, omitting mention of Ahmad. Ahmad tries to fight his way to the Princess, but Jaffar smashes the 'eye'. Abu finds himself in the "Land of Legend", where the old men who rule want to make him their king. He steals a bow and a magic carpet and escapes instead, to hurry to save Ahmad and the princess. The thief arrives in time to save the young king from the executioner, using his bow from the flying carpet, to the wonder of the throng who had come to watch the execution. Jaffar tries to flee on the mechanical flying horse, but another shot from the bow finishes him. Ahmad is ruler again and plans to wed his Princess; but when he tries to make Abu his vizier, the young thief refuses, saying that what he wants is adventure, not hard work and confinement in a palace however grand it may be. This fantastic story was given a sumptuous production by producer Alexander Korda. The production was designed by Vincent Korda who was also art director, while Georges Perinal did the colorful cinematography. The directors credited are Ludwig Berger and Michael Powell, with Tim Whelan, Alexander Korda, William Cameron Menzies and Zoltan Korda participating. The extraordinary and numerous costumes designs were the work of John Armstrong, Oliver Messel and Marcel Vertes. The production, apart from its gorgeous and expensive-looking visual splendors, I claim is dominated by two other elements, the choral music of Miklos Rozsa and the performance by Conrad Veidt as the evil Jaffar. Rex Ingram plays the genie with a curious accent, plus his usual intelligence and power. June Duprez is lovely and effective as the Princess Mary Morris is a sad and beautiful Halima, and Miles Malleson a properly bumbling and avaricious Sultan. As Ahmad, John Justin appears to do most of what can be done with the part of a young prince in love and then some; he is memorably good in his winning role. This film has a spaciousness about it that is found, I assert, in other Korda works also. Its imaginative content stands in contrast to very-strong realistic sets, costumes and set-design elements. This is one of the most memorable idea-level fantasies of all time, worthy to be enjoyed over and over.

positive

The movie is about two stories: one is a political murder of a call-girl, the other an upper-class political party. The crossing point is the public relation character played by Al Paccino, as he is the witness of the crime and the instigator of the evening.<br /><br />If the script is terrible without any decent dialogs and the directing void of any sense of drama, the performance of Al is memorable: how many fellows can be as much convincing as a powerful and feared man (as "The Godfather") as here as a little servant (see also "Donnie Brasco").<br /><br />Actually, the big young lion has become a tired old one. This passing of ages is very moving, because it makes the audience ponders about getting old too.<br /><br />But his slowness is only a make-up because he can get back his energy in Church scene.<br /><br />Maybe it is a good thing that the movie is so awful because it put the starlight on Al's talent!

negative

Arthur has always been a personal film for me for two reasons. A good friend of mine who worked on the film as an extra and to help out with the horses during the stable scene just recently passed away. If you look fast you can see Frank Graham during the restaurant scene in the background while Dudley Moore and Jill Eikenberry are in conversation. Frank was a champion equestrian and will be missed by all who knew him.<br /><br />Secondly though, I actually knew a real life Arthur Bach. He was not quite as wealthy as Arthur, but spent 47 years of his life basically as a kid. His parents tightly controlled his purse strings, but his rent and utilities were paid for in a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. He spent a good deal of his time getting himself intoxicated on various spirits and making a public spectacle of himself, just like Dudley Moore does. <br /><br />The wonder with Arthur is why anyone would bother with him wealth of not. But that's the other half of the equation. My friend was a most charming person when you got to know him. In fact it was almost a compulsion to be charming. He couldn't buy a newspaper or magazine without trying to establish some level of relationship with the vendor. He spent his life being a perfect party guest. The term wastrel which was in common use in the 19th century would apply to him.<br /><br />And that's what Dudley Moore is, a wastrel. Unlike my friend Moore has John Gielgud to clean up after him. That's a full time job as we see demonstrated in Arthur. My friend also never found a Liza Minnelli, a male Liza Minnelli in fact because he was gay. Still Moore's portrayal of Arthur Bach is deadly accurate and so real for me.<br /><br />Arthur, 20th century wastrel, is being forced to marry another trust fund baby in Jill Eikenberry. Since he won't work for a living, the threat of being cut off is quite real for him. He only has his butler Hobson played by John Gielgud and chauffeur Bitterman played by Ted Post to pour his troubles out to. We should all have such troubles.<br /><br />John Gielgud in his nearly century of life certainly did better work than in Arthur on film and in fact Gielgud is more prominently known for his stage performances. Yet 1981 was a year of sentiment at Oscar time. The Academy gave Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn Oscars for On Golden Pond and Gielgud the Best Supporting Actor Award essentially for the work of a lifetime. That man was amazing, still at his craft almost to the end.<br /><br />So to Frank Graham who worked in the film and to Jackie Weiss, a genuine real life Arthur, I dedicate this review.

positive

This movie was exactly what I expected, not great, but also not that bad either. In my opinion PG13 movies aren't scary enough so that's why I already knew I was going to be bored throughout the entire film. Sure there were scary things going on in the hotel room, but nothing we all haven't already seen. I guess I didn't like it because I thought there were too many twists and turns happening; it got old and repetitive. I also didn't understand if all the things Cusack was experiencing in the room was real or not. There is no explanation for any of the events that occurred. The movie just drags on and when it finally does come to an end you want it to keep going because you are still waiting around for someone to tell you what the whole movie was about. What I did like was the special effects. Other than that there wasn't much enjoyment from it. Maybe its just me but I thought this was below average.

negative

I don't believe they made this film. Completely unnecessary. The first film was okay. But there was no need for a sequel, certainly not after a television series that was already a sequel to the first film. This film feels like a soap-opera. The writing is so bad, it's utterly simple. The jokes don't come across, the acting is flat, it's shot like a soap, it lacks any direction. The first film had a good emotional spine behind it. Every character had a little arc. It was very simple then but somehow it worked and I could see the merit of that film. But this time around, there is no cohesive story-line. The characters are dull stereotypes and nothing interesting happens. One good thing: the Brazilian boy who plays Axel Daeseleire's son is pretty well cast. That was their one moment of creative success on this film. I hear they already shot a second television series as a sequel to 'Team Spirit 2' but please God, don't let them make a third feature installment...

negative

of the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.<br /><br />after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.<br /><br />Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.<br /><br />the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.<br /><br />the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.<br /><br />there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory.

positive

The plot of the story and the performance of the lead actors are very much down-to-earth! The romance between two teen-age boys on the screen was done in good taste. You can easily relate to their emotions if you are one but if you are not one, you can appreciate the kind of love the film is trying to impart.

positive

Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.<br /><br />Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.<br /><br />There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)<br /><br />Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.<br /><br />Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.

negative

This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<

negative

Anyone who doesn't like this film is one who is afraid to explore his or her own demons. This film does make the viewer a little uncomfortable at times, but that is its intention. It asks you to look at your own life and confront the obstacles head on like Lou eventually does. It asks you to overcome the fear of perception and become who you are meant to be. Bret Carr holds up a mirror unlike any filmmaker has. The intention and the message is clear and profound. People's apprehension about this film stems only from their own insecurities. An open-minded viewer takes this inspirational message and runs with it. Sometimes a life- changing realization DOES come in a flash -- a light bulb going on. This story is real and changes the lives if its viewers in a real way.

positive

I had never heard of Leos Carax until his Merde segment in last years Tokyo, and his was easily the stand-out the film's three stories. It wasn't my favorite of the shorts, but it was the most unique, and the most iconic. "The Lovers on the Bridge" was the first of his full length features I've seen, a virtuoso romantic film that uses image and music to communicate an exuberant young love that overflows into the poetic. Though he's classified as a neo-nouvelle vogue, his films owe as much to silent cinema as the 60's experimental narratives. His movies are closer to Jean Vigo in "L'atlante", Jean Cocteau, and Guy Maddin, than Godard and Truffaut.<br /><br />In Boy Meets Girl Carax's 1984 debut he uses black and white and the heavy reliance on visual representation to display emotional states. He combines the exaggerated worlds of Maddin, but based in a reality that never seems quite stable like Cocteau, but by virtue of its expressions it becomes more accessible, emotional, and engaging like Vigo's movies.<br /><br />The story of Boy Meets Girl is simple, and similar to Carax's two following films which comprise this "Young lovers" trilogy. A boy named Alex played by Denis Lavant (who plays a character named Alex in Carax's next two movies), has just been dumped by his girlfriend who has fallen in love with his best friend. In the first scene he nearly kills his friend on a boardwalk but stops short of murder. He walks around reminded of her by sounds of his neighbors having sex, and daydreams of his girlfriend and best friend getting intimate. He steals records for her and leaves them at his friend's apartment, but avoids contacting either of them directly. He wanders around and finds his way to a party, where he meets a suicidal young woman, and the film becomes part "Breathless" and part "Limelight".<br /><br />Later he is advised by an old man with sign language to "speak up for yourself...young people today It's like they forgot how to talk." The old man gives an anecdote about working in the days of silent film, and how an actor timid off stage became a confident "lion" when in front of the camera. Heres where the movie tips its hand, but the overt reference to silent film is a crucial scene, since it overlaps the style of the film (silent and expressionist), with the content (a lovelorn young man trying to work up the courage to say and do the things he really wants to). Though Alex is pensive at first and a torrent of romantic words tumbling out of him by the end, he is the shy actor who becomes a lion thanks to the films magnification of his inward feelings which aren't easy to nail down from moment to moment, aside from a desire to fall in love.<br /><br />There is a scene in the film where Alex retreats from the party into a room where the guests have stashed their children and babies, all crying in a chorus that fills that room, until he turns on a tape of a children's show making them fall silent. Unexpectedly due a glitch the TV ends up playing a secret bathroom camera which reveals the hostess sobbing to herself into her wig about someone she misses. Even as Carax is self-reflexive and self deprecating of the very kind of angst ridden coming of age tale he is trying to tell (the room full of whining infants), he's mature enough to see through the initial irony to the lovelorn in everything the film crosses. Even the rich old, bell of the ball has a brother she misses. In another scene an ex astronaut stares at the moon he once walked on in his youth while sipping a cocktail in silence.<br /><br />Though indebted to films before talkies, Carax is a master of music, knowing when to pipe in the Dead Kennedy's "Holiday in Cambodia", or an early David Bowie song, the sounds of a man playing piano, or of a girl softly humming.<br /><br />In Boy Meets Girl, when someone gets their heart broken we see blood pour from their shirt, when a couple kiss on the sidewalk they spin 360 degrees as if attached to a carousel, when Alex enters a party an feels out of place, its because the most interesting people in the world really are in attendance; like the famous author who can't speak because of a bullet lodged in his brain, or the miss universe of 1950 standing just across from the astronaut. This film is the missing link between Jean Piere Jenuet, Michel Gondry, and Wes Anderson, whose stylistic flourishes and quirky tales of whimsy, all have a parallel with different visuals, musical, and emotional cues in these Carax movies.<br /><br />Every line of dialog, every piece of music and every effect and edit in this movie resonated with me on some emotional level, some I lack words to articulate. There are many tales of a boy meeting a girl, but rather than just explore the banal details of any particular event this movie captures the ecstatic truth of adolescent passion and disappointment. The other movies you want to watch can wait. See this first. If I were to make films, I would want them to be like this, in fact I wish all films were like this, where the ephemeral becomes larger than life, and life itself becomes a dream.

positive

Hey guys, <br /><br />i have been looking every where to find these two movies and i can't find them anywhere in my local area. (I am Australian). Could You please help me and tell me where i can buy it from. In General Home Ward Bound 1 and 2 are the best movies i have ever seen and are good for people of all ages. It was my favourite movie wen i was 5 and it still is even now when i am a teenager. It is a great movie for the whole family. My entire family loves this movie except for my younger sister because i have watched it that many times that she is sick of it. I love this movie and i cant wait till i can buy it again on DVD.<br /><br />Sally

positive

If you want to see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.

negative

I sure would like to see a resurrection of a up dated Seahunt series with the tech they have today it would bring back the kid excitement in me.I grew up on black and white TV and Seahunt with Gunsmoke were my hero's every week.You have my vote for a comeback of a new sea hunt.We need a change of pace in TV and this would work for a world of under water adventure.Oh by the way thank you for an outlet like this to view many viewpoints about TV and the many movies.So any ole way I believe I've got what I wanna say.Would be nice to read some more plus points about sea hunt.If my rhymes would be 10 lines would you let me submit,or leave me out to be in doubt and have me to quit,If this is so then I must go so lets do it.

positive

Madhur from CHANDNI BAR started making realistic films, which some people called dry <br /><br />He made SATTA which was another realistic though filmy film but a great film<br /><br />AAN men at work was a formula film by him which flopped<br /><br />He returns with his superlative PAGE 3<br /><br />A film which dwelves into the lives of journalists and it's a brilliant film<br /><br />The film is well narrated though the half baked romantic portions of Konkana could be avoided but that is forgiven<br /><br />The entire Upendra Limaye track is superb too<br /><br />while the Atul Kulkarni track is great too<br /><br />The dial between Manoj Joshi and his friends are funny at first but repetitive at times<br /><br />The subplot of Bikram- Tara is brilliant and so is the entire hospital scene and also the final child abuse which shocks you<br /><br />The film has a open ended ending which is nicely handled<br /><br />Madhur does a great job Music is okay<br /><br />Konkana excels as Madhavi, using her expressions to the best Tara Sharma is decent except her voice Sandhya Mridul is good as usual Upendra Limaye excels in his part as the cop, one of the talented actors Sadly he isn't used well nowdays Atul Kulkarni too is good in his small part Boman Irani is restrained and does a great job rest are okay

positive

This is a very rare example of a movie about transvestitism (of heterosexuals). The film treats the taboo theme so that even a general audience not knowing of transvestitism at all will strongly sympathize with its main character. Adrian Pasdar is very believable as Gerald/Geraldine and shall not be forgot for this brillant acting. The directing of Christopher Monger is very sensitively, treating such a difficult issue quite excellently, packed into a good story. Not a big movie, neither an "art" film, but a little, lovely motion picture!

positive

Reese Witherspooon's first movie. Loved it. The plot and the acting was top notch. You are emotionally involved with the characters. In my opinion, a must see.<br /><br />After watching this movie you will see why Reese Witherspoon's acting career has been so successful. <br /><br />The other cast members do a great job also. <br /><br />The movie flows extremely well. There is not a boring moment in the whole picture. The Man in the Moon's length is just right. <br /><br />As I said earlier, I think this movie was excellent. I have seen it numerous times, and have enjoyed every one of the viewings.

positive

The dehumanising effect of war is a much-studied subject in the movies; as is the equally dehumanising, but potentially life-saving, dehumanising effect of military training. Joel Schumacher's 'Tigerland' follows the standard template, we see men treated like dirt but emerging as soldiers, with a degree of mutual respect for their commanding officers, and judgement is reserved on whether such an extreme process can be considered justified; as is judgement of the merits of the war for which they are being trained (typically, as here, Vietnam). But 'Tigerland' has an interesting take, by centring its account on a cocky dissident named Bozz (played outstandingly well by Colin Farrell), who understands that all power governs ultimately by consent, and the lack of awareness among the powerless of their own complicity. Around this character, a taught, gripping plot has been constructed, and it's also a plus that the action never leaves America (whereas Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket', to name just one other film of a similar type, lost focus once the action shifted to Asia). Although this is not a film of staggering originality, it's supremely well done and captivating viewing throughout: the best film from this director that I've seen, and among the very best of its genre.

positive

Michael Williams, who works for BBC, finds a somehow impressive Italian picture which gets mixed in the material of his ongoing task titled DIABOLICAL ART: A DOCUMENTARY. But since his wife's mysterious death her daughter, Emily, has been emotionally disturbed, so he goes Spoleto, where the problematic picture is, with her and her nanny, Jill. And there is a Countess, who is also a psychic, and she informs him that the picture was somehow made at the night that a young witch named Emilia was executed. Michael doesn't believe her story, but after that Emily has hysterical spasm and Jill is killed... This Italian film is, of course, almost innocently influenced by THE EXORCIST, but this one is much cheaper, much simpler,and in a sense, much dirtier. First of all, it should be said this film is full of confusion. For instance, the story shows Emily is a reincarnation of Emilia. But when Emily sees her in the flashbacks, she perceives her exclusively from a third-person's point of view. But if she is the reincarnation of Emilia, she should and must see the past from nothing but Emilia's point of view. Confusions of this kind, which the film has many, are almost exclusively based upon a problematic fact that the film is too cowardly, rather than ambivalent, to specify its own quasi-Freudian theme, namely, pre-adolescent girl's one-way incestuous wish. To make matters worse, this film also has characteristic problem (if not confusion); every character is too naive and helpless to be realistic and/or believable living human. Regarding Emily (or Emilia), she is after all a child, and one can say it is difficult to blame her mainly for her naiveness and helplessness. (And according to the Freudian theory, every girl wants to have her father's child(ren) in her own way. In this sense, Emily is not exclusively pathological; only her way of excluding other women from her father's love is problematically pathological. But, as I already mentioned, this film per se is too cowardly to be Freudian.) The problem is that adult characters are as childish and naive and helpless as Emily is. And because of this characteristic weakness even the psychic who can see almost everything cannot do anything down-to-earth, and because of the same weakness the very story of the film is ended in a badly escapist way. In addition, special effects of this film are incredibly cheap and laughable. Although Stelvio Cipriani's music is noteworthily beautiful (indeed this one is so good that it seems to be worth having it alone), the film as a whole is nothing but a cheap B-film which can disappoint even the 1970s'-Italian- horror-film-lovers.

negative

I love this movie/short thing. Jason Steele is amazing! My favorite parts are The French Song and in the opening title when the spatula soldier yells " SPOONS!" I crack up every time. I would recommend this movie to Knox Klaymation fans, and people who enjoy Jason Steele's other movies. His style of animation is very original. It takes a few views to notice the detailed backgrounds. His humor is also hilarious, and is definitely not something you'd hear before. Like Max the deformed Spatula who has a sound and light system in his head that beams colorful lights and happy music whenever he talks about his miserable life. This is a wonderful animation to watch anytime any where.

positive

I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.<br /><br />Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.<br /><br />Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.<br /><br />I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.

negative

First, let's get the "hoopla" out of the way.Hedy Lamarr was regarded as one of the most beautiful of women and the movies were a perfect medium for the many to see her beauty on screen.Here we have Hedy as a young fresh-faced 20 year old speaking in her native Austrian.I recently bought a 1990 uncensored version of this 1932/3 classic.Yes we see a brief close up of Hedy bare from the waist up but although she filmed the swimming & runaway horse scenes naked, the director Gustav Machaty uses the cover of branches, reflections in puddles, medium and long shots to show her thus in this famous scene; so don't go imagining there are any lascivious close ups or clinches.Her boyfriend , Pierre Nay keeps his clothes on at all times.Yes, fairly daring for its day but how innocous it looks now through 2003 eyes.<br /><br />As other learned reviews have stated this film should be looked at for the imagary, expressionism, and allegorical statements it makes with pictures of drops of water forming a ripple on the surface of a pale of water, farm machinery, landscapes etc.Sweet sounding strings run for most of "Extase's" length and the film has a "feel" of a transition between silent and sound in its direction and concept.The script is highly minimalist and economical the story being mainly imparted through the medium of facial and bodily gestures with just a few words of German spoken by the actors with English subtitles beneath.Even these few words seem almost superflous in the general lyrical vein which runs through the film.<br /><br />Put very simply this is the story of a young girl who marries a much older man (why we are never told and what did Eva see in him anyway?Money?), who is then trapped in an unconsumated and loveless marriage.She then returns to her father having left her husband and her father has to lie to his son in law.After a ride on her horse Eva decides to take a swim in the buff and loads up her clothes onto her horse's saddle.However her horse gets romantic notions itself and gallops off to greet its stablemate.Hedy rushes out of the lake naked and tries to recover her mount but an engineer at work sees and retrieves the horse then looks around for its owner.And so the romance is born.Her husband seeing that his rival must win Eva, later decides to shoot himself but I thought this was rather illogical and its main weakness bearing in mind his previous loveless relationship with Eva.<br /><br />Despite being a 1990 reissue title on VHS, the sound being 70 years old, is a bit soft and with background crackles, in line with films of its age.After a period of mourning our handsome boyfriend obviously is so in love with Eva he imagines her as a mother with an infant so we have to assume they live happily ever after.Just let the imagary wash over you and disabuse your mind of the style of films even of late 1930's vintage.This is a lyrical piece that can be enyoyed for its own sake and not just for its eye catching title.I gave it 7/10.

positive

If asked how I would define the word " Shallow " I would reply " Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production " . If asked how I would define the phrase " Wasted potential " I would reply " Watch a Jerry Bruckheimer production " . Bruckheimer productions are nearly always sure fire hits at the box office but nearly always receive critical pannings from the critics . Off the top of my head I can only think of AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN and BLACK HAWK DOWN getting a lot of critical acclaim . <br /><br />CRIMSON TIDE too received some begrudging acclaim from critics , it`s certainly one of Bruckheimer`s better films which alas isn`t saying much . The problem I had is the scenario that sets up the story : The Russians are fighting the Chechens and the conflict spreads through the whole of Russia leading to an ultra nationalist Russian to take over a nuclear missile base and threaten the West if they interfere . Maybe the ending of the cold war had everything to do with it but I found this set up very unconvincing . It`s not helped by some errors in geography like the French carrier Foch being in the Med ( Wouldn`t the Foch be better positioned in the black sea ? ) or that the expositional newsreel consists of familar footage featuring conflicts from the Balkans , the first gulf war and even Vietnam . Once again the adjective " Very unconvincing " crept into my mind . The story does improve somewhat when the story proper - A battle of wills concerning orders between a nuclear submarine commander and his number two - gets underway . Director Tony Scott does his best as do the cast , but the problem still lies in an unconvincing scenario . The worst thing is that if this had been made in the mid 1980s when WW3 was a real possibility - Nay probability - this film would have terrified me , but after the cold war ended so had the dangers of nuclear war which means CRIMSON TIDE has little impact .

negative

I own 2 home entertainment stores and I've seen a lot of bad movies in my time but this one was so bad it compelled me to register here and comment on it. How bad was it? Let's just say that Sofia Coppola deserved an Oscar for her performance in Godfather III when compared to Giada Colagrande's in this movie.<br /><br />It was robotic and uninspired. Her lover has just died one month prior to her arrival at the 'Rubber House' he had given her. Once there, she discovers he has cheated on her throughout her relationship but none of it seems to register with her. Within a day, she starts a relationship with Leslie, (Dafoe) the caretaker of the house. Even though she is married to Dafoe off screen, her scenes with him were cold and unemotional.<br /><br />If there was a plot, I missed it. Not even Willem Dafoe could save this movie from the amateur, cinematic train wreck that it is.

negative

This movie has a few things going for it right off the bat. Having Dani Filth as a lead actor is automatically going to make some people like this movie. Admittedly, I love Cradle of Filth and listened to the soundtrack to this movie long before I watched it. Dani Filth is a very recognizable character and makes for a great lead. The independent filming style of the movie is great for the creepy factor. There are some GORGEOUS actresses in this movie. For being low budget, the special effects weren't bad either. The ways that people died were very creative and nightmarish.<br /><br />Now on to the cons. There is VERY little talking throughout this whole movie, thus making for very little as far as character development. It's hard to fear for the lives of limp, static characters. When there was a little talking, the F bomb was abundant, popping up in random places. Yes, I understand people swear but it seems like a preteen boy scripted this and thought himself cool for including all the language. The storyline, what I could make out of it, was pretty good although many parts are left dangling and the lack of conversation leaves one often wondering what's happening.<br /><br />In the end, Cradle of Fear is like a porno for people who love sex and violence, but like a porno trying to pull of a storyline, it just doesn't work too well. Rent it though, if you're a morbid person looking to sate your blood and flesh appetite.

negative

This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.<br /><br />Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****.

negative

What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.

negative

I watched this with a growing sense of unease. Why would God, in the shape of Ian Hunter, help these particular people in their attempted escape from Devils Island ? And what was he doing there in the first place ? I mean, I know God works in mysterious ways, but helping thieves and murderers and prostitutes find redemption, forgiveness and changes-of-heart in such a godforsaken location.... In any event it is hardly a likeable movie. Whatever Gable had by way of charm is missing in this portrait of a thoroughly selfish man, Crawford is as endearing as ever she was i.e. to me, not at all, and the whole look of the film makes it seem as if it was made 10 years before.Compared to contemperaneous films like "Stagecoach" and "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town", this looks prehistoric.

negative

What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot.

negative

You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.<br /><br />My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.<br /><br />Mmmmm, schlock...

negative

I heard a few friends one day saying that "Scarface sucks... some idiot tried to make another Godfather set in the early 80s." Now, I usualy listen to idiots/watch CNN so I decided I'd stay away from it. Then my mate handed me the DVD and said "This is #1 with the pelicangs", confused I tried it. This IS THE BEST FILM EVER MADE. It's more realistic than all this crap about racing stolen cars that are too expensive for someone in that area could afford (*cough2Fast2Furiouscough*) There is some humor though... i.e. the Pelicangs and the light 80s music. Still, whats better than Al Pacino wielding an m203? I give this a ***** out of ****, perfect for fans of Al or GTA:Vice City.

positive

18 directors had the same task: tell stories of love set in Paris. Naturally, some of them turned out better than others, but the whole mosaic is pretty charming - besides, wouldn't it be boring if all of them had the same vision of love? Here's how I rank the segments (that might change on a second viewing):<br /><br />1. "Quartier Latin", by Gérard Depardieu<br /><br />One of the greatest French actors ever directed my favourite segment, featuring the always stunning Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara. Witty and delightful.<br /><br />2. "Tour Eiffel", by Sylvain Chomet<br /><br />Cute, visually stunning (thanks to the director of "The Triplets of Belleville") story of a little boy whose parents are mimes;<br /><br />3. "Tuileries", by Ethan and Joel Coen<br /><br />The Coen Brothers + Steve Buscemi = Hilarious<br /><br />4. "Parc Monceau", by Alfonso Cuarón ("Y Tu Mamá También", "Children of Men"), feat. Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier (funny);<br /><br />5. "Place des Fêtes", by Oliver Schmitz, feat. Seydou Boro and Aissa Maiga (touching);<br /><br />6. "14th Arrondissement", Alexander Payne's ("Election", "About Schmidt") wonderful look for the pathetic side of life is present here, feat. the underrated character actress Margo Martindale (Hilary Swank's mother in "Million Dollar Baby") as a lonely, middle-aged American woman on vacation;<br /><br />7. "Faubourg Saint-Denis", Tom Tykwer's ("Run Lola Run") frantic style works in the story of a young actress (Natalie Portman) and a blind guy (Melchior Beslon) who fall in love;<br /><br />8. "Père-Lachaise", by Wes Craven, feat. Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell (plus a curious cameo by Alexander Payne as...Oscar Wilde!);<br /><br />9. "Loin du 16ème", by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas (simple but moving story from the talented Brazilian directors, feat. Catalina Sandino Moreno);<br /><br />10. "Quartier des Enfants Rouges", by Olivier Assayas ("Clean"), a sad story feat. the always fantastic Maggie Gyllenhaal;<br /><br />11. "Le Marais", by Gus Van Sant, feat. Gaspard Ulliel, Elias McConnell and Marianne Faithful (simple, but funny);<br /><br />12. "Quartier de la Madeleine", by Vincenzo Natali, feat. Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko;<br /><br />13. "Quais de Seine", by Gurinder Chadha;<br /><br />14. "Place des Victoires", by Nobuhiro Suwa, feat. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe;<br /><br />15. "Bastille", by Isabel Coixet (fabulous director of the underrated "My Life Without Me"), feat. Miranda Richardson, Sergio Castellitto, Javier Cámara and Leonor Watling;<br /><br />16. "Pigalle", by Richard LaGravenese, feat. Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant;<br /><br />17. "Montmartre", by and with Bruno Podalydès;<br /><br />18. "Porte de Choisy", by Christopher Doyle, with Barbet Schroeder (mostly known as the director of "Barfly", "Reversal of Fortune" and "Single White Female").<br /><br />I could classify some segments as brilliant and others as average (or even slightly boring), but not a single of them is plain bad. On the whole, I give "Paris, Je t'Aime" an 8.5/10 and recommend it for what it is: a lovely mosaic about love and other things in between.

positive

Audiences back in 1936 must have been stunned at what they were watching: a full-fledged, beautiful full-length Technicolor film. I can't say for sure, but this might have been the first one (3-strip). At any rate, it still looks beautiful over 70 years later on DVD. In fact, just how good it looks is amazing.<br /><br />Kudos for that have to go out to Director Richard Boleslowski, Director Of Photography Virgil Miller, Selznick International Pictures and, for the DVD - MGM Home Entertainment. All of them combined to give us one of the best-looking films of the classic-era age.<br /><br />I thought the story was so-so: excellent in the first half, stagnant in the second. It gave a nice message in the end, even though a lot of people might not have been happy with it. I can't say more without spoiling things.<br /><br />Marlene Dietrich never looked better, I don't believe, and certainly never played such a soft-hearted character ("Domini Enfilden"). Heart-throb Charles Boyer was the male star and Domini's object of affection, but some of the minor characters were the most interesting to me. People like Joseph Schildkraut as "Batouch;" John Carradine as "The Sand Diviner;" The most memorable, to me at least, was the dancer "Irena," played by Tilly Losch. Wow, there is a face and a dance you won't soon forget! I've never seen anything like it in the thousands of films I've viewed. Just seeing her do her thing was worth the price of the DVD. Looking at her IMDb resume, she was only in four movies, but they were all well-known films.<br /><br />Basil Rathbone, the actor who really became famous for playing "Sherlock Holmes," also is in here as is C. Aubrey Smith, another famous British actor of his day. Schildkraut, by the way, will be recognized by classic film buffs as the man who played the arrogant sales clerk in the big hit, "The Shop Around The Corner," with Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullivan.<br /><br />The beautiful direction, photography and color, and Tilly's dance, are the things I'll remember best about this movie which is a lot of good and not-so-good things all rolled into one. Had the last half hour been better - although I admire the ending - I would have rated it even higher. It's definitely one film collectors want to add to their collection.

positive

It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.<br /><br />Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.<br /><br />The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?<br /><br />It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.

positive

"The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.<br /><br />Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!<br /><br />The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.<br /><br />The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.<br /><br />"The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.<br /><br />

negative

Those familiar with the two previous Cube films pretty much know what they can expect: a small group of people trapped inside a bunch of booby trapped rooms, paranoia, bad acting... This one is a bit different though. Roughly half of the film takes place outside the cube, where we get to watch the people watching the people inside the cube (or at least five of them).<br /><br />I guess Cube Zero aspires to explain what the deal with the cube is, but you really don't get to know much more than what was covered in the two first films. Sure, there's sort of an explanation in there, but it feels pretty lame compared to what was suggested in the first film.<br /><br />Cube Zero looks rather cheap (as did its predecessors), and the fact that it shows more than just a couple of empty rooms only emphasizes this feeling. I also fell pretty confident in saying that there's no risk that any of the actors will win any awards in the foreseeable future. They have brought back the traps from Cube 1, though, (by that I mean that they're almost the same ones, which is a bit of a shame).<br /><br />I know that many people kind of appreciate this film and its ties with the first one, but I just feel that it's a completely unnecessary contribution to a franchise that wasn't that great to begin with. [1/10]

negative

This film is a jolt of punk rock fun, from start to finish. The Ramones, reigning princes of late-70s Punk rock, appear as themselves. PJ Soles stars as Riff Randle, the rebellious high school girl who lives and breathes rock 'n roll. Riff is obsessed with writing songs for the Ramones, her favorite rock band. She keeps the school rockin', and encourages her fellow-students to join her in her jubilant antics.<br /><br />Meanwhile the school that Riff attends, has just hired a brand-new Principal, named Ms. Togar. She's a tall, intimidating Amazon of a woman. And she vows to make the students 'toe-the-line'. She even has a couple of the students act as monitors, who report back to her with dirt on their classmates. Ms. Togar is especially determined to nab Riff, and put a stop to Riff's anarchic shenanigans. But Riff has clever ways to foil Togar, at every turn.<br /><br />Kudos to the superb performance of Mary Woronov, in her role as Principal Togar. Mary is a legendary B movie actress. And in this film, she plays the fascist Ms. Togar, with sneering relish. PJ Soles as Riff, turns in an electrifying performance. Clint Howard as the duplicitous Eaglebauer, has lots of fun with his role.<br /><br />The Ramones perform many of their hit songs in this film. And so the viewer sees why the Ramones were so influential, in the 70s Punk rock scene. Certainly, this is a good film for Ramones fans. But even if you're not into the Ramones, or Punk rock, this movie is a terrific blast (literally) of energetic fun.

positive

In the early 1970s, many of us who had embraced hippy/acid/alternative culture wholeheartedly, had realised that mainstream society was not going to change in the way we thought it would. For me this film defined the tension of "now what?" that many of the people I knew felt at that time. Do we head for the commune and create our own vision of utopia or do we radicalize and push for change?<br /><br />From the futile gestures to police, the radical rhetoric, the music of Pink Floyd, to the love-making and the explosive images in the desert - so much is in there. It captures well a significant moment in time.

positive

Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.<br /><br />The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.<br /><br />The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.<br /><br />Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.<br /><br />Overall 7/10

positive

The movie "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" is a shining gem in the rubble of films produced by the Disney Studios recently. Parents who have had to sit through "The Jungle Book 2" or even a Pokemon movie will surely appreciate this one.<br /><br />The film is one of few to attempt at an original story; previous feature films were merely re tellings of existing stories. Films such as "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo", and "Monsters Inc." all do the same, but it must be noted that all were made by Pixar and only distributed by Disney. Recent films from the Disney Studios are mostly released direct to video, and are sequels to an existing successful film. The quality of those films is given way to the profitability. A new era started with "Atlantis" following it were "Mulan", "Lilo & Stitch", and most recently "Open Range". The writers have created all original story lines instead of the fairy tales of the past.<br /><br />A good portion of the movie is devoted to the quest to find Atlantis, a task that has captured the imagination of many for hundreds of years. Including that of young Milo Thatch, voiced by Michael J. Fox. Milo is employed by a museum in Washington D.C.. His grandfather was a renowned archaeologist, who had devoted his life to discovering Atlantis. This was seen as a waste by his peers, and they wish Milo to not follow in his footsteps. After failing to convince the museum board of directors to sponsor his expedition, Milo comes home to find a woman in his darkened apartment. She takes him to her employer, a Mr. Whitmore. Whitmore was a close friend of Milo's grandfather, and wishes to send Milo with a team to locate Atlantis. Mr. Whitmore is very wealth and has paid for the best of everything. The crew that is to accompany him is the same as his grandfathers. The journey is filled with many great obstacles to overcome and is great fun to watch. The viewer finds themselves caught up in if they will reach Atlantis. The plot takes an unexpected turn after the discovery Atlantis, not just the discovery of people. It is enough to keep the interest of the older audience.<br /><br />The animators have done a wonderful job in then depth of the animation. The movie is very successful in blending traditional animation with Computer Generated Images. A feat not easily achieved, most audiences are quick to notice the difference in the two. The characters are believably human. There are some nice chase type scenes, with lots of action going on. A few lulls are filled with jokes that the children just may not get.<br /><br />The creativity of the writers really shines through. The culture of Atlantis is richly developed, including an entire language. The film uses references to Atlantis from historical sources, such as Plato. The disappearance of Atlantis from the world is explained. Believable, if by a younger audience, that magic really does exist. The powers of the people of Atlantis are not exactly presented as magic, but can best be described in this way.<br /><br />Although set in 1914 the level of technology used is unrealistic. The voyage is in a submarine very reminiscent of Captain Nemo's nautilus, complete with sub pods that fire torpedoes. The giant diggers are driven by steam boilers so they did try for some era technology. The female characters are empowered in a way that women of the age would not have been, even holding roles in leadership. This is not a bad thing. It gives a good role model for my daughter to look to, rather than an all male cast.<br /><br />One reason this film is a favorite of mine over other Disney films is that there is not one single song, ever. A tradition that began with the first feature film, "Snow White", and carried on through to "The Lion King", almost every Disney film is full of upbeat songs. This is great and all, what would the Seven Dwarfs be without "Hi HO!"? After the millionth time through it'd almost be better without, but this one spares the parent. Not once does every single person on the screen suddenly know the words to a song that no one has ever heard before and break out in song. I for one am grateful.<br /><br />The storyline and depth of animation is sure to keep the attention of both parent and child alike. It is a film I am willing to watch again and again with my children.

positive

This was one of the best movies I have seen. The movie relates to real life and how drugs CAN play a major part. Although this movie appears to be produced from a low budget, I found it to be exhilarating to watch.<br /><br />Some may not like the story and say the script is lacking direction. However, when a person gets as deep into drugs as these characters, there is no direction is life. I feel this movie is an accurate representation of what might happen to a person if they are faced with extreme temptations.<br /><br />Most of the cast are newcomers to the industry. However, they all pulled it off very well. Everyone seemed to do their job well and get into character appropriately.<br /><br />I think this movie might be a good tool to use when dealing with a person or loved one that is involved in drugs and appears to be spiraling out of control. This movie might just scare them enough to change their ways.

positive

High energy Raoul Walsh classic from 1933, The Bowery places saloon owner and operator Wallace Beery against bitter rival and dandy, George Raft, with adopted street kid Jackie Cooper and good looking Faye Wray in roles that play in between their big rivalry. It's not clear exactly what the rivalry is all about, but everyone follows it in the daily tabloids. Plenty of wisecracks at the beginning, but the characters soften up as the film progresses. Apart from that is the sheer exuberance of the scenes in Beery's saloon. The various characters, sexy chorus line, lots of drinking, a perfect creation of a den of iniquity not too refrained by so-called pre-code restrictions, and then later come the Carrie Nations led by Carrie Nation herself. It all creates a very vivid picture of a life that's long gone. I don't like to compare eras, but this film is completely and totally different from anything one would see today. The film has plenty of heart and long lost innocence and is absolutlely a must see.

positive

Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).<br /><br />Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.<br /><br />'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?<br /><br />No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.

negative

An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, "Soul Survivors" is the latest entry in the "who's dead and who's alive" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares?

negative

Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.<br /><br />The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.<br /><br />Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.<br /><br />In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel.

negative

The movie is great and I like the story. I prefer this movie than other movie such The cell ( sick movie ) and Highlander ( silly movie ). I just tell the truth, I like a reality hehe and also a true story :)<br /><br />

positive

Another FRIDAY THE 13TH ripoff, even featuring some of its music! A group of young adults get together for a small high school reunion and start getting slaughtered a la Jason Voorhees. Could it be that nerd they used to torment in school?<br /><br />Routine slash-fest is fun for fans of the genre, and contains the usual T&A quota for films if its ilk. The ending is a bit more imaginative than your standard slasher.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated for violence/gore, language, sexuality, nudity, and some drug content.

negative

There's no way to confront 'Zabriskie Point' from a rational standpoint or attempt to describe it using words and conventions you'd use for other movies. This is because it isn't a movie. It's an idea and a feeling that the filmmakers have that somehow got turned into an object as mundane as a film. What we see are not the unfoldings of a plot, but rather a sequence of events that we don't see in films every day but only imagine happening as the background we ourselves will supply when we hear about some tragic event in the news of or from friends. We we see is our imagination of people that are abstractions to us- no one we know, but we've doubtless heard of them in a book or on TV or somewhere. So what do we see? Events. We see people arguing, driving, and inevitably, escaping. Only the escape is from something intangible- it is the collective situation and cruelty that the mass of a civilization has allowed to exist though laziness, or...human nature. Set in late 1960s Los Angeles, our players act against and in response to the self-inflicted miseries of modern existence. These creatures are effectively blank slates that can display any trait we can imagine if we desire. Although the actions taken might be seen as criminal or irresponsible, , the characters are not themselves criminals. They are human beings seeking a return to a familiar, non-manufactured existence that is beyond the normalcy they experience everyday. Not that they are ever happy or sad, but they achieve a type of self actualization when they move beyond and away from the suicide of modern living. They only achieve true life in the natural world, even though that is the next victim of modern existence. At the end, 'Zabriski Point' is a eulogy of humanities attachment to the natural world. As even the most desolate pieces of the earth succumb to our notions of progress, we lose our souls on the path to death of the human spirit.

positive

This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.

negative