Datasets:

generalization

/

sst2_Sampled-p_05

like 0

Follow

Generalization Experiments 1

This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10

trimmed_train

Credited by Variety to be one of the greatest documentaries to ever come out of Canada. Al Pacino, Roger Ebert, Neil Simon, Matt Dillon as well as a constant slew of celebs make this film a Canadian classic. The film is really best described as "Roger & Me" meets "The Player". Watch as Kenny Hotz and Spenny PITCH their script to the big boys of Hollywood. Called the only American film to ever come out of Canada, This film opened the Toronto Film Festival in 1997, Winner of the 'Best Indie Film Award Toronto'. Europe premier was at the prestigious HOF film fest in Germany. U.S.A. premier U.S. Comedy Festival Aspen 1999. More information available at www.kennyhotz.com

trimmed_train

this film really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer. <br /><br />you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything. <br /><br />what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . . <br /><br />why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.<br /><br />i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too. <br /><br />big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing.

trimmed_train

The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.<br /><br />Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.<br /><br />It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.<br /><br />Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating! <br /><br />Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.

trimmed_train

Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.

trimmed_train

Good lord, whoever made this turkey needs to be buried alive. I'm sorry, but the other reviewer must not have seen this movie, he must be watching something else, or have never seen a movie before... 9 out of ten stars? He's saying what, this is as good as Ben Hur or Gone With the Wind? Unintentionally funny, massively unbelievable characters, absurd situations, looks like it was shot in Griffith Park (which works out pretty well--MASH was shot in Griffith Park), crappy script, just about everything that could possibly be wrong with a movie all rolled into one package. Should be required viewing for all prospective film makers as an example of how a movie could be horribly wrong. It reminds me of something a USC student may make for a film class. <br /><br />Give this one a pass unless you do drugs and are into high camp.

trimmed_train

A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.<br /><br />There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)

trimmed_train

Astounding.....This may have been A poor attempt at remaking the already recreated Omen Movie, but I sure enjoyed it.<br /><br />That last Man who commented is a fool, This Movie was one of a kind, And the Music Dark, Jerry Goldsmith Himself, would had applaud this Movie.<br /><br />Great recommendations from Myself to Watch or Buy this Film.<br /><br />I collect horror Movies and Soundtracks, So listen to what I have to say, not that other idiot.<br /><br />There is only one thing that do not fascinate Me, the endings.<br /><br />According to Prophecy it is all inaccurate, Including Final conflict, and Left behind.<br /><br />But My conclusion being.... There great Movies...and should be seen, before the Great Depression falls upon Us, and Before the Democrats Take over the Presidency too.<br /><br />So Signed....Jacob Eder...A Farmer, with A Mastermind.

trimmed_train

I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.

trimmed_train

Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.<br /><br />This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.<br /><br />Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.<br /><br />If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.<br /><br />Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day.

trimmed_train

I was lucky enough to have seen this on a whim during a film festival and was smacked so hard with what I saw I returned the next night for its second of three screenings. A funny, savage and sharp-toothed attack on every aspect of mainstream entertainment passively swallowed without tasting by the lowest-common-denominator target audience waged by a lone-avenger journalist who slowly takes in members for his guerilla-war on predictability is what the movie's all about, and is executed in such an unpredictable and refreshing way that you're left after the credits roll with hope renewed, and excited that original films can still be made. Anyone frustrated with unfulfilled expectations for something to light up their imaginations would do well to hunt (and I do mean hunt) this scarcely-seen item down. For fans of Fight Club and any Charlie Kaufman film, and required viewing for anyone who avoids multiplexes like a rabid dog.

trimmed_train

First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?

trimmed_train

Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters. <br /><br />Just awful.<br /><br />I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep!

trimmed_train

To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "…gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated.

trimmed_train

THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?<br /><br />Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen.

trimmed_train

"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money.

trimmed_train

When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness.

trimmed_train

I consider Stuart Bliss the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and the plot ludicrous. I get the fact that the main character's wife leaving him triggered a mental breakdown, but it got so silly and boring, after a while I could have cared less about any of the characters.<br /><br />The movie kept going over and over the same ideas without anything fresh or surprising to add to the plot. The whole thing with the Geiger counter got too much after a while after Stuart started opening up his wall to see what was behind it after the counter indicated something was there.<br /><br />Then there was the repetitive scenes with the flyer, and the confusing ones where he meets himself.<br /><br />I should have guessed that this movie was a flop when I didn't recognize any of the actors. Do yourself a favor when this movie comes up, read a book! You'll be better off.

trimmed_train

You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings. <br /><br />And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.<br /><br />The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.<br /><br />It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me.

trimmed_train

I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"

trimmed_train

I agree that the movie is a little slow at spots having many scenes of mundane everyday life and no dialog. And I wasn't impressed right after I watched it. However, after a few days, I realized that the movie stays with me and it evokes a melancholy mood which lingers in my mind. My appreciation of this movie increases. It certainly merits a higher consideration than those movies that are instantly forgettable.<br /><br />As many have commented, the movie is non-linear and that's a hallmark of European film-making as opposed to the linear narrative form that Hollywood favors. I don't really know whether it's true or not. Many also dislike its confusing structure and lack of clear explanations. To those viewers, I don't think there is much I can say to change their opinions. However, for others who have yet to see the film, DO expect to be challenged and DON'T expect the film to supply all the answers and you might come away enjoying it more than you would otherwise.<br /><br />The movie skips around a bit but really chronicles just 3 time periods. Pay attention to the hair style and you can easily separate out 2 of the 3 periods. It is also not as confusing as suggested; just enjoy and it'll all be clear at the end.<br /><br />Yes, lots of things are left unsaid or not shown, and lots of situations are left unexplored. But isn't that what life is like? A lot of time you're not sure of the motives of your friends/loved ones unless you confront them and even then, you can never be 100% sure if they told you the whole truth. This type of movies forces us to interpret the reasons behind the actions. The movie does, however, leave enough hints for you to make some reasonable assumptions. For example, Mathieu is manic depressive, to the point of suicidal. Why? I don't know, maybe his life is not turning out exactly as he expects it; maybe he misses his family but hasn't forgiven his father for abandoning his sick mother at her hours of need; maybe after all he sacrifices for Cedric, rearranging and indeed, shattering his life to be with him, he realizes that it is all "coming undone". I think the director meant to show us that he has always been a little off, mentality fragile by that scene w/ the dead bird. Maybe he has a very sensitive psyche and all these stresses are taking a toll on him. But we're also shown that he is not some animal torturing psycho by his loving interaction w/ the stray cat. Also, there is one conversation between the doctor and Cedric that sheds light on the reason behind the breakup and maybe the suicide attempt. The doctor asks him if everything is okay, and Cedric thinks so even though he cheated on Mathieu once, but that's nothing, according to Cedric. Is that the only reason, we don't know, there are probably others, all mixed up together. Is it paramount that we know exactly what they are? I don't think so, for this movie. Another telltale sign that they are ultimately not compatible is the historical ruins scene. Mathieu is interested in studying the ruins, Cedric is not. He is the one w/ the raging hormone who focuses only on the physical side without an intellectual side that Mathieu obviously needs.<br /><br />Finally, the ending is really rather hopeful and sweet. I was pleasantly surprised by the turn of events after the bleak tone that edges toward the end.<br /><br />I have two complaints for the DVD. One is the sound. It's very soft. I had to crank up the volume to hear the dialog and then when it switched to a bar or outdoor crowd scene, it became too loud. The other is that the subtitles can't be turn off; they stay on the screen. Most foreign movie DVDs not released by a major studio are shoddy this way unfortunately.

trimmed_train

Susan Swift is an appealing youngster, a flower child transplanted to the 1980's (like a young Susan Dey), but she doesn't quite have the vocal range for a demanding dramatic lead and she tends to whine; still, she's rather sweet and has bright eyes and a pretty smile. In "The Coming" (as it was called when briefly released to theaters), Swift may be the reincarnation of a Salem witch. The flick is very low-budget and borrows from so many other pictures that I gave up on it with about 15 minutes to go. It starts out strong and has some camp appeal. Obviously, there are more serious films that deal with the Salem witch trials that deserve to be seen over this one; however, as junk movies go, it isn't too terrible. The Boston locales are a definite plus, and the supporting cast is amusingly hammy. *1/2 from ****

trimmed_train

Chris Rock stars in this remake of Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait (itself a remake of the 1941 film Here Comes Mr. Jordan), a comedy about a man who dies before his time, before he can realize his dreams, and his adventures in his new (albeit temporary) body. In the Beatty version, the protagonist was a backup quarterback for the then-Los Angeles Rams. In Rock's hipper version, our lead character is a struggling young - and decidedly low-talent - standup comedian.<br /><br />It's very funny to see the razor-sharp Rock playing a bad comedian. It's kind of like seeing Tom Hanks play a bad actor. Lance Barton's dream is to play the legendary Apollo Theater on a non-amateur night. But every time he tries out his material, he's booed off the stage lustily - so much so that his nickname becomes "Booie." His jokes are lame, his delivery painful. In short, Lance is everything that the real Chris Rock isn't.<br /><br />Lance is also a bike messenger, and he's riding the streets on his way to try out even more material when BAM! He's hit by a truck. Ok, so maybe he was taken from his body a tenth of a second early by a slightly incompetent angel (Eugene Levy), but hey, he was going to get hit anyway. No dice, it appears Lance isn't due in Heaven until 2044. So what to do? Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri), the "manager" of Heaven, reluctantly agrees to find a new body for the not-quite-dead Mr. Barton. Trouble is, the body they find is of a greedy, old white man. Turns out this fella (a Mr. Wellington) owns all kinds of things - he's the 15th richest man in the country! What luck! You can imagine how Lance will turn things around. <br /><br />But of course, while in the body of the affluent Mr. Wellington, Lance falls for a gorgeous hospital worker (Regina King). We males know how tough it is to find a female given our own body, but try winning one over while you're an dumpy, old white guy! And it's even worse when she's not impressed by your money. <br /><br />This is Rock's first shot at a lead role, and in my opinion he performs admirably. There's still a lot of the standup comedian in him - and, of course, if he ever wants to get diverse roles, he might have to stop incorporating standup routines into the script - but this isn't really a bad thing. Rock's personality - his drive, his delivery, his demeanor, and his passion - are what fuel this film. He's clearly having a lot of fun in the role, and he seems bent on making sure you have fun watching him.

trimmed_train

Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching "Teen News" -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it "confusing". Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics?

trimmed_train

A group of us watched this film are were really disgusted. We were willing to forgive the fact that our favorite character Jo wasn't on (it's not like the writers/producers could do anything about that). The writing was poor, the script was sub-par. What REALLY annoyed us: 1. When the two guys realized they were both dating Natalie, they didn't just leave they put up with that stupid (and ultimately degrading) contest - but only because they were macho competing guys, not because they really wanted Natalie. 2. Despite being unable to choose between the two guys before the reunion, Natalie suddenly decides that she really loves one of the guys and is now ready to marry him? (and there was no foreshadowing that he was really a better guy, it's as if the writers flipped a coin and then just had her spit it out at some convenient point in the film). 3. Blair makes a point of talking about how she does not want children and then all of a sudden when her husband says he wants to have children, she blissfully agrees with him.

trimmed_train

This movie is a little unusual in that it's got a very slim plot and the movie itself is done at a very slow and leisurely pace. While this makes it pretty different from the average Grant film, it is still highly watchable and entertaining. It's sort of like someone said "let's just follow Cary around and watch as he gets perturbed at all the little problems that come up when you are having a house rehabbed". Considering what a fun actor he is in the film and the great support he gets from Myrna Loy and Melvin Douglas, the film works very well. While the film has pretty modest pretensions, it makes the most of the material. It's a great film for Cary Grant fans or for the whole family.

trimmed_train

Thanks should be given to the Hong Kong VCD/DVD distributors that I only paid US$1.4 and I could have such a surprisingly delightful enjoyment.<br /><br />Adultery? How common in our modern days. Eva grabbed her two children and kidnapped Nick to chase after Luis and Charlotte to Italy. She wants her revenge done but at the end, she also commits the same crime of Luis: she had sex with Nick.<br /><br />In this small indie production, Vivian Naefe dealt with the teething problems in modern marriage with a light heart. How can one dare treat marriage seriously in this fast-food time where people are now of higher mobility in physical, mental and technology areas? Conjugal commitment asks for too high a price that most people would choose to succumb to circumstances. Nick once trusted Charlotte but he fell for Eva after that kidnap journey which forced him to experience much growth.<br /><br />Most viewers may feel happy about the ending because Eva and Nick come together, well, this should be the greatest retribution to the unfaithful act of their spouses. However, I want a sequel, I want to see how the four would develop after this exchange. Perhaps they may exchange back, how can one be so sure about the shaky love relationship.<br /><br />Good acting and good scenery. The two little child-actors should not be neglected especially the boy when he cries at the reception of the hotel in Venezia. And of course, how can we forget the "bella, bella" scenery of the city.

trimmed_train

This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen? <br /><br />The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself. <br /><br />Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.

trimmed_train

This movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. Face it, you can't. Because that way there's nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot, have meaningless transitions, trite, unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool Korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie, really I did; I like lots of crappy movies. But once I've been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and WHY, DEAR LORD, WHY? more than a few times, I really can't take it any more.<br /><br />Also, I would love for someone to explain how LA became Mordor for the last scene.

trimmed_train

This is without a doubt one of the worst movies EVER, I emphasize, EVER made. What´s worse, my old hero Dolph is in it and he´s starring it. Jesus... The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt. The fighting scenes for starters are about as well choreographed as a fight between two drunks slugging it out in the gutter. The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time. This is §12 million spent in an unimaginable way, because by the look of the effects and scenery, the cost can´t be a cent above §1000.

trimmed_train

Star Wars: Episode 4 .<br /><br />the best Star Wars ever. its the first movie i ever Sean were the bad guys win and its a very good ending. it really had me wait hing for the next star wars because so match stuff comes along in this movie that you just got to find out more in the last one. whit Al lot of movies i always get the feeling that it could be don bedder but not whit this one. and i Will never ever forget the part were wader tels Luke he is his father.way too cool. also love the Bob feat figure a do hes a back ground player. if you never ever Saw a star wars movie you go to she this one.its the best.<br /><br />thanks Lucas

trimmed_train

It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this "traumatic" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: "There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.<br /><br />Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.<br /><br />I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot.

trimmed_train

Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br />

trimmed_train

I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.<br /><br />Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh!

trimmed_train

I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. <br /><br />Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. <br /><br />Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.

trimmed_train

I had a chance to see a screening of this movie recently. I believe that it will be in theaters in Canada some time around Mother's Day. If it is in a theater near you... GO! It's not a funny feel-good movie - it's more along the lines of a feel and think movie.<br /><br />The director does an excellent job of character development - letting you into the heart, mind and hurts of Hagar little by little. At first, her attitudes and behaviors don't make much sense. As her story unfolds, she becomes someone you can understand. As in life... understanding brings empathy. I found her likable by the end of the movie - particularly when she opens up her heart to the young man in the shack by the lake.<br /><br />Hagar's relationship with her two sons is painful - and reflective of so many of our own experiences in this world. Her youngest son, John, who is full of life and adventure takes the viewer to the very edge of their seat - and into the kind of raw emotion that is so authentic and rare.<br /><br />It's fun to see Ellen Page acting in this movie. She is so very different than the young woman that she plays in Juno. It gives me an even broader appreciation for her acting ability. If you loved her in Juno, you'll love her in The Stone Angel.<br /><br />Of course, there is Ellen Burnstyn as Hagar. There is likely no way of expressing the power of acting as strongly as the ability for the actor to make you forget every other character they have ever played. Never once in the course of this movie did I ever think of Ellen Burnstyn - I always and only thought of Hagar. She swept me into her character - hook, line and sinker.<br /><br />Kari Skogland's capacity to capture on film this renowned book by one of Canada's most cherished authors is impressive. She brilliantly brings to the screen both the stoney and angelic parts of this complex woman, Hagar - the stone angel.

trimmed_train

This romantic adventure must have seemed shockingly subversive in its day. A wealthy upper class English woman schemes, plots and manipulates everyone around her for her own satisfaction. She uses her privileged position to embark on secret activities of a decidedly anti-social kind. There's a clever sex-role reversal as her activities prove her more daring and dashing than most of the male characters. But naturally there's a tall, dark and handsome stranger to keep up the love interest, and this wicked lady is not backward in coming forward when she meets the right man.<br /><br />The wishy-washy weakness and gullibility of every other character make the plot unconvincing in the extreme, but those who thirst for Romance will overlook that.

trimmed_train

If any movie stands out extremely with the actors' acting skills, this is probably the one. I've never seen dialogues be spoken in such a rough way, but having a strong feeling. The movie was disturbing at moments. However, the movie was terrible at editing. The movie tries to go the commercial way by adding comedy and songs, yet they feel out of place. Like Karisma is getting beat up, and the same time SRK is fighting (comically) with the police officers. The Ishq Kamina song was very out of place. On top of that, the movie is overly glossy in the beginning. The direction was not bad, but certainly nothing one can brag about.<br /><br />I have to say that the actors' were chosen very wisely. Without them, this movie would not have an impact. Karisma Kapoor has given her best role to date, and this looks very good on her record after Zubeidaa and Fiza. She looks pretty in the first half, and I've never seen an actress scream of emotion and anger as well as her. What is most ironic is this is probably her weakest written role to date. Nana Patekar was excellent as her father-in-law. Not much to say about him, besides this is a role made for him. Deepti Naval as the mother-in-law was excellent especially in her final scene. Though she doesn't have much to say, her facial expressions and body language was good. The other good performance was the little kid. He was adorable, and is sure to bring tears to the viewer's eyes. The movie was probably saved desperately by their performances. Sanjay Kapoor was all right, but he didn't have much to do. Shahrukh Khan was wasted in his bad boyish type role. <br /><br />One thing that brought the audience to the theater was Ishq Kamina. The song picturization and dancing is perfect for the crude lyrics of the song. And boy Aish is mad hot. However, the song belonged to be in another movie only because it came at the worst moment ever. People may have come to the movie for Aish, but they won't brag too much about it after-wards. Hum Tum Miley was properly paced, but seemed to drag as the suspense mood was leaving throughout the movie. Damroo Bhaje was boring and nothing to rave about. Dil Ne Pukara is too boring of a song to get the mood of the movie. Despite the poor editing, the performances alone make it a must see.

trimmed_train

Another classic study of the effects of wealth on a southern family is masterfully depicted in Written on the Wind.<br /><br />Kyle Hadley has it all. Wealth, a plane, you name it. Kyle's best friend, Mitch, has always gotten him out of difficulty. Mitch finished college, Kyle got thrown out. Mitch is not from a wealthy home. Kyle's family, with Hadley Oil, controls most of everything in the town.<br /><br />While in N.Y., Kyle meets the girl of his dreams, nicely played by Lauren Bacall. After a whirlwind romance, he marries her and brings her home. There she meets her father-in-law who warns her how difficult Kyle can be. Kyle sleeps with a gun under his pillow. The Bacall character meets Kyle's sister, Mary Lee, a tramp if ever there were, played to the fullest by Dorothy Malone, who was voted best supporting actress.<br /><br />Rock Hudson plays Mitch, the faithful friend.<br /><br />A year of wedded bliss for Kyle and his bride ends when Kyle is told by the doctor that he can't have children. It is when his wife reveals to him that she is indeed pregnant, Kyle, thinking that the child is Mitch's, goes on a drunken frenzy and is accidentally shot dead in a memorable scene.<br /><br />Mary Lee, who has always loved Mitch, tries but is unsuccessful in blaming Mitch for Kyle's death. In a memorable courtroom scene, Malone pulled out all the stops in finally admitting that Kyle's death was an unfortunate accident. Her Oscar was well deserved.<br /><br />Surprisingly, Robert Stack, brilliant as Kyle Hadley, was nominated for best supporting actor and lost in an upset victory by Anthony Quinn, as Paul Gauguin, in Lust for Life.<br /><br />Douglas Sirk was the master of soap opera films of the 1950s. Written on the Wind is no exception. ***1/2.

trimmed_train

As usual, Hollywood stereotyped EVERYONE in the movie. But, this one is a classic - from the uptight white collar banker to the Russian woman!! Well done. Even facial expressions were great! Language was perfect (even in Russian language) and Nicole did a splendid job!! Hey guys - you get what you pay for:)

trimmed_train

`An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.'

trimmed_train

For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.<br /><br />Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.<br /><br />I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode – with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue – and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him "clicking" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.<br /><br />Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes – those not written by McGovern – mistreated the character.<br /><br />So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show – making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding – you'll feel that "click" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.<br /><br />The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes – the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma – rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives – one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.<br /><br />But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going – reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we – as an audience – don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.<br /><br />I can't say that this ruined the show for me – it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like "To Be A Somebody" – an episode that was just as "issuey", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.<br /><br />Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department – which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).<br /><br />Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?) – he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.<br /><br />So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people.

trimmed_train

I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!<br /><br />I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.

trimmed_train

I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been.

trimmed_train

As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.<br /><br />THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.<br /><br />The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.<br /><br />Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.<br /><br />I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.

trimmed_train

This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.

trimmed_train

The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of "A Bug's Life".

trimmed_train

This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.<br /><br />But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.<br /><br />If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.

trimmed_train

When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!!

trimmed_train

Some wonder why there weren't anymore Mrs. Murphy movies after this one. Will it's because this movie totally blew snot. Disney was not the right studio to run this film. MAYBE Touchstone (well, they're owned by Disney, but it'd be more adult). The film is too kid-ish, as the book series is not. The casting is all wrong for the characters. The characters don't even act the way they do in the books. And why was Tucker changed to a guy? He's a girl in the frigging books! Was this done to make the film appeal to boys? Sheesh. And where was Pewter, the gray cat? One of the funniest characters from the book is absent from this filth. Rita Mae Brown is a good writer, but letting Disney blow her work was wrong. An animated feature film, perhaps in the vane of Don Bluth's artwork would suit a better Mrs. Murphy film. Overall, I give this a 2, because at least Disney made a film from an under-appreciated book series. But, I wish they did better. Either way, I still have my books to entertain me.

trimmed_train

Following directly from where the story left off in part one, the second half which sets about telling the inevitable downfall and much more grim side of the man's legacy is exactly as such. In direct contrast to the first feature, part two represents a shift from Che the pride and glory of a revolutionised country, to Che—struggling liberator of a country to which he has no previous ties. The change of setting isn't just aesthetic; from the autumn and spring greys of the woodlands comes a change of tone and heart to the feature, replacing the optimism of the predecessor with a cynical, battered and bruised reality aligned to an all new struggle. Yet, as Che would go on to say himself—such a struggle is best told exactly as that—a struggle. While Part One certainly helped document that initial surge to power that the revolutionary guerrilla acquired through just that, Part Two takes a much more refined, callous and bleak segment of Che's life and ambition, and gives it an assertive portrayal that is both poignant and tragic in a tangible, easy to grasp manner.<br /><br />While the movie's tone in some regards does stray off and differ quite drastically from Part One however, there still remains that same documented approach taken a month ago that avoids melodrama and fabrication as much as possible. This somewhat distant, cold approach to telling Che's story and struggle will no doubt turn some viewers off; indeed, I still remain reserved about whether or not the feature itself should have been named after one man—if anything, the entirety of Che, taken as a whole, delivers a tale that goes beyond mere biography and instead documents a man's struggle alongside those who helped carry him along the way. By no means does Soderbergh try to paint a humanistic portrait here akin to what Hirschbiegel did with Der Untergang half a decade ago (excuse the ironic contrast); Che is a slow moving, reserved and meditative approach to telling a history lesson that just happens to be narrated by the one man who –arguably- conducted the whole thing.<br /><br />Yet by moving from the lush green landscapes of Cuba and retreating to the bleak, decaying backdrop of Bolivia for Part Two, the story does inevitably take on a distinctly contrasting tone that doesn't feel too disjointed from its predecessor, but does enough to give it its own reference points. Here, the basic structure of Part One is echoed back—there's the initial struggle, the battles, the fallen comrades and the recruiting of those to replace them, all the while we see some glimpses of the man behind the movement. Yet, as anyone with the vaguest idea of the actual history behind the feature will know, Part Two is destined to end on a much more underwhelming, and disquieting note. This difference, in combination with the similarities to Part One, make a compelling and memorable whole; by all means, both could be digested one their own (and kudos to Soderbergh for achieving as such) and enjoyed as they are, but taken as one statement, Che delivers exactly what it sets out to achieve.<br /><br />Indeed, everything that made Part One the treat that it was one month prior is still evident here from the subtle yet engrossing performances from the central cast to the slow building, realistically structured combat scenes—the drama inherent to the characters on screen is just as vague and indiscernible, but with a feature such as this, Part Two once again proves that avoiding such elements don't necessarily hurt a film when there is enough plot and reflection on other elements to keep the viewer engaged. In fact, upon writing this review I was at odds as to whether or not to simply add a paragraph or two to my initial review for Part One, and title the review as a whole, yet I felt that to do so would only serve to disillusion those who may sit down to watch the entirety of both films consecutively.<br /><br />With that said, I cannot rightfully decree whether or not Che holds up to the task of engaging an audience for its sprawling four hour plus runtime, but upon viewing both segments I can at least attest to each part's ability to do just that. With a reflective, intricate screenplay combined with endlessly mesmerising photography and nuanced performances that do justice to the movie's characters without drawing attention to themselves, Che Part Two is every bit as compelling and rewarding as its predecessor, but this time with a tragic but uplifting, reaffirming conclusion fit for the history pages of film.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

trimmed_train

I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.<br /><br />The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can… become one with… a good dragon… or something… I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.<br /><br />It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.<br /><br />I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes… You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars… 90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.<br /><br />Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.

trimmed_train

Bernard Rapp passed away last year and was a very cultured journalist. Cinema was one of his biggest passions (he penned a vast worldwide dictionary of films) and so he was bound to wield a camera at least one time in his life. But the films he left garnered lukewarm reviews: "Tiré à Part" (1996) in spite of Terence Stamp's sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters, "une Affaire De Goût" (2000) was a slick affair even if Bernard Giraudeau delivered a perverse performance, "Pas Si Grave" (2003) was another let-down and "un Petit Jeu Sans Conséquence" is as underwhelming as its predecessors. Its comic potential is exploited in a flimsy way.<br /><br />And however, the starting idea let predict a twirling, spiritual comedy. A couple held by Yvan Attal and Sandrine Kiberlain who invited their friends is in full moving in a lascivious mansion. To play with their guests, they pretend to part company with each other. And things don't go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn't surprise them. The two lovers start to ponder about the validity of their couple.<br /><br />In spite of lush scenery and the promising material he had at his disposal, Rapp's undistinguished directing can't manage to give life to this game with unexpected consequences. The plot follows a well-worn pattern with characters who have specific well-known functions and masks that are unveiled about who they really are. Verbal or situation comic effects often fall flat. A bad editing fades a little more the film with this bad habit from Rapp to abruptly cut many sequences. Even the actors' sincere input in the venture is debatable. They seem to be bored and to recite their texts than to live them, especially Sandrine Kiberlain. The audience is soon caught in a deep torpor.<br /><br />It's regrettable to say it: Bernard Rapp's films never lived up to his intentions as "un Petit Jeu sans Conséquence" bears witness.

trimmed_train

I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!<br /><br />I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.<br /><br />If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!<br /><br />The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.<br /><br />That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.<br /><br />If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.<br /><br />0/10

trimmed_train

Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.<br /><br />I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.

trimmed_train

Either or, I love the suspension of any formulaic plot in this movie. I have re-visited it many times and it always holds up. A little too stylized for some but I fancy that any opera lover will love it. Norman Jewison, a fellow Canadian, takes enormous chances with his movies and his casting and it nearly always pays off in movies that are off centre and somehow delicious, as this one is. I have often wondered at the paucity of Cher's acting roles, whether she has chosen to minimize this part of her life or she does not get enough good roles to chew on. I have found her to be a superb actress who can retreat into a role, as in this particular one or be loud and daring and fierce as in "Mask". I found the comedic strokes broad at times ( a hair salon called "Cinderella")but this was the whole intent of both the writer and director. Nicolas Page plays the angst ridden tenor of opera, all extravagant gestures, at one point demanding a knife so as to slit his own throat. The Brooklyn scenes are magical, this is a Brooklyn under moonlight, romanticized and dramatic, just like opera. All in all a very satisfying film not to everyone's taste by a long shot, I loved the ending, everyone brought together like a Greek Chorus, every part subtly nuanced and blending with the others, the camera pulling away down the hall, leaving the players talking. 8 out of 10.

trimmed_train

The fight scenes play like slow-motion Jackie Chan and the attempts at wit are pathetic (worst pun by far: "Guess what? This time I heard you coming"). The stars are a mismatched pair: Brandon Lee, despite the terrible lines he has to say, actually shows traces of charisma and screen charm - things that Dolph Lundgren is completely free of (at least in this movie). Note to the director: in the future, please stay away from any love scenes, especially when your main actress won't do any nudity and you have to rely extensively on a body double. (*1/2)

trimmed_train

I watched this film not expecting much and not knowing anything much about it. I loved it. A very good, tight plot, an intriguing hook in the form of the ugly, fat, deaf girl and the ex-con, and a pace that kept things flowing without being hurried. <br /><br />A much, much better film than the same director's De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, which was boring and unbelievable.<br /><br />The only thing that didn't quite work was that the supposedly ugly, fat girl was neither ugly nor fat: solid, certainly, and far from conventionally beautiful, but with so much character in her face that she took over the screen whenever she was on it. Superb. I wish she was in more films, and better ones than she generally is. I've seen a bit of Gilles' Wife and a bit of The Moustache, and they both looked like rubbish, and I've seen all of De battre mon coeur s'est arreté, and that certainly is rubbish. She seems to have a few coming up, so I'll keep my fingers crossed.

trimmed_train

The original "Vanishing Point" was a great flick. Subtle motives, characters that seemed real and spontaneous.The remake was terrible. Preachy, overtly obvious; it missed the point as to why the original was a classic. The black Charger was cool, but even that couldn't rescue this flick. Why stick with a white Challenger? I didn't think that was the best choice back in '71. Some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious. Like when Vigo was standing on a cliff overlooking the canyon after his "Dream Quest". His Indian pal was standing next to him. Vigo was only wearing his white briefs. I'm sorry - it just looked silly - him surveying the vista in his Fruit of the Looms. Another scene was at the end - after the explosive crash into the bulldosers - the announcer said that the impact was clocked at 180 mph. Then he mentions that the cops said his remains weren't found because he vaporized, but some people believe he bailed out and was hidden by friends in the crowd. Then it shows him rolling out of the car at 180 mph! First of all, you couldn't open the car door at 180 mph. Secondly, the car would not continue to travel in a straight line for 100 yds. with nobody to steer it. It would promptly roll over about 30 times. Thirdly, if you hit the pavement at 180 mph, you would wind up in various squishy pieces. No matter, we see him at the end standing with his daughter. All in all, a movie that would insult anyone's intelligence.

trimmed_train

If I have to give this movie a score on a linear scale, then I have to give it a low score 3/10.<br /><br />But it was entertaining, and there are several good things to say about the movie.<br /><br />The psychiatrist candidate James Bishop is assigned to St. Andrews Hospital for his resident, and is exited and eager to "change the world".<br /><br />From the beginning of the movie you know that the hospital is hiding an evil truth, but James thinks he can make a difference and doesn't recognise this evil. <br /><br />The story builds fairly well, you know all the time that there is a truth in what the patients are telling about some resident evil, and wonder when and how James will discover this. Also when the break comes, James is in a way hunted by the evil, and you feel some suspense until "the fight" is over.<br /><br />Add an innocent beautiful girlfriend that arrives at the worst possible time and other standard horror elements, and you get the picture.<br /><br />The character buildup is actually fairly good, you are introduced to most of the people that gets killed, some of them you "get to know".<br /><br />The film sets an unpleasant scene, this is also done fairly well. There are mysteries that are unveiled - in an acceptable way.<br /><br />The main character, James is very believable - the story about an eager student starting to work is good in this setting.<br /><br />What kills this movie is: * Stupid special effects - a modern version of "Plan 9 from outer space"-type bad (the evil monster looks like a red scarecrow) * Some bad acting (or probably very few takes when filming) - The main characters sometimes acts badly, and somtimes good. * The sound is at times very cheap.<br /><br />I kept thinking "I could make a movie like this with my home video camera" throughout the film.

trimmed_train

Oh man, why? "Six Degrees" is a show about this so called theory that we all are linked by someone. If focus on the lives of a group of people and the consequences of their actions.<br /><br />When I first heard of this show, it didn't caught my attention at all. It seemed too ordinary, actually. Then, i saw some episodes... and loved it! First of all, the characters. They are all well-written and different from each other. There's a alcohol addicted, a woman whose fiancée cheats on her, a woman who just lost her husband, a driver who has a troubled brother and so on... Unlike what we're used to, most of the characters interact with each other in casualties, like in our daily routines. Great! My favourite ones are Mae, Carlos and Whitney.<br /><br />Then, the cast. They are all great. Jay Hernandez, from "Hostel", shows here his acting habilities in a more 3d character than his previous work as Paxton. The other ones give great performances too, specially Campbell Scott, who plays Steven and Bridget Moynahan, who plays Whitney.<br /><br />Well when i came to IMDb, after watching some episodes, i couldn't believe that it got cancelled. Seriously, i can't understand the low ratings.<br /><br />It's too bad it didn't have more than one season. It would really be a good show to follow!

trimmed_train

This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody. <br /><br />Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter. <br /><br />Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.

trimmed_train

When this movie first came out back in 1984, Prince was one of the hottest acts around. Everyone wanted to see this movie, which was not much more than a extended music video. The acting was pretty bad, but what can you expect from musicians acting on the big screen for the first time? Despite that, it was still a very entertaining film! Morris Day and Jerome Benton provide some all time classic comedy, especially their rendition of "The Password", which will make you think of Abbott & Costello doing their "who's on first" baseball routine.<br /><br />Appolina (who went by a single name then) provided some beautiful breasts, so you had the brief nudity covered. Plus, she is very attractive. And of course, the soundtrack of the album is one of the best Prince ever recorded. Prince later on had a fallout with Warner Bros. and changed his name, but at this particular time in his career, he was at the top of his game.<br /><br />This movie doesn't rank in the all time great category, but it is pretty entertaining.

trimmed_train

This is an absolutely charming film, one of my favourite romantic comedies. It's extremely humorous and the cast is wonderful. Though Laurence Olivier is mostly associated with his Shakespearean work he shows in this film that he is by no means restricted to play only classical theatre. He manages the transition from the cynical divorce solicitor, who tries to avoid women and their traitorous ways, to the lovesick puppy that falls for Lady X played by Merle Oberon effortlessly. The dialogue is wonderfully witty and refreshing and the atmosphere enchanting. Ralph Richardson was a delight to watch as well. I highly recommend it.

trimmed_train

Any movie that portrays the hard-working responsible husband as the person who has to change because of bored, cheating wife is an obvious result of 8 years of the Clinton era.<br /><br />It's little wonder that this movie was written by a woman.

trimmed_train

There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age.

trimmed_train

So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling.

trimmed_train

All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.<br /><br />In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.<br /><br />W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the "Black Maria" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.<br /><br />During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.<br /><br />The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.<br /><br />With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.<br /><br />The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the "fairground barker" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.<br /><br />And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public.

trimmed_train

I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.<br /><br />I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???<br /><br />Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10

trimmed_train

I also saw this amazingly bad piece of "anime" at the London Sci-Fi Festival. If you HAVE to watch this thing, do so with a large audience preferably after a few beers, you may then glean some enjoyment from it. <br /><br />I found the dialogue hilarious, lodged in my mind is the introduction of Cremator. The animation is awful. It is badly designed and badly executed. It may have been a good idea for the producers to have hired at least one person who was not colour blind.<br /><br />There's nothing else to say really, this film is a failure on every level.

trimmed_train

Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.

trimmed_train

I've just seen it....for those who don't know what it is, I suggest to download the entire feature and enjoy viewing it...it's kinda amateur made trailer featuring the same producer of the famous short Batman Dead End, but this time besides the black knight there is also Superman... It would be wonderful if they made the entire movie...but I'm afraid that it's almost impossible, especially just before the official Batman 5 film.<br /><br />-- There is no greater crime against peace than the refusal to fight for it.<br /><br />Lorenzo 'Purifier'Pinto

trimmed_train

Hidden Frontier has been talked about and reported on by several news agencies for their long commitment to creating the best Star Trek stories and to providing an example of the togetherness that was Gene Roddenberry's mission. Their focus on homosexuality, depression, war, and acceptance of different races is on par or exceeds those of the other Trek series and movies. The production value started off as smaller and choppy but over the 7 seasons of production the acting has improved, the stories are more complex, and the visual graphics have gotten smoother and more impressive. In season 6 episode 1, Countermeasures, there is one of the biggest space battles in Trek history. The ships are rendered well and the space battles are impressive and exciting. The real draw to Frontier is not the ships or the backgrounds, but it is the people and the interplay and growth of characters. There are also nods to other Trek series and movies with places and characters we all know. I recommend any Trek fan to check out Countermeasures and you will be hooked!

trimmed_train

'Umi wa miteita' ('The Sea is Watching') was Akira Kurasawa's swansong to film: his adaptation of his favored novelist Shugoro Yamamoto's story into a screenplay he intended to film was his final mark he left on a brilliant career. Director Kei Kumai pays homage to both Kurosawa and Yamamoto in presenting this visually stunning transformation of word to image.<br /><br />Set in 19th century Japan, the story explores the lives of the women of a Geisha house whose sole purpose in life is to earn money by pleasuring men. The house is run by an older couple who are genteel and the geishas are an enchanting group of women who know their trade and take pride in their careers. Each has a reason for turning to the life of geisha. Oshin (Nagiko Tono) supports her family who live in a neighboring village, Kikuno (Misa Shimizu) has customers both good and evil whom she manages to sustain with her stories of her higher caste. Oshin befriends an endangered samurai, falls in love with the gentle fellow, only to find that he must not marry out of his caste and leaves his pleasures with Oshin to marry his promised betrothed. Oshin's heart bruises easily but is always supported emotionally and physically/monetarily by Kikuno and the other geishas.<br /><br />A handsome samurai Ryosuke (Masatoshi Nagase) enters Oshin's life and develops the first trusted and devoted relationship with her. Kikuno is beset by problems, deciding whether to accept the humble love of an old man who wishes to marry her, and coping with a rich but abusive customer. All the while the sea is watching and as a typhoon destroys the geisha house and street, Oshin and Kikuno sit atop the roof waiting for the promised rescue by Ryosuke. The manner in which the story ends is one of sacrifice, love, and devotion. The sea is watching and will find protection for true love.<br /><br />The photography by Kazuo Okuhara is breathtakingly beautiful: night scenes with glowing lanterns and colorful geisha interiors are matched with recurring glimpses of the sea both calm and turbulent. The acting is a bit strained for Edo art, but the characters are well created and keep the story credible. The one distraction which is definitely NOT something Kurosawa would have condoned is the tacky Western music score that sounds like cheap soap opera filler except for the isolated moments when real Japanese music on authentic instruments graces the track. But in the end there is enough of Kurosawa's influence to imbue this film with his brand of dreamlike wonder that will always maintain his importance on world cinema. Grady Harp

trimmed_train

fulci experiments with sci fi and fails. usually in his non horror films we still get sum great gore, but not here. Sum very funny scenes like when the prisinors are forced to hold onto a bar for 12 minutes and if they drop they are electecuted. the guy falls and and has some kind of fit on the floor for about two minutes until his friends who were struggling to hold on anyway lift him off the floor. The city is an obvious model but not a bad one. and the end explosion is at best laughable. And dont get me started on the terrible battle scenes.<br /><br />4/10

trimmed_train

Oh, what a bad, bad, very bad movie! Cowritten by and starring Sylvester Stallone—that should have been enough—and featuring too many rock-climbing scenes, vertigo, falling, and scene-chewing villains and a botched airborne heist. There are two plots, both lame. One involves a traumatic failed rescue, and the other involves bad people wrecking an airplane for booty, and killing various harmless people whenever possible. The usually reliable John Lithgow, perhaps depressed by the sheer awfulness of the product, is reduced to sneering and calling those for whom he doesn't care "Bostid!" in a vague approximation of an English accent. Janine Turner, who was sprightly and enigmatic when she played Maggie on Northern Exposure, is sadly wasted in the part of a rescue climber and pilot. Stallone is stolid and muscle-headed. No deathless lines in this one. No living lines, either.

trimmed_train

I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.<br /><br />It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.<br /><br />Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.<br /><br />Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.<br /><br />This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).<br /><br />This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.<br /><br />

trimmed_train

Excellent view of a mature woman, that is going to lose everything (even the pruner has a mortgage). The way she gets involved into this special "business", the innocence, and the true love that exists between the people of a little town, it's mixed perfectly to give us as result a fresh, light and funny comedy. I couldn't stop laughing with a very funny scene of two old ladies in a drugstore.<br /><br />I love European films, and with movies like this one, my opinion grows stronger. A movie that I also recommend with my eyes closed, in this same genre, is Waking Ned Devine.<br /><br />Saving Grace, a comedy that many friends enjoyed as much as myself. You will love it.

trimmed_train

It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honoré describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.<br /><br />When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion. <br /><br />Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.

trimmed_train

This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.<br /><br />Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...<br /><br />From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.<br /><br />That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse.

trimmed_train

Very rarely do I give less rave reviews on a show or film I dislike on IMDb, but Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is just so painstakingly dreadful, it's terrible.<br /><br />I wouldn't have minded if this had been an animated series- would've been better that way I guess, but as a live-action show, it typifies the terms 'cheesy' and 'campy'. Of which Power Rangers is. Five multi- coloured, spandex wearing teens battle evil by using their martial arts skills. The costumes are horrid- they look like something that is reminiscent of what track and field athletes and female gymnasts would wear. The acting is woeful, and the fight choreography is so shockingly bad and so lame to watch, it makes Jean- Claude Van Damme, look as equally as good as Bruce Lee, which is an understatement in itself. In fact, they look as if they are jumping and dancing about; like it was some version of the 'Nutcracker', or they were doing ballet, rather than fighting. Besides, there are some cartoons that heavily feature martial arts and yet it is done in a fun-yet not so cheesy way that makes it look silly.<br /><br />Kids show or not, this is just so lame and on the verge of absurdity. And even though this version is set in America, you could be forgiven into thinking that as you watch some of the fight sequences that they were not filmed in the US, but rather in Japan; thus the somewhat 'fake' fighting and footage was borrowed from the Japanese version-only to be juxtaposed onto the US version.<br /><br />If you like this type of thing, then stick with Sentai- the Japanese equivalent.

trimmed_train

here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.<br /><br />(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards. <br /><br />It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.<br /><br />On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless. <br /><br />At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.

trimmed_train

If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.<br /><br />It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.<br /><br />It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides? <br /><br />I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something? <br /><br />Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.<br /><br />Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it).

trimmed_train

Plot is never the strong point of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, but "Follow the Fleet"'s screenplay is exceptionally mediocre. Fred and Ginger still come off all right--they play "Bake" Baker and Sherry Martin, dancers whose personal and professional partnership ended when Bake joined the Navy. When they meet again, their love-hate relationship generates some entertaining comic moments. But for much of the movie, they take a backseat to a tedious subplot about Sherry's sister Connie (Harriet Hilliard), her love for sailor Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott), Bilge's dalliance with another woman, and an old schooner that Connie inherited from her father. Though Hilliard is rather charming, this plot is uninteresting.<br /><br />But at the same time, "Follow the Fleet" is blessed with an exceptional Irving Berlin score that gives the stars plenty of chances to show off their talents. Astaire gets two good solos with "We Saw the Sea" and "I'd Rather Lead a Band." He sings expressively and, of course, dances electrifyingly--and the sailor suit makes him look a little more boyish and athletic than usual. Rogers sings the catchy "Let Yourself Go" and later does a solo tap-dance to the same tune. <br /><br />The three duets really save the film, even though they're all shoehorned into the plot with silly excuses. Fred and Ginger win a dance contest by doing an energetic routine to another reprise of "Let Yourself Go". Later, they sing and dance "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" as if it were an early rehearsal of the number, flubbing the choreography to comic effect. At the end, the movie finally figures out how to get Fred and Ginger in evening clothes for a romantic duet--it makes it part of a show-within-the-show. The situation is contrived, but the song, "Let's Face the Music and Dance", is one of the most sinuously beautiful things Berlin ever wrote (it's reminiscent of Cole Porter), and the dancing matches it in elegance. Quintessential Astaire and Rogers.<br /><br />It would be a chore to sit through most of the dialogue sections of "Follow the Fleet" again, and, in fact, it's not necessary, because the plot rarely propels the musical numbers. But I could watch the songs over and over.

trimmed_train

This was a pretty good movie, I liked it. I thought it was a pretty accurate look at bulimia and how it's not about dieting, it's about having a pain so deep that they have to find a way to deal with it and they choose this. Beth was a very accurately drawn character and in the scene where she confronts her mom about the eating disorder you can see the pain inside her and hear it in her voice and you know how deep the pain is that she is feeling. I also think one of the best lines in the movie is where Beth yells the words, "It's not about you." to her mother. Those words were so true and added so much to that scene in the movie. I think that that scene was definitely the most important scene in that movie.

trimmed_train

...Heads, Hands, and Feet - a band from the past, just like Strange Fruit. A triple whammy there. Those who have professed not to like this film are either heartless or under 40, and have had no experience of the real thing. Sad for them. This is an achingly well-observed little picture that is an excellent way of passing an hour or two, and will probably not even fade much on the second showing. Stephen Rae, Timothy Spall as the fat drummer (in many ways quite the most delightful figure of all), and Bill Nighy - a new name for me - as the neurotic vocalist and front man all turn in super performances, and Juliet Aubrey has lovely doe eyes to go with some sharp acting as Karen, who tries to hold the band together as they spectacularly self-destruct.<br /><br />The Syd Barrett/Brian Wilson echoes are loud and clear, Mott the Hoople rear up before one in all their inflated ridiculousness, and the script is never mawkish for more than a minute. Don't compare this with Spinal Tap or The Rutles or The Full Monty - it's unfair on all of them. The nearest comparison is The Commitments, and that's no bad thing. And any film that can conjure up memories of Blodwyn Pig - a band I do not remember ever seeing, but the name lives on - well, it shows somebody in the team knew what they were on about.<br /><br />A small delight, and thanks for the memory.<br /><br />Oh... and I've got ANOTHER one - Stiff Little Fingers; a-a-and what about SteelEYE Span... Spooky TOOTH... Ten Inch NAILS anyone? (You have to see the movie or have been on the road)

trimmed_train

Oh, where are you going, my little one, little one...<br /><br />Turn around and you're two, turn around and you're four...<br /><br />I remember these shows when they were first broadcast on Disneyland. I remember sitting there, electrified by Werner Van Braune's explanations of rocket science. I watched as history, science and humor were all interwoven in an engrossing story of possibilities.<br /><br />That was fifty years ago. And the shows are back in the Disney Treasures series, and what a treasure they are. I watched them last night and tonight with my 8 year old daughter, who at first would not even come in the room, but later changed her mind when she saw they were partly animated. As she watched I watched her, and by the end she was nearly as engrossed as I had been.<br /><br />Turn around and you're a young wife with babes of your own...<br /><br />Sure, some of the predictions about reaching the moon were wrong. But there is a lot of information that is still quite accurate, and the overall presentation is still impressive. I found myself thinking my daughter's teacher might want to show them to her class, not only as a 50 year old artifact, but also as fun and easy to understand lessons in history.<br /><br />Turn around, turn around, turn around and again...you're wondering how much has really changed in 50 years.

trimmed_train

This 1998 film was based on a script by the late Edward D. Wood, a script that featured NO dialogue in the tradition of films such as THE THIEF. While much of Wood's work was quirky low-budget entries into various genre-film traditions, his first released feature GLEN OR GLENDA was a truly visionary attempt to express the inexpressible through primitive avant-garde techniques. I WOKE UP EARLY THE DAY I DIED represents THAT side of Ed Wood, the experimenter, although this film is a comedy (a nightmarish comedy, however!), while the cross-dressing theme of GLEN OR GLENDA was taken so seriously by Wood that there was not room for comedy there. From the first few seconds of this film I knew that I was being taken to a new cinematic world, and I can't really compare that world with anything else. The technical side of the film--production design, sound design, music scoring, photography, etc.--is groundbreaking on any number of levels. In particular, although the film has no "dialogue" there is sound of all kinds and also "language", but you'll have to see how it's done yourself, as the cleverness and surprise of the methods provides a level of excitement throughout. The Glen or Glenda-esque technique of juxtaposing stock footage for surreal effects works well in the film and is kept to a minimum. The whole film is played at a hysterical fever-pitch, and Billy Zane provides an amazing tour-de-force performance that shows what a brilliant physical comedian and actor he is. In a just world, he would have been given some award for this performance. He even LOOKS like Ed Wood, and as played by Zane this character is at various timesfunny, sleazy, tragic, sympathetic, and anonymous(sometimes simultaneously!!!). What a shame that this film was caught up in legal troubles and never received a North American theatrical or video release, only playing a few festivals. Right now, it's only available on video in Germany (in fact, my copy is from a German source--the excerpts from Wood's screenplay that are shown on the screen from time to time are translated into german, although the newspaper headlines (that great low-budget technique of giving plot elements, especially those that would be too expensive to film, via newspaper headlines is used here in the Wood tradition)that Zane sees are in English). I think that this film could have gotten a word-of-mouth following had it been played at midnight in some large cities with some careful promotion. And if played off city by city slowing on the art-film circuit, it could have done well. In fact, if the legal issues can be resolved, I'd like to suggest that the film should STILL be given a theatrical release, especially a MIDNIGHT "cult" release. This is a classic waiting to be discovered.<br /><br />Did I "understand" every scene? No, but I "felt" every scene emotionally. Did everything "work" in the film? Perhaps not. I've only seen it twice, and the first time I saw it I was interruped a number of times. However, with all the assembly-line junk playing the multiplexes and with so much "alternative" film being fetishistic or pretentious shot-on-video film-school rejects, we need actual Hollywood-made experimentation like this. The recent Bob Dylan film "Masked and Anonymous" took similar chances as did something like Steven Soderbergh's FULL FRONTAL. This film could find an audience much larger than either of those. If you are reading this review a few years from now and the idea of this film sounds intriguing, see if it has ever been released on video. You will NOT be bored. Invite some friends over...make it a party. Play the amazing soundtrack LOUD. I have a feeling that, wherever he is in the afterlife, Ed Wood is happy with this film and feels as though his unique vision has been justified and validated somewhat by the making of this film. Wood's probably also laughing that, just like he always seemed to get the bad breaks in life, the film made in tribute to him after his death is held up in lawsuits and sits unreleased in the country of its making.

trimmed_train

After a big tip of the hat to Spinal Tap, this movie is hilarious. Anyone who grew up watching MTV will love it and if you didn't, rent it anyway,the "My Peanuts" and "A Gangster's life" videos are worth the three bucks alone.

trimmed_train

This is so to say a sequel to batman the animated and it is pretty much as good as it to and for all the same reasons it has lots of action in it the storyline to it is good the voice over actors are really good such as Kevin Conroy as batman, Mark Hamil as the Joker, etc. The villains are really good such as The Joker, Two-face, Catwoman, Clayface, etc. So i am sure you will not be disappointed with the new adventures of batman because it is really good. So make sure that you watch it on TV or rent or buy the collectors edition because it is really good.<br /><br />Overall score: ********* out of ********** <br /><br />**** out of *****

trimmed_train

Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of "Corky Romano." But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of "Joe Dirt" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film? <br /><br />As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like "Corky Romano." I didn't like Falk's last movie "Made" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role. <br /><br />I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)

trimmed_train

I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY.

trimmed_train

Comparable to Fight Club, The Matrix, A.I., Sixth Sense, among others. This film approaches the psyche in a way never done before. The first 30 minutes builds a interesting love story between Diaz-Cruise-Cruz. The rest of the movie is, well, confusing, you'll pick more every time you watch it (i've gone to the movies to see it 3 times now)

trimmed_train

While this movie won't go down in the annals of great cinema, it is a fun way to spend an hour and a half with the family. The film is finally being released in video where it should have debuted in the first place.<br /><br />The film is about an eclectic group of friends who gather for dinners which they have named, "The Hungry Bachelors Club". Jorja Fox plays a woman who serves as a surrogate in order to get a down payment for the restaurant that she wants to open. Bill Nunn plays a Cadillac-loving mystery man who becomes her lover. Fox gives an understated and touching performance and Nunn is reliably talented as always. Micheal des Barres is a hoot as an over the top attorney. The ensemble casts - made up of familiar faces - works nicely together to bring this wacky group of characters to life. This is a good rental and one of the few you can watch with the whole family.

trimmed_train

The brilliant thing about Withnail & I is that it captures that not long left college and life could go either way moment along with all its other finery. Freebird is something for those who probably never considered higher education and just went straight to work aged 15/16. I know some of the broad sheets stuck the knife into this film when it came out in Cinemas but i saw it at a packed house in Hailsham and everybody seemed to really enjoy it. I grew up in the forest of Dean and this took me straight back to my mushrooming and dope days (had some great mates - hate to think what they're all up to now - probably running the local council). I've watched it a couple of times on DVD and already i see the film as an old mate that will stay forever as part of my collection (how can i like this film and the Dambusters - doesn't seem right somehow) I certainly edge towards the second half of this film and i think the social interacting scenes with the locals are brilliantly done. I like the mix of the three lead characters and there really is some lovely writing in here along with some very quotable lines and dare i say a good smattering of integrity. I have tried to obtain the soundtrack, but it has not been released (shame, as it's a corker). Someone told me it was originally a stage play, not quite sure how that worked but i'm sure it was fun. I liked the little Shakespearian touches/references that seem to crop up throughout the film (also spotted the Dylan Thomas ref as well) and like all little gems, there will always be little things to discover like the final scene giving a nod to Easyrider as they start they're next journey. All in all a genuinely unpretentious piece of film making (love it!)

trimmed_train

A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.<br /><br />Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.<br /><br />End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.

trimmed_train

This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.<br /><br />Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.<br /><br />Well here he does speak!<br /><br />He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.<br /><br />Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end.

trimmed_train

I wasn't at all a fan of the 2005 gore fest hit "Hostel", and most of these lame ass knock-offs are just as bad or worse - yet "Live Feed" managed to keep me somewhat entertained for about the first 30 minutes. Started off with plenty of sex and sleazy settings, followed by some good death scenes involving the Chinese Organized Crime Squad and a 7-foot, leather-aproned butcher... What put me out of the movie was the tough 'hero' with the guns and a grudge saving the day... I would call this movie mediocre, at best, since a premise mainly involving obnoxious young people being slaughtered in a seedy porno theater, doubling as a hideout for the mafia, is appealing to me. If only the torture was prolonged enough to be thoroughly effective, then my rating would have differed greatly. Unfortunately, most of the gruesomeness is heaped together in one scene, leaving the rest of the movie to conclude as a revenge-type scenario. So, basically, it IS just a low-budget "Hostel" rip-off with the redeeming use of gratuitous sex, almost constant during the first half of the film... Overall, I would say don't bother with this one.

trimmed_train

Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.<br /><br />Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.<br /><br />Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!<br /><br />ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!

trimmed_train

This is one of my favourite kung-fu films and is regarded as one the most popular Shaw Brothers from the late 70's. The plot is interesting and twisty, the characters are cool each with their own style - toad, snake, lizard etc. The action is limited in comparison with other Chang Cheh / Venoms films but what is there is interesting with different kung-fu styles on display from the various characters. I recommend this film to those who think all Shaw Brothers especially Chang Cheh's films are the same, most of his films usually focus on the 10 tigers and Shaolin vs Manchu conflicts. This film is breath of fresh air in comparison.

trimmed_train