Datasets:

davidadamczyk

/

subset_imdb-2500

like 0

NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

positive

I'm surprised by some of the comments on this site because I really liked this film. If you're looking for something different then this movie is a good choice. Definitely not your typical mindless story that seems to be everywhere starring Ben Idiot Affleck or some other Hollywood loser. It's an intellectual film, you actually need to pay attention so some people might be turned off by that. However, if you are looking for something that keeps you on your toes then this is a good choice. Warning to parents - it has some fairly graphic sex scenes so watch it once the kiddies are in bed. People who like Euro flicks will like this one. Adam Sandler fans should skip it because it will be over their heads and definitely NOT their style.

positive

In Fassbinder's earlier films, his ideas sometimes surpased his ability to execute them. He was always a great writer, but it took him some time to get his style of camera work and storytelling down pat.<br /><br />The Merchant of Four Seasons is one of Fassbinder's first movie to make great use of color, from the bright green pears in the merchant's cart to the bright red roses at the funeral (a funeral in a Fassbinder movie? who'd have thought).<br /><br />His camera work was getting there too, but it was still fairly minimalist. The occasional zooms seem a bit uncomfortable at times and unnatural, but then again, Fassbinder was still coming out of his purely avant garde phase. This might be because Michael Ballhaus isn't behind the camera, but instead the slightly inferior Dietrich Lohmann.<br /><br />Still, this is Fassbinder, and you get your fix here. Broken dreams shown so vividly and unflinchingly as to alienate audience and drive them into a depressed stupor. Just what the doctor ordered. An early classic that shows remarkable progression when compared to his first films released only 2 years prior.

positive

The video box for 'Joyride' says "starring second generation superstars", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.<br /><br />In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.<br /><br />But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.<br /><br />Best Line: "Jesus, everything is biology with you." * out of ****

negative

I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back. <br /><br />The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well. <br /><br />All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it. <br /><br />And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way.

positive

I bought a DVD collection (9 movies for 10 Euros) where this one was included. It turned out to be the "uncut version" whatever that means. Beside the low average quality and short scenes there was one thing that was really strange - the soft sex scene. It started with a close up of 2 bigger breasts. After around 2 minutes I had an expression on my face which fitted the term "boooooooooooooring!" quite perfectly. 7.5 minutes of not even bouncing concrete like tits (at this point the term breasts is a bad choice) is far beyond from entertainment.<br /><br />The rest of the movie was more like "people aren't /that/ stupid, are they?" <br /><br />Lucky me, the DVD was scratched and I got my money back.

negative

This has got to be the most appalling abuse of the word comedy ever witnessed.It is simply not funny and the scriptwriters have obviously just tried to use the name of the TV series in order to make a few quid at the box office. This film makes a carry on seem subtle as far as sexual innuendo goes ( no mean feat), and has all the charisma of a corpse with rigamortis. A complete washout I'm afraid!!

negative

What you bring to the movie influences your view of it. I brought 30 years in the Air Force to this, and every time I see it I am moved by the ending. Would a youngster of 15 who's spent their life flying in jets feel the same way? Yet, I can only just its impact on me. <br /><br />Jimmy Stewart gives a wonderful turn as--Jimmy Stewart. Considering he was a pilot, and an Air Force Reserve General, he probably comes as close to being an expert on how a pilot would act as any man alive. One can't fault his delivery, or his acting. He IS a pilot BEING a pilot, that's enough.<br /><br />---Spoilers---<br /><br />It's the final minutes of the film that continue to grip my heart. Lindbergh has been flying without radio communication and has no idea if anyone is even expecting him. When he flies into the Paris airport, the uncertainty of the landing field draws you in. What is it below? Those shifting circles that look like cobblestones or a field of corn, must make you wonder, is he in the right place? They go on and on, streaming past his vision until he gets low enough and see that in the Paris night, what he was seeing was the light of the city reflecting off the upturned faces of the THOUSANDS of people waiting for him to land.

positive

If you like Gary Cooper, this is one of his best roles. His gentle intensity to right a wrong is what made his career. "Blayde Hollister" comes to Dallas to take revenge against Will and Brian Malowe, who burned his Georgia farm and killed his family. Inept Marshall gets in Hollister's way, attempting to arrest him when interrupted by a street shootout between Hollister and Wild Bill Hickock. The shootout is staged to get the law off Hollister, & he takes the "back East" Marshall under his wing to keep him alive in Texas, as they switch identity. <br /><br />That was a great beginning, and the picture holds up all the way through. Action may be a little "slow" by today's standards, but it is one of my top 10 favorite movies.

positive

There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.<br /><br />It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.<br /><br />This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him/her off.

negative

You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.<br /><br />It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.<br /><br />The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.<br /><br />Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.<br /><br />There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.<br /><br />Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.

negative

Many films attempt the ambitious. Few succeed. This film is one of them.<br /><br />Though billed as a black comedy, that term seems too limiting to express the true nature of the story behind Max and Grace. Multi-hyphenate Michael Parness has managed to weave elements of absurdest comedy with incredibly real human emotion. Quite a remarkable feat, to be certain.<br /><br />While the comedic aspects are certainly present, the heart of the film lies in its leads: David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. The delicate balance of the film - really crazy versus real love - falls to them and they achieve it, carrying it through from the opening scene to the heart wrenching climax and on to the heartwarming ending. David Krumholtz, in the titular lead role and as narrator, anchors the picture and does an exceptional job. We see the world through Max's eyes and Krumholtz imbues them with a sort of wonder and hopefulness that one would not expect to be believable coming from a character who had previously attempted suicide. There should be no doubt from this point on that he has truly achieved leading man status, well deserved after more than a decade of memorable supporting roles. Natasha Lyonne might be something of a revelation for anyone who has seen her only in less challenging roles. The role of Grace is expansive in scope, requiring her to show both great rage and great tenderness - sometimes within seconds of each other. She manages to convince us of Grace's deep seated desperation that lies just beneath her alternating torpor and mania.<br /><br />This is not a laugh a minute type of comedy so don't see the film expecting strictly humor from start to finish. Think more dramedy than comedy. There are some very dark moments, as one would expect given the subject matter of suicidal individuals, and some oddly real moments delivered most notably by Emma Adele Galvin as Max's sister, Sis. The most humorous scenes are those populated by the myriad of name actors in supporting roles. While Lorraine Bracco and David Paymer lend the most surreal aspect with their scenes the other supporting characters who populate the institution where Max and Grace meet are the real treat. Guillermo Diaz is a wanton scene stealer as the delightfully frenetic oddball, Hector. Ralf Moeller, as Bruno, acts as his straight man but has his own charm and appeal. Rosanna Arquette fully inhabits the role of Vera with the crass vitriol of an embittered truck stop waitress. Even her hardhearted character melts eventually, as does everyone who is touched by Max's literally undying love for Grace.<br /><br />Can love conquer all might be the question behind the film and even though the realist within says no, movies are about an escape from reality, even if only for a few brief hours. I recommend seeing this film as an antidote to not just reality but to the cynicism that says that a love story like this never happens. Spending a few hours immersed in a world where it can and does works wonders on the psyche.<br /><br />(Seattle International Film Festival - June 2005)

positive

If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world, Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex.<br /><br />Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness.<br /><br />The film opens with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to me!).<br /><br />Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces.<br /><br />The psychologist is then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel Rain—after which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal.<br /><br />Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing phallus.<br /><br />As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people, but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting and deviant fun.<br /><br />7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

positive

My friend recommended this movie to me.Is should have known not to watch it because my friend is kind of a video game nerd. But the name and the cover made it look good for some reason. I was so wrong. I mean first of all, what is up with their suits? And the acting! It seems like they got the people off Barney. Except for Ben Kingsley. And why was he even in this movie? Did he think it was a comedy! But I have to say the special effects were pretty good. But that was like the only good thing in it. I mean seriously, the movie is worse than Pearl Harbor. And thats actually an understatement. Everyone must have thought "oh I am getting paid so it doesn't matter if its the worst movie in the world." I would understand why someone would make this kind of movie if they were directing, acting, producing, writing, and getting their hopeless life best friend to do filming and editing. Probably one of the worst sci-fi movies ever. One truly jacked up film

negative

This movie was terrible. It is not something that people should have to pay to see. It looks like some Christian group made it to convert people. I don't understand why it was released to theaters and not to TV.<br /><br />It started out like an old fashioned B movie sci-fi film from the 50s, but quickly changed. About 30 minutes into the movie the characters start talking about "God" and "Do you believe in Jesus?" It quickly moves into pure religion territory.<br /><br />I thought I was going to a Sci-Fi movie. The film has poor acting; bad camera angles and is amateurish.<br /><br />AVOID IT!

negative

Someone says this anime could be offensive for girls... not really. Embarrassing situations are funny; first time i see this series i was in the video store, people around me started laughing, doesn't matter the age or gender. A teacher said that in order to guarantee the attention of someone in a book the beginning must be entertaining and the ending shouldn't be obvious by just reading the last page. During the first minutes in the series the boy is hit by a car, during the last moments of the series, the same car appears.. Episodes had a touching and funny ending, specially last one. I don't regret to buy these series.

positive

Chucky is back but this time he is not scary (a lot) - but he is funny!<br /><br />When Chucky is brought back to life (in the doll, of course) by his old trailer trash girlfriend, Tiffany, he promptly kills her and transforms her into a doll, too. Tiffany and Chucky are now on the case of 2 high school graduates - eekkk!!<br /><br />Don't miss this film - it is a whole lot of fun. It is scary, funny, weird, wacky and stupid all in one!<br /><br />My rating : 9/10.

positive

Well.....I wouldn't want to lecture anybody but I do feel the urge to say some things I consider important about this BEAUTIFUL film. I saw it for the first time in 1976 (I was 14) and then one more time a year later. That was it. The rest of it was the pink LP of Elton John's soundtrack getting the music and the story deeper and deeper inside my heart. How deep? A week ago my cousin gave me a VHS copy as a present. (No DVD's yet). Boy....was I surprised!! Poets have always sustained that deep childhood and adolescent experiences of beauty, love, God, idealist pursuits, stay with you forever. Since they occur mostly at the heart's level (no intellect yet!), they define your soul's contours like a sculptor would do with a stone. If sometimes we didn't tend to forget how right they are perhaps we would do better in understanding the meaning of every minute, of every decision, of every turning point of our lives. <br /><br />So, I confess I feel nostalgia. But the fascinating part of this is watching the film again, and through this trip back in time, enriching that understanding of why we, people from the 60's, grew up as we did. The spirit of those times is all here: a Genesis created far from the official world of consuming and economic success, make love not war, the beautiful pop ballads, the poetry of the lyrics, a totally romantic view of adolescent rebellion with the awakening of sexuality carefully wrapped in tender and chaste love, these two lonely spirits still full of childhood innocence growing together as they learn mutual commitment and turning into "adults". <br /><br />I showed the film to a group of school youngsters and they abounded with such simplistic and cynical comments regarding it as naïve and foolish. Guys, be serious!! Cinema is an art and as art it reflects not only human emotions but historical moments. And this is exactly what "Friends" does in a masterly way. It reflects an idyllic idea of rebellion and new beginning we all dreamt about when we were 15. I'm now a musician and I feel some of us, artists for that matter, still dream about it!! How else could we live? That's "Friends", that's "Brother Sun Sister Moon", that's "Hair". Those were the times, still alien to AIDS, alien to explicit and vulgar texts in pop songs with no melody, to pornography presented as "sexuality", to this barbaric new "world order" growing after September 11th. <br /><br />What a heart warming experience to see Paul and Michelle again, timidly and tenderly exploring the new fantasies of their romantic world. What a trip back to the very core of our hearts: to Paris, to Elton John at his best, to that urban scenario surrounded by 2 CV Citroëns and the VW Beetles. What a fresh air from the peaceful cottage in Camargue, surrounded by fishing ponds and wild horses. They made us who we are, as did Serrat in Spain, Brel in France, Peter Paul and Mary, Joan Baez, Luther King, the Beatles, the early Bee Gees, Belafonte's Spirituals, Gandhi, the Gospel of Elvis. <br /><br />People still hoping: get this picture. Start with innocence and grow from there. You'll find out what it's all about. And from there you'll have a solid and more truthful foundation; some ideals to look for in life, a way to handle personal and world affairs. We need so much of this today! Give yourselves the chance and maybe someday the time of cynics will end. (I have an extra VHS copy)<br /><br />Santiago Zuleta. Bogotá, Colombia.

positive

In the late 1940s there was a short film series entitled "Flicker Flashbacks" in which excerpts from silent dramas featuring the likes of Mary Pickford and Blanche Sweet were played for laughs. Scratchy clips from antiquated old movies were rearranged, projected too fast, and given an overlay of jangly music and lame quips. The attitude expressed through this brutal treatment pretty much summed up mid-century Hollywood's view of its early days: silent cinema was considered hokey, florid, a little embarrassing, and only good for a chuckle. During the 1950s this attitude gradually began to change for a number of reasons. James Agee's famous 1949 essay on the silent clowns for Life Magazine was a factor, but television played a major role in reacquainting viewers with silent movies. Admittedly, the TV networks sometimes handled the material as crudely as the "Flicker Flashbacks" people, but higher-toned series such as "Silents, Please" treated the films with respect. Another milestone was Robert Youngson's compilation feature THE GOLDEN AGE OF COMEDY, which proved to be something of a surprise hit when it was released to theaters late in 1957.<br /><br />I don't know if Charles Chaplin was aware of Youngson's film or its success at the box office, but it was around this time that he decided to launch a theatrical re-release of three of his best short comedies, A DOG'S LIFE, SHOULDER ARMS (both made in 1918), and THE PILGRIM (made in 1922 and released the following year). These three movies happened to work well as a trio since they contrast nicely in plot, theme, and setting. In addition, all three feature familiar faces from Chaplin's stock company, some of whom play multiple roles in each short. At the time of the re-release the films hadn't been publicly screened in over thirty years, so perhaps Chaplin was concerned about maintaining his reputation with a new generation of movie-goers, especially since his best work was seldom shown on television in the new medium's early days.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Chaplin apparently concluded that the films moved too quickly at the old silent projection speed, so the decision was made to "stretch-print" them, which meant that every other frame was printed twice. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'Flicker Flashbacks' look, but this wasn't the best way to go about it. Aesthetically speaking, the results were awful and practically destroyed the movies' flow of action, but nonetheless that's how THE CHAPLIN REVUE was released to theaters in 1959, and that's the version that was transferred to video and made commercially available by Playhouse Video in the 1980s. I purchased a VHS copy of the movie at the time and was terribly disappointed with the jerky, stop-and-start rhythm of the films.<br /><br />It's a particular pleasure to find that David Shepard's restoration of Chaplin's compilation (originally produced for the laser-disc format) is a vast improvement over the Playhouse Video version. For the most part, the projection speed has been corrected. The "stretch-printing" is gone at any rate, though the action seems to drag a bit at times. For example: in A DOG'S LIFE during Edna & Charlie's awkward dance in the Green Lantern Cafe, Edna's bare arms appear visibly blurred; at another point, during the trench scene in SHOULDER ARMS when Charlie is relieved from sentry duty, the action appears oddly slowed-down for a few moments, but this may be the result of a maneuver by the film restorers to cover a bit of decomposition. Over all, picture quality is fantastic considering the age of the movies themselves.<br /><br />Other bonuses: the REVUE begins with rare behind-the-scenes footage taken at the Chaplin studio. This includes shots of an obviously staged, jokey rehearsal session where Chaplin throttles diminutive actor Loyal Underwood, as well as scenes of Charlie at his dressing table putting on his makeup and trimming the famous mustache. These scenes are accompanied by Chaplin's narration, delivered at a rapid clip. Chaplin also composed a new musical score for the compilation, and in my opinion his themes for the REVUE rank with his best compositions, especially the pieces used during the café sequence in A DOG'S LIFE. The only exception is the song written for THE PILGRIM, a pseudo-Singin' Cowboy number called "Bound for Texas" sung 'Fifties-style by Matt Monro (sounding rather like Gene Autry), which is distractingly anachronistic and out of place. Otherwise, throughout the rest of the REVUE, the music is perfectly suited to the action and the atmosphere.<br /><br />It feels as though the Image release of THE CHAPLIN REVUE is, in a sense, its long-postponed debut, presenting these classic comedies the way they were meant to be seen all along. In this form, the REVUE ranks with Chaplin's most durable and enjoyable works.

positive

The big problem I had with this movie was that Lombard's character is, as another user put it, "unnecessarily cruel". Lombard plays the role of Ann Krausheimer Smith, who believes she is married to David Smith, played well by the sharply dressed yet appropriately bumbling Robert Montgomery. The movie has some funny moments, especially when Montgomery's character goes to great lengths to try to get his "wife" back. Understandably, she is upset because the marriage is technically not legal, but she only finds out three years into it.<br /><br />Lombard's character seems quite cold to her "husband's" sincere attempts to woo her back. While not being highly adept in that effort, Montgomery is nevertheless visibly loving, and yet Lombard is as cool as a pillar of ice. There are almost no clues suggesting any sort of reconciliation between the warring couple for much of the movie, and it is hard to see any sort of comedy- even dark comedy- in that aspect. To some extent, the movie almost suggests a sadistic undertone, with Lombard's character getting a "kick" out of her husband's feeble efforts. While one might consider this another 'Battle of the Sexes' type of movie, the reality is that it is a highly lopsided battle, if that: Montgomery's character, while certainly flawed, is not flawed enough to make it a typical exemplar of the masculine chauvinist/misogynist (an excellent example of that is Michael Douglas in 'War of the Roses'). In fact, the character is largely effeminate, as revealed by not only the sharp dress of Montgomery (which probably owes largely to the perennially sharply dressed actor himself), but also to his discomfort in attempting-but failing- to play the role of a womanizing bachelor. His only major flaw is his vanity, but that fault does not balance out with his partner's excessive cruelty. And there is no suggestion that she is trying to instill any jealousy out of subconscious love. This is what makes it so cruel, and sad. Montgomery's character simply looks weak. In reality, no wife would want a man so weak unless she "wears the pants" in the marriage. But then again, a woman who wears the pants in a marriage would never seek to be so cruel because she has already affirmed that role early on. Hence, the whole theme seems weird. This movie is neither a champion of feminism (Lombard's character does show some signs of the sort of independent-oriented woman of the 60s, but that idea is soon quashed and the character falls back into the 1940s), nor an even-sided battle of the sexes (as Montgomery's character is truly a cipher of masculinity and therefore a lost cause).<br /><br />This movie is, on the surface, a slapstick, but beneath that veneer it is really much darker, with sadistic undertones. All of which makes its resolution appear, well, odd. (Maybe that oddity was the whole point?). In any case, slapstick this movie is not.

negative

"Season on the Brink" is one of my favorite books of all time - an insightful unflinching look at Bob Knight and his Indiana Hoosiers. And Dennehy is one of my favorite supporting actors of all time. So I made a point of watching this adaptation.<br /><br />It disappointed on every level. Dennehy's performance was less than inspired, and he seemed unprepared to play Knight - like he had accepted the role just prior to filming. The rest of the cast isn't much better.<br /><br />And it was obvious that this was ESPN's first movie. It was poorly directed, poorly filmed, and the lack of budget was obvious anytime games were being simulated (smaller gyms, empty seats, etc.) Skip this adaptation and read the book - it holds up well to this day!

negative

1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury". <br /><br />2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people. <br /><br />3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid." <br /><br />4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P." <br /><br />5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more.

negative

In 1974, the teenager Martha Moxley (Maggie Grace) moves to the high-class area of Belle Haven, Greenwich, Connecticut. On the Mischief Night, eve of Halloween, she was murdered in the backyard of her house and her murder remained unsolved. Twenty-two years later, the writer Mark Fuhrman (Christopher Meloni), who is a former LA detective that has fallen in disgrace for perjury in O.J. Simpson trial and moved to Idaho, decides to investigate the case with his partner Stephen Weeks (Andrew Mitchell) with the purpose of writing a book. The locals squirm and do not welcome them, but with the support of the retired detective Steve Carroll (Robert Forster) that was in charge of the investigation in the 70's, they discover the criminal and a net of power and money to cover the murder.<br /><br />"Murder in Greenwich" is a good TV movie, with the true story of a murder of a fifteen years old girl that was committed by a wealthy teenager whose mother was a Kennedy. The powerful and rich family used their influence to cover the murder for more than twenty years. However, a snoopy detective and convicted perjurer in disgrace was able to disclose how the hideous crime was committed. The screenplay shows the investigation of Mark and the last days of Martha in parallel, but there is a lack of the emotion in the dramatization. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available

positive

[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%). <br /><br />I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!! <br /><br />And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]<br /><br />My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...<br /><br />Only....<br /><br />Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....<br /><br />It reminds of a feminine "the fugitive".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....<br /><br />She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....<br /><br />In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!<br /><br />maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....<br /><br />very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*

negative

This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best, and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events.<br /><br />Which of the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable, but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent.<br /><br />You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider.<br /><br />At the end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does, it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our humanity.

positive

at last, a movie that handles the probability of alien visits with the appropriate depth and loving warmth. just in case we're not alone, i do believe that these visitors are just too touristíc to care for us or give that wayward bunch of anthropocentric goofs a stable proof of their existence. we wouldn't interfere in the battle rites of some agitated desert tribe either, unless we're out for messing with our travel insurance, huh?<br /><br />anyway, the movie depicts the transitional cathexis of a weary mind and body by a superior entity. that happens quite unspectacular and rather unrecognized, but we're dealing with a movie here, right? so prot's hospitalization is just a trigger to the plot.<br /><br />jeff bridges acts great as usual, but spacey is hilarious. the role seems tailored downright to him, convincing and lovingly "mad". eating unpeeled bananas, sitting in a tree, giving his doctor a hard time with quickness, wisdom and (most of all!) stunning quotes. they made me think and philosophize for hours already.<br /><br />it's an encouraging film, to say the least, and the soundtrack by edward shearmur is simply beautiful. just go and get a copy. catch a beam of light. now.

positive

Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), called Ale for short, works at an auto-body repair shop in what has come to be known as the Iron Triangle, a deteriorating twenty block stretch of auto junk yards and sleazy car repair dealers close to Shea Stadium in Queens, New York. Here customers do not question whether or not parts come from stolen cars or why they are able to receive such large discounts, they simply put down their cash and hope that everything is on the up and up. Sleazy outskirts like these are not highlighted in the tour guides but Iranian-American director Ramin Bahrani puts them on vivid display in Chop Shop, a powerful Indie film that received much affection last year at Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. A follow up to his acclaimed "Man Push Cart", Bahrani spent one and a half years in the location that F. Scott Fitzgerald described as in the Great Gatsby as "the valley of the ashes".<br /><br />For all its depiction of bleakness, Chop Shop is not a work of social criticism but, like Hector Babenco's Pixote, a poignant character study in which a young boy's survival is bought at the price of his innocence. Shot on location at Willets Point in Queens, Bahrani makes you feel as if you are there, sweating in a hot and humid New York summer with all of its noise and chaos. The film's focus is on the charming, street-smart 12-year-old Ale who lives on the edge without any adult support or supervision other than his boss (Rob Sowulski), the real-life proprietor of the Iron Triangle garage. Polanco's performance is raw and slightly ragged yet he fully earned the standing ovation he received at the film's premiere at Cannes along with a hug from great Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami.<br /><br />Cramped into a tiny room above the garage together with his 16-year-old sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales) who works dispensing food from a lunch wagon, Ale is like one of the interchangeable spare parts he deals with. While he has dreams of owning his own food-service van, in the city that never sleeps, he knows that the only thing that may make the "top of the heap" is another dented fender. In this environment, Ale and Isi use any means necessary to keep their heads above water while their love for each other remains constant and they still laugh and act out the childhood that was never theirs. As Barack Obama says in his book "Dreams From My Father", the change may come later when their eyes stop laughing and they have shut off something inside. In the meantime, Ale supplements his earnings by selling candy bars in the crowded New York subways with his friend Carlos (Carlos Zapata) and pushing bootleg DVDs on the street corners, while Isi does tricks for the truck drivers to save enough money to buy the rusted $4500 van in which they hope to start their own business.<br /><br />Though Ale is a "good boy", he is not above stealing purses and hubcaps in the Shea Stadium parking lot, events that Bahrani's camera observes without judgment. In Chop Shop, Bahrani has provided a compelling antidote to the underdog success stories churned out by the Hollywood dream factory, and has given us a film of stunning naturalism and respect for its characters, similar in many ways to the great Italian neo-realist films and the recent Iranian works of Kiarostami, Panahi, and others. While the outcome of the characters is far from certain, Bahrani makes sure that we notice a giant billboard at Shea Stadium that reads, "Make dreams happen", leaving us with the hint that, in Rumi's phrase, "the drum of the realization of that promise is beating,"

positive

Ten years before "The Matrix" and hot on the heals of "They Live" came this brilliant piece of low budget science fiction film making. If you like bizarre, unconventional, intellectually challenging, David Lynch meets John Carpenter style movie-making you'll love "Split". There are moments of true genius in the framing and cinematography. Look closely at a sequence shot through wine glasses in an art opening party and right after that a scene involving cue cards. The plot involves a man named Starker who lives outside of society who wants to wake us up from the dream. Similar to "They Live", "1984" and "The Matrix", it is based on the premise that we are all constantly monitored by shadowy Big Brother type government agents that know everything about us and have invisible robot probes constantly patrolling the city. This is all revealed pretty early on in the plot. POSSIBLE SPOILER: Starker has invented a drug that when placed in the water supply will wake everyone up from the illusion of reality. Along with the cinematography and the ingenious ways the director makes do with his shoestring budget, the other highlights of this film are the monologues. I challenge anyone to not be rewinding, memorizing and quoting the classic quotes from this movie for years to come.

positive

Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........

negative

I remember this movie getting a lot of flak from reviewers when it was new. Letterman and Leno themselves had objections. Letterman called it (paraphrasing) the biggest waste of film he'd ever seen, and Leno objected to the simpleton portrayal of himself. But Letterman had John Michael Higgins as a guest on his show so it seems he didn't take anything too personally. A DVD re-release, with opinions and such from those involved, could be interesting, though I suspect the days when late night talkshow wars captivated the nation are gone and not returning soon.<br /><br />I preferred the Letterman impersonation to the Leno, but could never buy in to either. They never rose above caricature, and I never simply accepted them as actors. For comparison: Paul Sorvino as Kissinger in Oliver Stone's "Nixon" comes to mind as an impersonation which may have seemed laughable in the first few moments but which seemed at least plausible after the first moments of amusement wore off.<br /><br />The highlight of the show for me was Treat Williams as Michael Ovitz. Williams' speech to Letterman was not as great as but reminiscent of Alec Baldwin's entrance (and quick exit) as Blake in Glengerry Glen Ross.<br /><br />They could have done more with Johnny's role in all this. I know he was mostly uninvolved in the events portrayed in this movie, and most audiences will be familiar with his reputation such that Johnny Carson needs no introduction. But more context about why Dave and Jay and all comedians revere Johnny would have given this flick the substance it lacks in being a gossip film.<br /><br />Guess I should read the book...<br /><br />Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson, unfortunately, came across as nothing more than Rich Little imitating Johnny Carson.<br /><br />I tell you what, after watching this movie, then watching either the Letterman or Leno show, all I want to do is crack open my Johnny Carson DVDs and see the real thing.

positive

Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.<br /><br />But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.<br /><br />The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.<br /><br />A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.<br /><br />4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans

negative

The message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.<br /><br />Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's "sanctimonious traditionalism" and its "glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness." I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than "fascinating fascism."

negative

This film tops the previous incarnation by a mile, taking everything to the next level. As always the JackAss guys are purely unbelievable, and I personally laughed harder in that theatre than I have in a long time. Like the first JackAss, this isn't so much a movie as an eighty minute long string of stunts and pranks. It is pure circus entertainment taken to the highest level. Essentially these guys are clowns, debasing themselves for the amusement of others. And its great. The shenanigans are so low, outrageous, and often disgusting that they transcend into a higher form of entertainment.<br /><br />You can't rate this along other movies, its in a class of its own. And it shines. Go and enjoy it for the pure spectacle that it is.

positive

From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?

negative

Before I continue forth with the new millennium, I will go back in time once more because I had completely forgotten about these gems!!!!!<br /><br />In 1987, Disney, while still a "low" company in the 80s, was able to start a series of films on television called "Not Quite Human," about a geeky teenager who, like in "Inspector Gadget," looks like a human but is really a robot!!!!! Now this SCREAMS 80S, along with other films like "Tron" and "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids" because it combines everything of yesteryear with the technologies of tomorrow!!!!!<br /><br />My parents remember seeing this on the TV back then, back when I was just born or something. However, my very first encounter with this film was on the Old Disney Channel (one time, I've seen this, and the other parts, on my 12th B'day in May of '99!!!!!)<br /><br />"Not Quite Human" is a very good series of films to watch, if you can ever find these movies again. <br /><br />Has this been shown recently? If so, give me an e-mail or personal message.<br /><br />10/10

positive

I saw this film much like Skywalker02 did, but when I could manage to see it again and with formal film training, psychology, and life has had the time to really take me by the hand and start beating me about,..I really click with the film. I remember the pay for service cable channels played this thing almost to death, much like poltergeist when it first came out, and many other popular films. I felt back then it wasn't worth the fuss and constant "airtime" (I know cable isn't really on air) given it, but I was very young and adult situation drama wouldn't have and shouldn't have worked. However, recent viewing of the film has enlightened me on the film. I think that Susan Surandon and Molly Ringwald were likely studying the script together, and I would be a bit surprised if Surandon had coached Ringwald during this project. Ringwald's other projects, while good, do not have her exhibiting the potential depth as this role. Surandon nailed hers, as Raul Julia did also. Cassavettes and wife delivered acceptable performances, but I will admit at times first class acting turns to mediocre. A steady ebb and flow to the acting does take place during many scenes, but overall I can see why the story might call for the dynamic to become more subtle.<br /><br />All in all, I don't find this film to be the "take me out and drown me" kind of boredom fest as Skywalker02 would have you believe. I think that perhaps with the right psychological training and a bit more hardship in one's domestic life strategically placed, coupled with some film courses perhaps this film would appear different. I would say if you are feeling a bit melancholy and yearn for a simpler life, and you have had your share of marital discord amongst dysfunctional family units, then perhaps this film might provide more insight and entertainment than you might think. I do feel it is a classic and find it much more entertaining than mainstream films that are supposed to share many of the same elements, such as Terms of Endearment which as far as I am concerned could be stripped of a few extraordinary performances by Jack Nicholson, then ceremoniously burned until nothing is left. (How could a film like that get more attention than this one. Talk about boredom.)Best thing, don't take my word or anyone else's, see the film and support our industry.

positive

This mystery/psychological-thriller is I think one of the best I've ever seen. All the actors give a wonderful performance, especially Jennifer Rubin as Jamie Harris, who changes from the nervous starlet in the beginning through the strange events she is part of to the cool star. You learn a lot about the real inside emotions of people in this movie, and a lot about the movie business itself. The movie in movie situations in the beginning and through the game that is played with her by the "acting coach" are fascinating. Also the music by Mark Snow is possibly the best score I've ever heard. You won't forget this movie!

positive

I guess if you like snow boarding you may get some enjoyment from watching some nice scenery and some nice tricks. but that is all the film has to offer. the story line is non-existent, and any jokes that may have been in the film were not funny, even on a sympathy level. I also disliked the characters, the main actor (Adam Grimes)tried his best, and for a comedy like this that doesn't have to be much, but when surrounded by so many other bad actors he had no hope of making this film good. but i shouldn't be too harsh on them, for all i know they might have great skill, but with a script that i could have written in ten minutes, what ever skills they had were ran and hid for fear of appearing in this film. my advise is don't watch it, i wish i never did!

negative

After going to sleep out of sheer loneliness, Lestat wakes from a 100-year sleep to the sounds of a new music he wants to be a part of and the band "The Vampire Lestat" is born. His longing to end his loneliness and his "living in the light" attitude along with his music, anger his fellow vampires and awaken an evil that has been slumbering for thousands of years.<br /><br />This film is not for those looking for a true book-to-film adaptation. Those who have read the books and expect to see it on the screen are in for a huge disappointment. This film will appeal to those who really enjoyed the "Interview With the Vampire" film.<br /><br />There are a few plot holes and incongruencies, but as a whole, this film was satisfying. Stuart Townsend portrays Lestat with a sensuality and sexiness lacking in the previous film. The relationships portrayed in the film were very sexy and sizzling.<br /><br />As a film, the story compels you and draws you in. Casting is wonderful. Loved this story and film. If you like simmering sensuality and sexual tension you'll love this film!

positive

I usually don't categorize a moving as boring. I am not big on action flicks and my senses do not need to be stimulated during a movie. In fact I enjoy a good rational logical dialogue and story line. Unfortunately, this movie has none of those characteristics. Diane Lane is the only saving grace in this movie and even her beauty cannot save it. Terrible overbearing music equals the moronic dialogue and acting. None of the actors actually connect with each other and as a result the movie does not connect with the audience. I guess the scenes where the townspeople are marching somewhere were suppose to add to the story but it seems that they were inserted just to fill space. The scenes appeared choppy and incoherent. There were some nice shots of the ocean and the beach which were beautiful.

negative

Not well done at all, the whole movie was just the Grudge going around and killing random people out of nowhere. Random people that have nothing to do with the story get killed, like the 3 school girls for example.<br /><br />The family at the beginning has nothing to do with the story either, I believe them to be a random family that never went in the house, and never had anything to do with the killings of the Grudge.<br /><br />Did not impress me at all, I was not scared, I didn't jump at any parts, and the whole movie was just a random piece of crap to get more money off of. Makes the Gridge 1 look like crap also, which was actually an alright movie.<br /><br />I believe that The Grudge 2 is like a leading movie to The Grudge 3, if they ever make one. They shouldn't have even called this the Grudge 2, they should of called it the prologue to the Grudge 2, and you will see if you watched it, because I am not going to spoil anything. Not that it would have mattered anyway.<br /><br />1/10, not scary, bad story, and is just completely random.

negative

man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.

negative

A plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.<br /><br />The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.<br /><br />Some of the character tensions and a non-cliché ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4/10<br /><br />Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror.

negative

During the 1990's, several attempts have been made to revive old Matsumoto's series. Yoshinobu Nishizaki tried to revive old Yamato saga in form of a laughably bad "Yamato 2520", which was completely abandoned after mere two episodes. Captain Harlock suffered a confusing and pointless "Harlock Saga", while Galaxy Express 999 suffered having this hack of a movie stapled to its name.<br /><br />If you've seen "Queen Millennia", you'll recall that it was a wonderful movie in its own way. Maetel Legend tries to tell a sequel to this already concluded chapter, also finding a way to suck at doing so.<br /><br />This movie takes all the annoying aspects of a generic pulp science fiction movie, mixes it with badly paced melodrama, and to add an insult to an injury, tosses in some of the most renowned characters from Matsumoto's universe.<br /><br />The only redeeming aspect of this movie is good artwork, but the remainder is so amazingly bad that it can't save this movie from being a total loss.<br /><br />If you've enjoyed Queen Millennia or Galaxy Express, do yourself a favor and skip this hack of a movie. You'll thank me.

negative

An RKO Short Subject.<br /><br />A group of rowdy little bullies are given a lesson in tolerance by crooner Frank Sinatra, who compares America to THE HOUSE I LIVE IN.<br /><br />This little film delivers a pertinent message about the evils of prejudice & bias. Sinatra is an absolute natural in front of the camera; intense & sincere, he is the perfect spokesperson for the values espoused here.<br /><br />Sinatra sings ‘The House I Live In,' by Lewis Allan & Earl Robinson. This fine tune, with a solid, pro-American message, is being given something of a comeback since the horrendous events of September 11, 2001.<br /><br />After Pearl Harbor, Hollywood went to war totally against the Axis. Not only did many of the stars join up or do home front service, but the output of the Studios was largely turned to the war effort. The newsreels, of course, brought the latest war news into the neighborhood theater every week. The features showcased battle stories or war related themes. Even the short subjects & cartoons were used as a quick means of spreading Allied propaganda, the boosting of morale or information dissemination. Together, Uncle Sam, the American People & Hollywood proved to be an unbeatable combination.

positive

I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.

negative

The net is an excellent movie! It's about Angela Bennett(in a great performance of Sandra Bullock) who is a computer expert who works for the Cathedral Company, cleaning virus and testing games for the clients. Angela is a typical nerd who doesn't have friends outside of the cyberspace,almost doesn't take vacations and go out, and stays almost all the time connected. One day her friend Dale Hessman(Ray McKinnon) asks her to help him,sending Angela a disk with a strange program that has many confidential informations. At the same night, when Dale was going to meet her, he is suddenly killed in a plane crash.Going to Mexico in her vacation,Angela meets a beautiful guy called Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam)who shows to be a cold blood killer bastard and one of the guys behind all the secret of the Diskette.<br /><br />Her life then turns into a nightmare: All her records are erased and she is given the new identity of Ruth Marx, a woman with serious problems with the police.<br /><br />This movie is great because it shows how we, humans,depend a lot of the computers and machines(sometimes more that we should) and how vulnerable we are if someday ,someone decides to control and change our personal records,without letting us the chance to prove the error.

positive

I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.

negative

Rendition presents a very topical matter in the form of a very tense thriller. It's a gripping, and not a preaching, movie. Seeing it in an Arab country with a mixture of Arabian and European audience gave it an extra level of atmosphere. The audience was totally gripped by the film and gave it a loud applause afterwards. The story of an Egyptian, married to an American, picked up on the suspicion of links to terrorist organizations and shipped to a friendly (with US) Arab country for "enhanced interrogation (as Meryl Streep's character states in the film: "we have no torture in the US") seems to be from the front page of todays news. There is a very neat link between the various characters which appear in the movie and the pace of the film never drops. The movies'message seems to be (as stated by Jake Gyllenhal's character in the film) that by abducting and torturing suspects you create many more terrorists. The acting is uniformly excellent with Streep and Reese Witherspoon the stand outs. Not to be missed.

positive

Hello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie. <br /><br />Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie<br /><br />and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him). <br /><br />Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.<br /><br />Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.

negative

when i first read about "berlin am meer" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as "the definite berlin movie".<br /><br />and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.<br /><br />don't bother watching "berlin am meer" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.

negative

"Crimes of Passion" is a film that is disappointing on most counts. Where should I start from? The plot? It is despairingly simplistic and full of gaps. The direction? Reminds a cheap B-movie. The acting? John Laughlin is utterly terrible in his role as "well-intentioned-husband-of-a-frozen-wife" Bobby, Annie Pots is unconvincing as "frozen-wife" Amy, and it is only Kathleen Turner (above average), and Antony Perkins (excellent) which get passable acting marks. More specifically, Antony Perkins gives a great performance as the pervert reverend Peter Shayne, while Turner manages to portray the roles of sexy China Blue and frail Joanna Crane satisfactorily.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the performances of Turner and Perkins alone are insufficient to help get the film a grade higher than 4/10. Watch it if you want to see Turner in some sensational scenes (although even on this count the film can be easily matched by its competition-"Basic Instinct" for example), otherwise avoid.

negative

The second live action outing for Asterix is far better than the glued together elements of ten different stories that was called the first film, instead staying fairly close to the original comic.<br /><br />In a nutshell, Queen Cleopatra has made a bet with Caeser to build a palace in Egypt to show that the Egyptians are a great people. Royal Architect Edifis seeks the help of Asterix, Obelix and druid Getafix to complete his task. There are several laugh out loud moments, some jokes that only the French might get (jibes at the 35 hour week) while others that are more universal. The big budget special effects are spectacular but overshadowed by the jokes from the original comic.<br /><br />Depardieu and Clavier still work brilliantly as a pair while Monica Bellucci makes perfect casting as Cleopatra. Also, for fans of the comics the hilarious pirates get a look making up for their absence in film 1.

positive

Another one that slipped by the radar of most anyone. This little B produced gem is so full of new ideas in an old genre and so absolutely refreshing and inventive, that a dreadful feeling about the lack of cojones in today's cinema slowly overtakes your body. The final set piece is so innovative in its setting and style that it prefigures everyone from Tarantino to John Woo. Oh, and if you think "dying lines" are all cliche, wait for the dying line of FF. A piece of dialogue that could have torn you with laughter will take your heart. A true pleasure. Seek it and see it. You won't be sorry.

positive

I thought this movie was absolutely hilarious. I already knew it was going to be a funny movie, but it was funnier than I expected. Sure there were some lame jokes, but they cracked me up. I thought the actors were going to turn out to be pretty bad, but the actors were good in acting out this comedy. I have to give kudos to Amanda Bynes, she looked surprisingly like her brother and pulled off an awesome performance as a boy. As for the other actors, they were funny as well. Of course there were moments where you yell at the screen "how can you not tell?", but that's all part of the fun. In the end the plot turned out pretty well. There's a happy ending, but what'd you expect. <br /><br />Overall,just hilarious.

positive

This was the first Chan film made by Monogram. What a come down from Fox values and standards! I was shocked when I saw my first Monogram after seeing the great Fox films. This is boring and uninspired with wild music playing as Chan calmly walks across the street. Chan is now working for the US Secret Service rather than the Honolulu Police Department. He is assisted by Benson Fong, who plays No. 3 Son Tommy for the first time. He also has a daughter along, Iris Chan, played by Marianne Quon. Mantan Moreland also makes his debut as Birmingham Brown. He is a cab driver in Washington, DC, here, rather than the later chauffeur to Chan in the later films.

negative

This review contains what might be a spoiler if you never read the book or saw the cover of the video box. So if you want to approach the movie not knowing anything about it, except that I like it a lot, stop here...<br /><br />The production values are not first rate, but the acting between the leads is, and they give the romance between them more life than Shute does in his novel (although I generally prefer the novel). My very faint objections to the film as opposed to the book is that the film dumbs-down some of the relationships with secondary characters, and between the lead characters in a scene toward the end of the film, to provide for some not at all realistic dramatic tension and as a general plot device. All this is handled much better in the book, with the result that I find the end of the book quite a bit more touching than the end of the movie.

positive

This movie was sooo bad. It wasn't even funny at all. Not even the sarcastic scenes were funny. Oh man, bad, so bad. Thumbs down. Spoofed, Karate Kid, Teen Wolf, Footloose, Dirty Dancing, Some Kind of Wonderful, Soul Man, and probably another or two. Chris Kattan at his very worst as the high school janitor who is a talented dancer, who runs a dance studio in a warehouse. He has a jealous girlfriend, who breaks her ankle and her dance spot goes to the cute blonde newcomer who Chris has eyes for. I thought the acting was really bad. I like laugh out loud comedies, this was not one. "Not Another Teen Movie" wasn't funny, but had a lot more funny scenes than Totally Awesome. "Scary Movie" is suuuper funny. I always laugh when I watch those, super enjoyable. This movie, not funny.

negative

Savage Steve Holland wrote and directed his second film, One Crazy Summer, with John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong again in a supporting role. Cusack and Bobcat Goldthwait are recent graduates headed to Cape Cod in order to stay at Goldthwait's grandmother's for the summer. Along the way, they bump into Demi Moore being pursued by John Matuszak and a motorcycle gang. Soon the three are united in trying to save a house from being turned into another lobster restaurant by a conniving, spoiled family that considers "work" a dirty word. The film contains several funny vignettes like the millionaire dollar radio contest gags and the Godzilla skit.<br /><br />Like Holland's first film, Better Off Dead, John Cusack adds immeasurably to the film. Otherwise, this is a dud of a film filled with contrived situations and idiotic characters (as opposed to quirky). Moore even sings a few bars in a nightclub with some horrible synthesizers. Goldthwait's gags wear thin after awhile, and Armstrong never was an actor of any caliber to appear in anything except grade Z stuff. The tow truck twins are extremely annoying and obnoxious instead of the endearing underdogs they're obviously meant to be. This is more of a hit or miss, kitchen sink comedy which could have used a better script and direction. *1/2 of 4 stars.

negative

Simply put, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly were remarkable. The movie is less about the raw science of Darwin's beliefs, and holds the focus very strongly on his relationship with his family, primarily his wife, Emma, and daughter, Annie.<br /><br />Toby Jones gives a wonderful turn as Thomas Huxley, the great defender of Darwin's beliefs, and the rest of the cast is up to the task of sharing screen time with Bettany and Connelly.<br /><br />But it is those two who carry the movie. Their real chemistry is apparent from beginning to end, but develops transcendence as Darwin grapples with his demons. The scene where Darwin relates the ending of the story of Jenny, the orangutan, to his dying daughter, Annie, is utterly gripping. The world premiere audience at the TIFF was spellbound. Bettany's performance will be recognized as one of the year's best in short order. Equally magnificent is Connelly's work playing the religious wife of a man who, in Huxley's words, "killed God".<br /><br />The film moves slowly through the entire spectrum of Darwin's grief, relishing every detail of Bettany and Connelly's acting.<br /><br />Brilliant.

positive

<br /><br />I first viewed this film shortly after it was put out on video in 1995, I dismissed it offhand, saying that Julie was no Daniel, never really giving it a chance and saying it was horrid.<br /><br />But here it is, 5 years later, its on Disney and im watching it again. And I'm finding that it isnt as bad as I made it out to be. Miyagi is still Miyagi, just as kool as ever, the musical score is still there pleasant as ever. And Swank's character isnt that bad, her acting is pretty good considering the script. It beats the third installment by a wide margin. So, my original rating of 4 has been raised to 7.

positive

I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.<br /><br />These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.<br /><br />I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.

negative

The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat.

positive

this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.<br /><br />i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now! <br /><br />I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is "how did Dillon choose this script"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort. <br /><br />i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.<br /><br />i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.<br /><br />Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.

negative

When I saw this film the first time I was very impressed concerning the kind of atmosphere the director creates. It is also very interesting to see how they imagine the near future in the year 1974. If you see the film you will see a lot of sets and customs which are called freaky and modern again today.<br /><br />The topic of the film deals with the old question "What is real and what is illusion?". If you see "The Matrix" you will find a lot of similarities. But the two films are not comparable at all because "Welt am Draht" is art and "The Matrix" is entertainment. If prefer the first one.<br /><br />Unfortunately I lost my video copy of it.<br /><br />

positive

"RVAM"'s reputation preceded it. I first heard of it in one of those Medved style movie books, "The 50 Worst Movies Ever" or "The Golden Turkey Awards", or something like that. Every review of the film basically said that this movie was so bad that it would make you bleed from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was anticipating the kind of cathartic experience that only a true cinematic stinker can provide. <br /><br />However, "Robot" wasn't really all that bad. <br /><br />Oh, this is definitely a "Z" film through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is usually the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is awfully cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous "Aztec Mummy" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A dead giveaway: anytime the question "Then what happened?" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with little regard for plot coherence or momentum. In RVAM, "Then what happened?" or "What happened then?" is uttered at least four times in the 1st hour. <br /><br />Even without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For instance, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about Doctor Krupp, "a doctor who suddenly turned into an evil master criminal" and began his quest for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just "suddenly turned evil". Obviously, this was aimed at a pretty undiscriminating audience. <br /><br />The clincher, though, is the "Robot", the supposed "showcase" of this movie. This Robot is the worst robot special effect since "Undersea Kingdom" or even "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the "Wizard Of Oz" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the "Boris Karloff" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake. <br /><br />In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.<br /><br />In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to "Monster A-Go-Go" or "Attack of The Eye Creatures", "RVTAM" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and "Phantom Of the Opera" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain. <br /><br />Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with "Samson Vs The Vampire Women", under "interesting Mexican juvenile oddities".

negative

Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.<br /><br />Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's "evil voice" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer? <br /><br />Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.

negative

Films about the mundane are often the most interesting of all films to me, in the hands of an insightful artist who examines all the twisted little details of the mundane. The French cinema seems to often be very good at this sort of thing, and I love the French cinema.<br /><br />This film was about the mundane. It didn't have a much of a plot. It was just characters who lived in a town, very normal people, and stuff just happened. But it wasn't very interesting stuff, and it wasn't examined very insightfully. The film did capture a bit of a mood, but it wasn't a particularly captivating mood. And while I can't think of much that the film did specifically wrong, it failed on just about every level to do anything right.<br /><br />There were a lot of characters in this film. A lot of them kind of looked alike, so it was hard to figure out who was who, and what were their relations to one another. I don't mind putting some effort into understanding a film, or even watching an especially complex film more than one time to iron out the details, but this one was a puzzle not worth the solving for me.<br /><br />The only good thing I can really say about this film is that the cinematography was pleasant--functional, not brilliant, but pleasant. The camera often captured some nice postcard-type shots. But it rarely found the really interesting little details.<br /><br />I've seen a handful of not-so-good films so far at the Seattle International Film Festival, but this was the only one that failed to get any applause when the credits rolled. I sensed a big collective sigh of relief when the film was finally over. But I suppose there are probably some people out there who would like it.<br /><br />4/10

negative

The details in The Big Trail were so incredible that I felt that the movie was made at the time it represents. I have never seen wagons that were so real! They were big, loaded with accessories, and even felt as though they had been filled with details under the canvas covers that was never meant to be seen. Every speck of dirt, every scratch, every splinter was there. Modern day computer technology could never recreate the scenes of the numerous wagons as they move across the land or circle to fend off indians. The wagons were all real, individual vehicles, each with its own real team of horses or oxen.<br /><br />The actors clothing could not have felt more genuine. With the exception of John Wayne's buckskin outfit and Marguerite Churchill's nice dress, the clothes were very common looking, tattered, or dirty in an authentic looking way. Many of the actors and actresses were born before electricity and indoor plumbing were common, and they must have felt comfortable with the surroundings. All the indians were real indians rather than white extras painted tan.<br /><br />Women of the old west had to be sturdy because there was a lot of work. In every scene showing work done by the people of the wagon train, women are shown chopping wood, hauling logs, etc. This realism was so natural looking that it did not come across as a statement on the role of women of the day rather than a fact of survival.<br /><br />The plot of revenge and romance is played well. Nothing is overstated or overplayed.<br /><br />Something was lost along the way in the 1930's in Hollywood. As much as I love the fake scenery and controlled environment of old movies, The Big Trail manages to feel real above all else. The more I see big budget movies of the silent era, the more I like them. I can think of few movies of the 1930's that I have seen that equal the grandeur of the best of the 1920's. If there were home movies made in the days of wagon trains, The Big Trail is what they would look like.

positive

A show about an incredibly dumb, man-child and his shrewish hot wife. 99% of the plots revolves around Doug doing something unbelievably stupid and then comes a variable: a) either he hides it from his wife or b) tell his wife, she emasculates him and then it's up to the father-in-law (Arthur: the typecast character from Seinfeld) to aggravate the situation.<br /><br />And the writers dare to say it was influenced by the "Honeymooners" (an absolute classic) and that the plots are drawn from real-life situations, unless you live in a cave, you know that's not true.<br /><br />Anyway, let's just put it this way. If Kevin James had been thin, the show would have got canceled fromm the pilot. If you're 12, or you're fond of fat jokes.. be my guest, watch this show (or any of Kevin James movies for that matter).<br /><br />I've noticed some posters compare this travesty to much superior shows like Friends, Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond -- I'm still wondering how could anyone do that

negative

As long as you go into this movie with the understanding that it's not going to contain any historical fact whatsoever, it's not bad.<br /><br />It's on par with Sam Raimi's "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys", as far as plot, acting, humour, and production values are concerned. You'll see the similarities at several points. Most of the fight scenes are not as good however and the film suffers from that.<br /><br />Jack Palance commands the screen as well as ever, and at no time do you have the impression he's giving anything less than his level best. Same for Oliver Reed. The problem is that their strong performances make square-jawed Don Diamont's less-than-stellar acting skills seem even more awkward. Perennial bit player Cas Anvar was very good as well, playing a character much like Salmonius in the aforementioned Hercules.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the low budget swords-and-sorcery movies of the early 80s, you're probably going to enjoy this show as well. It's actually a shame they attached the Marco Polo name to it. It really has nothing to do with Marco's life, contrary to the expectations of most of the people who will want to watch this movie.

negative

This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.<br /><br />The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.<br /><br />Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.<br /><br />My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.<br /><br />Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.

negative

I started watching this because i thought it was a really shitty porno. As i kept watching the only thrill i got from this movie was finding out what the name of it was so i could look it up and rip on it. I just finished it and have considered ending my life knowing that someone actually made this movie.<br /><br />For the people who commented on this movie as having a good script and great acting, my words of wisdom for you are that you probably have no friends because you were in the movie. You are probably wishing you had all that time back of your life that you wasted on making this movie.<br /><br />There is no way that this is a serious movie. There was an old guy that gets stabbed and it doesn't even hurt him at all. And when everyone else gets stabbed they drop dead.<br /><br />It was probably important that these people killed random people and ate them and also hung out with an 80 year old man that wanted to put the parts into his body.<br /><br />My favorite part was when the old man found the "hemoglobens" or however you spell it because that made the movie seem very intellectual and probably helped to reach the older crowd.<br /><br />What really blew my mind that they decided to throw in that random scene about the college girls going into the woods looking for fake skulls.<br /><br />If you do attempt to see this movie, you should probably fill up your bathtub and drop your hairdryer in it and be ready to jump in.<br /><br />THIS IS A MUST SEE!!!....for anyone who believes there life could not get any worse because this will help you realize there are people out there(the makers of this movie) who are even more pathetic and are going no where in life.

negative

The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders? <br /><br />You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!

negative

"Classes tous risques" is one of the best "gangsters" films noirs France has ever produced.Perfect cast :Lino Ventura,a young Jean -Paul Belmondo (who made "a bout de souffle",Godard's thing, the same year),Marcel Dalio and a fine supporting cast ;brilliant script by José Giovanni -who also wrote "le trou" Becker's masterpièce the same year!What a year for him!;wonderful black and white cinematography by Ghislain Cloquet.And taut action,first-class directing by Claude Sautet,who surpasses Jean-Pierre Melville .Whereas the latter films gangsters movie with metaphysical pretensions,which sometimes lasts more than two hours,Claude Sautet directs men of flesh and blood,and the presence of the two children adds moments of extraordinary poignancy which Melville has never been able to generate .And Sautet avoids pathos,excessive sentimentality:the last time Ventura sees his children,coming down in the metro (subway)is a peak of restrained emotion.<br /><br />Ventura portrays a gangster whose die is cast when the movie begins.He thinks that he can rely on his former acquaintances ,but they are all cowards -we are far from manly friendship dear to Jacques Becker ("touchez pas au grisbi" ) which Melville was to continue throughout the sixties-sometimes abetted by mean women (the film noir misogyny par excellence),living in a rotten microcosm,ready to inform on -we are far from Jean Seberg's simplistic behavior in Godard's "opus"-.<br /><br />Cloquet works wonders with the picture:the scene on the beach in a starless night when the two children see their mother die after the shoot-out with the customs officers is absolutely mind-boggling.<br /><br />There's a good use of voice-over,which Sautet only uses when necessary;thus ,the last lines make the ending even stronger than if we have attended the scenes.<br /><br />Claude Sautet had found a good niche ,and he followed the "classes tous risques" rules quite well with his follow-up "l'arme à gauche" (1965) which featured Ventura again and made a good use of a desert island and a ship.Had he continued in that vein,France would have had a Howard Hawks.In his subsequent works ,only "Max et les ferrailleurs " (1971) showed something of the brilliance he displayed in the first half of the sixties.He had become ,from "les choses de la vie" onwards,the cinema de qualité director who used to focus on tender-hearted bourgeois in such works as "Cesar et Rosalie" (1972),"Vincent François ,Paul et les autres" (1974) or "Mado" (1976)

positive

Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, "Is this something that people would actually say?" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.

negative

what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it.

negative

Aslan Adam, or Lionman as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with an epic battle as King Solomon & his army defeats a load of guys although I'm not sure who they were & the film itself isn't too helpful in establishing the fact. Anyway, after King Solomon has slaughtered all these guys Princess Maria, Bishop Osorio & Commander Antoine are forced to sign a treaty which lets King Solomon rule just about everything in sight. Soon after Princess Maria seduces Solomon & they have sex, meanwhile in the shortest wedding ceremony ever (just two sentences long) Antoine weds Princess Maria & is planning to rebel against Solomon & gain some sweet revenge in the process. Antoine & his guards attack & kill Solomon even though his pregnant wife Princess Almunia escapes with her protector Rostin with Antoine's guards in hot pursuit, after the shortest labour ever (less than 5 minutes or the time it takes to run around a bush) Princess Almunia gives birth to a young baby boy who is hidden in some bushes away from Antoine's guards. Unfortunately when Rostin tries to retrieve the little fella he finds that the baby has been adopted by a pride of Lion's as one of their own! Year's later & the evil Antoine now rules treating his subjects with no mercy, Princess Maria has given birth & he has a son but Rostin is also still kicking around trying to put together a gang of rebels to overthrow Antoine, the task seems hopeless unless they can enlist the help of the legendary Lionman who is more beast than man...<br /><br />This Turkish Greek co-production was directed by Natuk Baytan as Natuch Baitan & is a one of a kind type of film, I found it hilariously bad but at the same time immensely entertaining. The script never seems to take itself seriously, it is a pretty funny film at times, it moves along like a rocket & is never dull or boring & some of the English dubbed dialogue is just hilarious in context with what's happening on screen. None of it makes any sense, we get a boy raised by Lion's, an evil king, betrayal, dark family secrets, birthmarks that form the shape of Lion's in an element of the story that was present before the kid was raised by Lion's, crazy fight scenes, torture scenes where the posts people are supposed to be tied to wobble, ancient castle interiors that randomly contain zip wires & gymnastic rings, idiotic bad guys who all seem to have extensive facial hair & a central character who has a jaw line resembling a house-brick, can be stabbed twice, have his hands covered in acid (this acid can eat it's way through steel trapdoors but is kept in a ceramic jug!) & fall over 20 feet onto a concrete floor & yet maintain no serious injury! Aslan Adam is a terrifically entertaining film, I don't think I've seen another film quite like it that I can compare it too, if your looking for something serious then forget this but if you like 'so-bad-they're-good' type films & want to have fun, laugh & be entertained then Aslan Adam should be at the VERY top of your list. Total 100% gold for bad film fans & those with a taste for the different & bizarre. On the disappointing side Lionman only gets his steel claws 10 minutes before the end which is a shame.<br /><br />Director Bayten certainly keeps things moving along at a brisk pace although it's far from well made, during the opening battle one moment guys are fighting on a sand dune the next their on a grassy hill with trees in the background! There is one point where Lionman uses a 'branch' to pole vault but it's obviously just a long tube with a vine wrapped around it! Then there's the scene when a bloodthirsty pack of bloodhounds are supposed the chasing Lionman down but the dogs used are obviously different breeds including some of the most harmless looking dogs ever! There are just so many individual scenes in Aslan Adam that are just hilarious, stupid, bizarre or all three that I could go on forever. Just check the ending out when Lionman is jumping & flying about everywhere like he can fly. There's lots of blood in Aslan Adam although not much actual graphic gore or violence, a few stabbings & someone has their hands cut off is as graphic as it gets.<br /><br />Technically Aslan Adam is pretty ropey, the period costumes are bright & garish featuring purples, yellows, reds & various other bright colours. The fight scenes are cheap but at least the filmmakers tried to put as much action in as they could. The music seemed like it was more suited to a classical ballet rather than an action film & is yet another bizarre aspect to Aslan Adam. The acting was bad, even dubbed you could tell the acting was bad.<br /><br />Aslan Adam is pure gold from start to finish, there are so many things to like, laugh at & enjoy in this film that I just ended up really liking it. In no way whatsoever can Aslan Adam be considered a good film in any sense of the word but it's one hell of an entertaining one. I may have have to watch this one again sometime soon just to prove to myself that I didn't dream it all! The best Turkish action film about a man raised by Lion's you will ever see, period. Proved popular enough to spawn a sequel, Lionman II: The Witchqueen (1979).

positive

Stephen Hawkings is a genius. He is the king of geniuses. Watching this movie makes me feel dumb. But it's a great movie. Not highly entertaining, but very very intriguing. The movie centers around wheelchair bound Stephen Hawkings, a man who makes Einstein look average, and his theories and scientific discoveries about the universe, time, the galaxy, and black holes. Everyone at sometime or another during a really intense high comes to a moment when they think they'v got the universe and the cosmos figured out and they swear as soon as they sober up they'll write it all down. Well here is a man who actually held that feeling for more then six hours. Here is a man who despite suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease has become the greatest mind the world has yet seen. Watch this and listen in on how he has formulated theories on black holes. Awesome. You won't be the same after you see it.

positive

This ranks as my favorite movie of all time. It's the best spoof of a science fiction movie ever; the fact that it was a sendup of Star Wars just made it all the better.<br /><br />I love slapstick. Think of this as the Marx brothers or the Three Stooges meet Star Wars. The writing is hilarious. The effects are a hoot. The free association that goes on guarantees all sorts of things coming out of left field. (I almost wet my pants when the Wookie Monster accosted the Princess.)<br /><br />Space Balls was a much longer movie, but only had about 15 minutes of good material in it, and I felt sort of ripped off afterwards, like buying a burger that turned out to be mostly filler. Hardware Wars, despite being only about 15 minutes long, would be worth paying a feature price, IMO.

positive

This has to be the ultimate chick flick ever. We taped it off the T.V. years ago and I've watched it about 30 times over the years. I hadn't seen it for about 12 years and just recently watched this movie. I'm not lying, I cried from the opening credits to the ending credits. This movie truly tears your heart out, even if you don't have children.

positive

Im sorry to myself, you know why. I feel pained from the viewing of this movie. I went to the theater with some friends to see this movie, and still did not give it the satisfaction of watching it in entirety ( i left with about 20 minutes left... hoping to god it might make me at least comfortable for a moment. ) most movies now, even this bad ones... when i watch them, there may be a small part in the movie where I feel some joy at times because of maybe a quirky joke or a good line... this movie on the other hand made me feel uncomfortable and mad at myself the whole time, especially since i wasted money on it. It was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, and definitely poorly acted...<br /><br />please, for the good of humanity, do not see this movie, even if your some guy who wants to say he has seen like every movie ever... just don't...

negative

Bronson took the money and ran with this film; he must have house payments like me! This low budget film made in Mexico reminds me of a few of those Italians stinkers from over seas. I heard, I do not know if this is true, but companies make these films in foreign countries for tax purposes. I believe this because why else would they make this film, it sure wasn't to make money. We had a whole lot of these Canadian made stinkers, because the government gave tax breaks to create a movie industry. I wonder if it payed off in the other countries like in Canada. Anyway, back to topic this film is poorly made in every aspect, I believe they grabbed Charles Bronson in order to sell this stinker; that dead body at the end looks very phony. 3/10

negative

In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)<br /><br />Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.

negative

Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.

negative

Most people will consider that Yul Brynner's greatest performance was as the ruler of Siam in THE KING AND I. Certainly it gave him a wide variety of moods to test his abilities in, from comic, to tragic, from eager to learn to dominating to hateful. It also showed him to advantage as a "talk singer" and a dancer. Finally, as it was also his Tony Award winning performance from Broadway, the film allowed us to capture something of the great Broadway performance as well.<br /><br />But he did other movies that showed his talents as well as THE KING AND I. His comic turn in ONCE MORE WITH FEELING was quite nice. So was his performance as General Bunin in ANASTASIA, or his Ramses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Yet he came terribly close to being a 1950s successor to Eric Von Stroheim as "the man you love to hate." A certain vulnerability in his acting and roles endeared him to the movie public, even after his best years as a star were behind him - and he retreated more and more to repeating the King of Siam on television and the stage.<br /><br />To me, his finest performance is in this 1959 drama with Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards Jr., Robert Morley, E. G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Ronnie Howard. The film is set in pretty modern times - the powder-keg that was Hungary in 1956, when briefly it looked like the Iron Curtain was about to collapse there under the reforms of Hungarian patriot Imre Nagy and his supporters. But the Hungarian Revolution collapsed due to bad timing. The Russians and their Polish and East German allies sent tanks in to crush the revolt (and arrested and executed Nagy and other reformers). The West stood by and let this happen: England and France had gotten caught in the Suez crisis, and the U.S. had berated them and Israel for attacking Egypt. Due to the actions of three close allies of the U.S., the West found it hard to condemn the overkill of the Soviet Union. It was an unfortunate situation, and the Hungarians have never forgotten how they were abandoned in it.<br /><br />In the film Brynner is Major Surov, a Russian intelligence officer who is watching for some of the leaders of the Hungarian revolt, one of whom is Paul Kedes (Jason Robards). Kedes may be getting assistance from some westerners on a bus tour through Hungary, led by Robert Morley (including Marshall, Jackson, and Howard, and Kerr). The latter are being kept in a hotel while their bus is being repaired, and Brynner mingles with them, hoping for a lead to the whereabouts of Robards. But Brynner is human - he tries to be ingratiating with these people (all of whom see him as a monster), and in sequence, when he has drunk a little too much, he confronts them with the questions that has bothered historians since 1945: How is it (even if one notes that Russia had Stalin in charge) that relations between Russia and the West collapsed so quickly? The allies, on the whole, had worked well together from 1941 to 1945, but after Yalta and Potsdam all types of mutual suspicions just erupted. Did they have to? Surov is a good officer, but he is torn in half by loyalty to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and in Hungary that he supports, and his growing fondness towards Kerr, who is hiding Robards but is also willing to note the more human side of the Russian major. And as the film reaches it's tragic climax, we watch as Surov has to decide if he will follow his sense of duty, or take pity on Kerr, Robards, and the other westerners who want to leave. It becomes a true struggle for him - and one that he may win far too late. It was a great film about a tragedy of post war Europe, and possibly the most thoughtful role Yul Brynner ever portrayed.

positive

This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a "cowboy" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's "action", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.<br /><br />The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very "beguiling" experience indeed. And who is "beguiled" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does "beguiled" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching.

positive

This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1/12 hours of my life.

negative

This movie is total dreck. I love Val Kilmer and was very surprised earlier this year by "Felon" (a good movie!). The entire DVD box is misleading. Val Kilmer while being billed as one of the main people in this film, is in the movie for about 2 minutes. Even the summary on the back of the DVD is not entirely true. This could have been a good movie but the direction was horrible and the plot was about as thin as a sheet of paper. Usually when a movie is this horrendous you can sit back and laugh at it. This film though is so bad and boring I actually fell asleep to it (which I never do during a movie). AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

negative

I can confidently say that this is the worst film I have ever seen, and I usually love foreign films. The movie is nothing more than poorly-made violent pornography. If you choose to see it, prepare yourself for endless sexism, gratuitous nudity shots, and a stupid sensationalized rape scene, which I'm sure is the main appeal for the people who like the movie. <br /><br />Additionally, the plot meanders aimlessly, and none of the characters is likable. Many scenes are filmed from the woods surrounding the river the girls are on to give a constant feeling that someone is stalking them, which was a pathetic attempt to make up for the lack of story to tell.<br /><br />Perhaps I wouldn't have wasted my time to see the movie, if it had been accurately described in reviews.

negative

Nothing about this movie stands out as either being great or terrible.<br /><br />In the end, that is what kills it. The blandness is just not good. I can't say I expected better from Will Smith, but I definitely did from Kevin James of "The King of Queens"-- but, hey, I'm getting used to saying that a lot lately. This film attempts to make its mark as a witty romantic comedy, but it never hits the bull's-eye. In fact, it never hits *anywhere* within the target. The allergy scene is disturbing; the fact that Kevin James can't dance is something that wouldn't exactly catch anybody off-guard, and is therefore (in a movie like this) not funny. This movie constantly tries to win your heart, but always with the wrong ploy at the wrong time. Some parts are okay (but I'm searching my brain for examples), but I really think this movie should be avoided.

negative

This movie was one of the worst I have ever seen (not including anything by or with Pauly Shore). I couldn't believe that a film could actually be THIS bad!<br /><br />Coolio has to be the single worst actor (again, not including Pauly Shore) to ever "star" in a movie. The temptation to hit the STOP button during this movie was huge (in fact, if there was a THROW IN THE TRASH button on my VCR, I would have been inclined to press that).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, and do something more interesting than watch this movie, like watching the grass grow, or watching golf on TV.

negative

Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people. <br /><br />Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10.

negative

Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.<br /><br />Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.

negative

One of the worst shows of all time. The show would begin with smart ass ed comments to each other that would be totally off the wall and uncalled for. The fat computer geek was unbelievable, the bible thumper, the bad-ass girl, who are these actors??? Never heard of any of them except Cole who was totally unbelievable in the part. Every time he opened his mouth you expect to hear, "you see kids..." Pulling the plug was a mercy killing for this horrible show. The stories were as unbelievable as the actors. Lame would be the best way to describe it. Somehow this show makes a slug like Ice-T more believable as a cop, and he wrote the worst song about cops ever recorded.

negative

I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.<br /><br />I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.<br /><br />There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.<br /><br />I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)<br /><br />I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.

negative

Basically, this is a very good film. It is very different from Seagal's other films though, which unfortunately may turn off some of his fans. Unlike some of the other films, this does not feel like a 'Seagal vehicle'. You get to see plenty of the other characters as well and all of Mr. Seagal's actions are not the same as we've seen before. The concept of him being an 'intellectual' in something other than bombs and other weaponry is a nice change. Although there are some unrealistic parts to the film (some more obvious than others), in general you can let them slide since the film is fun to watch.<br /><br />It boils down to this: If you are looking for a classic Seagal action film, sorry, but you're going to be disappointed. Watch it anyway for the fun of it. If you're open to seeing Seagal without the action, it's well worth a look. I personally believe it is some of the best work he's done in quite a while.<br /><br />

positive

The atmosphere in this show is great. There's plenty of excellent buildup, but thats where this show fails. There's way to much build up for nothing. You will constantly see a creepy set up that makes it feel likes something really freaky is coming right out of the corner and then....nothing. Over and over again nothing. You hear plenty of stories of people talking about freaky events but you see none. They show up at these peoples doors, talk about their deep and emotional pasts, set up lame equipment and find nothing! there is nothing on this show thats leads me to believe in anything paranormal. I laugh every time they need to exercise a "horrible spirit" that we as an audience have seen nothing of. They get rid of the spirit that never was and everything is put in a neat little package. A show that looked so freaky and had such great potential leads up to one thing...Nothing!

negative

This movie made by the NFBC was made in honor of the Montreal Canadians dynasty years in the 50's,60's and 70's. My 5th grade teacher played this in class in honor of my 11th birthday in 1987 and also to celebrate my return from a serious facial injury in 1986. I have been a Canadians fan for 29 of my 30 years of life. on a scale of 1-10, I give this film a 117. All hockey fans should see this as I hope it will be placed in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto and shown at the Bell Centre in Montreal or here in Edmonton at Rexall Place. Watch this film with your family it is a great movie. I also recommend the book in both French and English. Go Habs Go.

positive

I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!

negative