Datasets:

generalization

/

sst2_Sampled-p_1

like 0

Follow

Generalization Experiments 1

In the days before gore and sex took over, real horror films were made. Castle of Blood is, in my estimation, one of the finest, although other reviewers have given it mixed ratings. In an odd sort of way it reminds of the more recent The Others, which was in the theaters a couple of years ago.<br /><br />Director Antonio Margheriti remade his own picture in 1970 titling it this time Web of the Spider (AKA Nella Stretta Morsa del Ragno). Why he did this I do not understand, although the remake starred Anthony Franciosa and Klaus Kinski and was very good in its own right. Perhaps he saw a good story and wished to tailor it more to American audiences. I do not really know. It is interesting that he did the original in black and white and the remake in color.<br /><br />Castle of Blood is excellent Italian Gothic. La Danza Macabra is said to be an unpublished work of Edgar Allen Poe, who "appears" in this film. Poe and Lord Blackwood, owner of a haunted castle, bet American writer Alan Foster (George Riviere) that he cannot spend All Souls Night in said castle and survive. Foster eagerly accepts the bet but soon regrets it, for he is witness to a series of murders committed by ghosts. It seems that the ghosts come back to life once every few years but are doomed to re-enact the crimes they committed in life. Lord Blackwood conveniently forgot to tell Foster that his blood is needed for them to resurrect themselves on the next All Souls Night! <br /><br />It does not take Foster and the beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (portrayed by the incomparable Barbara Steele) long to fall in love, even though their romance is doomed, because Elisabeth is one of the ghosts. I will not give the ending away, but will just say that Castle of Blood is every bit a romantic tragedy as it is a horror story. <br /><br />Comments. This film is greatly atmospheric, even by the excellent standards of the Italians. My personal opinion is they do true horror better than anybody, and the somewhat dim black and white filming only enhances this. In fairness, Web of the Spider was fine in its own right, even with color and greater brightness. I loved the lingering shots, something most modern day directors do not have the patience for. Indeed, when Alan first enters the doomed castle, we are treated to several minutes of him doing nothing but roaming around from room to room, the dread ands unease building in his face and mannerisms. By the time the first ghost appears, the audience is thoroughly primed and ready. There is wonderful dialogue between Alan and the ghosts, something else not often done in standard ghost stories. There are also memorable scenes, very visual for this type of film. Elisabeth's "murder" and the dance scene (reminds somewhat of the similar dance of the ghouls in 1962's Carnival of Souls) were particularly good.<br /><br />Sadly, few general interest viewers will ever hear of, much less see, this film. That is a shame, for this one is a cut above the rest. I got my copy from Sinister Cinema and am not certain if it can be purchased anywhere else. For persons interested in this genre, it is a must see.

trimmed_train

. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today.

trimmed_train

There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in "24" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.<br /><br />When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his "24" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.<br /><br />Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics ("North by Northwest" and "The Fugitive" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k.

trimmed_train

Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel.

trimmed_train

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

trimmed_train

This is the first must see film I've seen in the last year! It's wickedly funny, incredibly original, unbelievably great looking (they went for this super cool wide-screen Technicolor look that's awesome to behold,) and it actually has depth in character and in what it says about society. It's really smart satire that nails everything from Homeland Security to race issues, while at the same time leaving you laughing and realizing how much are world lives in fear. Carrie Anne Moss turns in a comedic performance I never imagined would come from her! She's sweet, funny and sexy! Billy Connolly is great as Fido who can only grunt and moan! And Dylan Baker as the Dad is priceless. In fact the whole cast is perfect. Henry Czerny as the bad guy, Tim Blake Nelson as the neighbor with the hot sexy zombie girlfriend (getting the idea now?) Funny, though-provoking and just all round amazing! Go and see this movie! It's like nothing you've ever seen before.

trimmed_train

First time of seeing Buster Keaton's first feature film and I have to admit I liked it a lot and only wish I'd stumbled across it years ago. The Rohauer blurb at the start warns that the Three Ages single nitrate print was rediscovered and salvaged in 1954 just in time before combustion, and many frames that seemed hopelessly glued together were separated. So, it's rocky viewing in places, but I've seen and survived much worse.<br /><br />It would have been OK as the 3 short films but as a take on Intolerance it's inventive and funny from the start to the finish: In the Stone Age with baddie Wallace Beery riding an elephant and goodie Buster riding a pet brontosaurus; In the Roman Age Buster riding a chariot with wheel locks and adapted for sledging, No Parking signs in Latin; In this technological Age of Speed Need and Greed his car beautifully falls to bits at the first hump. Both him and Beery are after the Girl through the ages, a never ending tussle. Favourite bit: As the caveman he gets knocked backward over a cliff edge but still blows a kiss to the camera - an amazing second or two!<br /><br />Great stuff, reaffirming my love of silent film comedy.

trimmed_train

How low can someone sink while trying to recapture an old glory? ST:HF will be glad to show you.<br /><br />If you are used to seeing what made for a good Star Trek show, do NOT watch this.<br /><br />The writing is hodge-podge, the actors' portrayals of their characters weak, and most of all, the design work is downright doggy.<br /><br />Like watching strong captains, don't look here! Like the strong Federation attitude? Forget about it here! Starfleet is mocked by ensigns wearing SPIKES in their hair.<br /><br />While a seemingly mentally feeble captain shuffles about and within two minutes of the opening show's credits, Ensign Spikey is attempting to arrange a tryst with an engineer. It just degrades from there. No, not even uniforms match, for goodness sake. They are too small or too big, collars down to their chests, and TNG Seasons One and Two Uniforms mixed in with Season Three and DS9 uniforms. The strict discipline and tradition of any of the originals in lacking in this production down to the treads! The only good thing about this show is its graphics, which seem to improve a bit with each season. OK, I take that back. Who uses CG that inexpertly? The designers of this show.<br /><br />Don't bother with it, it will offend your Star Trek sense, as it did mine. Not even the throw backs to previous shows can save this catastrophe.<br /><br />I wept openly when i watched this, probably because my eyes were bleeding and my head almost ruptured. That bad.

trimmed_train

MAKE A 0 YOU SACKS OF German STAPLES! well, when i started to watch this sack of crud, it was a Sunday afternoon, and i was just looking for stuff on show time. I was introduced to a hot naked babe, and like any guy (im a guy, the e-mail is my sisters...) i was happy. But then they threw it all to the dogs, spit on it, lit it on fire, and peed it out. You wanna know how? THE DUMB CHICK TALKED! The dialog throughout the film was just horrible. sounded like something my 2nd grade bro could wright. The violence was nice for some scenes, but some was just totally moronic. The scene in the pit were he gives the guy the knife... dumb moron! To sum it up, this is pure cinema barf drenched in the chocolate syrup known as nudity, and topped with the cherry of horrible acting as only a porn star could deliver.

trimmed_train

I appreciate a think positive feel good about yourself film, but this is too much. In the end they look like a bunch of loonies. This film is one of those finding yourself 70's plots, I know the film is made in 1980. A lot more of Clint and girl friend movie. This movie is a 3/10.

trimmed_train

and this IS a very disturbing film. I may be wrong, but this is the last film where I considered Burt Reynolds an actual actor, who transformed the role, and delivered a message.<br /><br />Jon Voight and Ned Beatty are also excellent. They are unassuming and unaware; businessmen wanting to enjoy the country. Little did they know what would happen next.<br /><br />The photography and sets are realistic and natural. This was before the days of Wes Craven.<br /><br />What is most disturbing about this film is the fact that places like this still exist. In America, country folk still detest city people; it is almost a century and a half since the Civil War.<br /><br />You will enjoy this film. It was filmed in the rural sections of South Georgia, which still exist. Just don't drive past that to Mobile, Alabama; That area still has not been repaired since Hurricane Katrina. 10/10.

trimmed_train

A deplorable social condition triggers off the catastrophe: An impoverished Giovanna has ended up in the gutter, but still has an ace up her sleeve: beauty and youth. Bragana, a fat-bellied gas station tenant, who has been getting on in years, picks her up from the street and offers her bed and home together with his clumsy affection. But the physical contact that Giovanna is now exposed to only gives her feelings of disgust, and consequently she does not see a benefactor in him but a tormentor whom she has to get rid of.<br /><br />The arrival of Gino, a young migrant worker, finally provides her the longed-for opportunity. And you don't have to ask her twice: At the very first encounter she gives him the feeling of being physically desired, and a little later she lets him seduce her without offering any resistance.<br /><br />The developping partnership has to submit to the strict rules drawn up by Giovanna though. Gino's yearning for freedom is suppressed, his desire to leave the place with Giovanna and start a new life far away from the fatso is pushed aside. Giovanna aims at another goal: to get Bragana killed, to inherit and, in addition to that, to collect the insurance premium. In her hands Gino degenerates into a self-sacrificing tool. Being completely at the mercy of this woman he turns into a cold-blooded killer.<br /><br />But in contrast to Giovanna he questions the committed crime on a moral level. The very taking over of Bragana's place, which includes the sleeping in the bed of a dead man, causes a deep loathing of himself. And later, after he has found out about the forthcoming payment of the insurance money and seems to see through Giovanna's cunningly devised plan, he also executes a physical separation from his lover and finds comfort in the arms of a prostitute.<br /><br />If Visconti's film ended at this point, it could easily be classified as a condemnatory portrait of a cool, calculating and unscrupulous woman with a slight touch of social criticism. But then the last sequences make this carefully built construct of ideas collapse. At last Giovanna feels remorseful about what she has done, and by the uncompromising revelation of her innermost feelings she succeeds in inflaming anew Gino's love. Her violent death by an absurd road accident then does not only leave him helpless at the mercy of an arbitrary fate. It also affects us, while we realize that none of the acting characters is to be made responsible for their disaster. The culprit is just the state of a society that determines the way of the individual unalterably right from the start.<br /><br />

trimmed_train

Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.<br /><br />Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)<br /><br />-Zaphoid<br /><br />PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")<br /><br />-Z

trimmed_train

With all thats going on in the world sometimes we need an escape. Curly Sue is just that. Not a complicated plot or deep meaning; however it is not devoid of substance. There is more than furious action or heart pounding dramas. There are the charming little shows you can watch with your kids and have enough substance to enjoy with your date. Try it you may like it more than you think. The little girl is really smart and cute. The "Dad" and the girl go thru some slapstick routines. When a jealous boyfriend steps in, trouble brews for Curly and the life shes known may be torn asunder. Fred Thompson and Kelly Lynch play good roles as the upper crust and Alison Porter and James Belushi are a interesting fable like duo portraying street wise homeless drifters. Their worlds collide and comedy ensues.

trimmed_train

I am 17, and I still like most of the Scooby Doo movies and the old episodes. I love the 1990s movies, and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to DVD Scooby Doo outings of this decade, Scooby Doo and the Goblin King, which I wasn't expecting to be as good as it was. Anyway, back to Get a Clue! I watched some episodes, expecting something very good, but from what I saw of it, I wasn't impressed at all. First of all, I hated the animation. It was flat, deflated and very Saturday- morning -cartoon -standard, easily the worst aspect of the series. Even some shows I really hate had slightly better animation. Even worse, Shaggy and Scooby looked like aliens, and I really missed Fred, Velma and Daphne, as they added a lot to the old episodes, when Scooby Doo was positively good. I also hated the character changes, because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries, Shaggy and Scooby were now playing superhero, something they would've never had done in the movies or in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You? show. The theme tune wasn't very good either, I can't even remember it, and the jokes were lame and contrived. Though, I do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast, had they had better material, and hadn't been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible, which they did, might I add. In conclusion, I personally thought it was awful, and I am not trying to discredit it, it's what I personally feel. 1/10 Bethany Cox

trimmed_train

Watching this again after a gap of many years and remembering the flop it was upon its original release, I am surprised at how well it has held up. One of the reasons for its failure was that one generation just thought it was over indulgent crap and a younger one was disappointed that it did not show the full hippy glory. Seen now it is clear that Antonioni was already aware of and fascinated by the heady mix of fervent enthusiasm for change and a lack of any clear vision for the future. The lead pair are excellent and it is shameful that they took so much flak for the film's perceived failure. They are ideal and convey perfectly the various contradictions and demonstrate a pure delight in lovemaking. I blame others for the over emphasis on the student revolt sequences at the start but have to say that from there on in this is one of the directors most beautiful looking pictures and he certainly got the very best out of the man made and natural landscapes. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the highly explosive ending.

trimmed_train

I first read Pearl S Buck's splendid novel in my ninth grade history class, and I enjoyed every thrilling page of it. It was almost inevitable that Hollywood would get hold of it, and considering that it was made in 1937, the results are excellent.<br /><br />Certain things have to be accepted: in 1937 there was no question of casting Asian actors in a major Hollywood film. In a way this renders the end product rather more interesting than if they had been able to use a more authentic-looking cast.<br /><br />With that obstacle to overcome, executive producer Irving Thalberg and director Sidney Franklin (among others) took the trouble to hand-pick a splendid and stellar cast. Paul Muni plays Wang Lung. Muni was at the peak of his powers as an actor during this period, and could very nearly play anything he put his mind to. Once you get past the makeup (it's good, but no one is going to really mistake him for a Chinese man), his performance has all the verisimilitude of his best work.<br /><br />Then there is Luise Rainer. Coming off an Oscar win the previous year for her performance in THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, the Viennese actress's star was on the rise and she was given the plum role of O-lan despite her lack of experience in Hollywood. Her performance won her a second consecutive Oscar, the first time in history that happened.<br /><br />Much criticism has been leveled at Rainer's performance, and her Oscar win here. She has been called wooden and one-note. There is a small grain of truth in that. HOWEVER, that being said, all you need to do is go back to the book. For Rainer, though not Chinese, played O-lan pretty much as Buck wrote her; it is in fact a splendid performance, and one of the best transfers from book to screen I have ever witnessed.<br /><br />As for the rest of the cast, well this was MGM. They had the biggest roster of stars and character actors in Hollywood at the time, and a big budget to pay for the best, and in the end they got the best.<br /><br />The film softens Wang Lung's marriage to O-lan somewhat. In the novel, with wealth come the lusts of the flesh and he takes on a concubine, a move which devastates his wife but her feelings as a mere woman do not concern him. In the film, a contrite Wang Lung returns to his wife on her deathbed the two pearls he had taken from her years before, realizing too late that she was his true love.<br /><br />Corny, yes. But that's Hollywood. Considering the obstacles they were up against, the film might well have opened to screams of laughter. But despite the noticeable dearth of real Asians in the cast, this film has worn surprisingly well with the passage of seventy-three years. In fact the most amazing thing about this film is how good it is, when it might so easily have been a disaster.

trimmed_train

I used to review videos for Joe Bob Briggs' legendary "We Are The Weird" newsletter. I saw a lot of stinkers, but this by far was the worst, and the years have not been kind - it remains the most indecent crime against cinema I have ever witnessed. Don't get me wrong - CAGED TERROR is nominally more technically competent than, say, MONSTER-A-GO-GO or THE GUY FROM HARLEM or something of that ilk. What solidifies its claim as Worst Movie Of All Time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. Is it a Vietnam commentary? An ecological protest? An incitement to race riot? A study of man's inhumanity to man? A novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length? In short: a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile Asian-American associate into camping in the woods with him. After brow-beating her with quasi-philosophical clap for the better part of an hour, they run across two wandering veterans, the unforgettable Jarvis (a righteous brother) and the Troubadour (guitar-toting Manson Family reject). Hey, a plot twist! Tension! Action! Suspense! Well, no, just a climactic getting-locked-in-a-makeshift-wire-chicken-coop-and-lightly-belittled scene. The victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters, "No... no... please... don't..." Meanwhile, Jarvis addresses the Troubadour as "Trouby" once every two minutes, bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of Juan Picquer's POD PEOPLE. That's about all that happens in CAGED TERROR, and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. But trust me, I've seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one has remained, for the past eight years since I first saw it, the absolute worst. (I pop it in the old VCR once every two years or so just to reassure myself, and reassure myself I certainly do.) I think the element which makes CAGED TERROR so particularly hateful is this: very little happens, and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly, what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers REALLY, REALLY WANT to shove some kind of message down your throat. But because CAGED TERROR is so incompetent and ineffectual, what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. This film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. It's terrible, truly truly terrible. Folks, trust me, I saw GHOSTS THAT STILL WALK and this one is worse. Go see it! You'll thank me. And curse me. Just for the record, my favorite line: (In CAGED TERROR but perhaps EVER) "Yeah, well, you probably think the Song of Solomon was an allegory for Christ's love for the church...!" (NOTE: Must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension.)

trimmed_train

"Gespenster" (2005) forms, together with "Yella" (2007), and "Jerichow" (2008), the Gespenster-trilogy of director Christian Petzold, doubtless one of the creme-De-la-creme German movie directors of our time.<br /><br />Roughly, "Gespenster" tells the story of a French woman whose daughter had been kidnapped as a 3 years old child while the mother turned around her head for 1 minute in Berlin - and has never been seen ever. Since then, the mother keeps traveling to Berlin whenever there is a possibility and searches, by aid of time-dilated photography, for girls of the age of approximately the present age of her age. As we hear later in the movie, the mother was already a lot of times convinced that she had found her daughter Marie. However, this time, when she meets Nina, everything comes quite different.<br /><br />The movie does not bring solutions, not even part-solutions, and insofar, it is rather disappointing. We are not getting equipped either in order to decide if the mother is really insane or not, if her actual daughter is still alive or not. Most disappointing is the end. After what we have witnessed in the movie, it is an imposition for the watcher that he is let alone as the auteur leaves Nina alone. The simple walking away symbolizing that nothing has changed, can be a strong effect of dramaturgy (f.ex. in "Umberto D."), but in "Gespenster", it is displaced.<br /><br />Since critics have been suggesting Freudian motives in this movie, let me give my own attempt: Why is it that similar persons do not know one another, especially not the persons that another similar person knows? This is quite an insane question, agreed, from the standpoint of Aristotelian logic, according to which the notion of the individual holds. The individual is such a person that does not share any of its defining characteristics with anyone else. So, the Aristotelian answer to my question is: They do not know one another because their similarity is by pure change. Everybody who is not insane, believes that. However, what about the case if these similar persons share other similarities which can hardly be by change, e.g. scarfs on their left under ankle or a heart-shaped birthmark under their right shoulder-blade? This is the metaphysical context out of which this movie is made, although I am not sure whether even the director has realized that. Despite our modern, Aristotelian world, the superstition, conserved in the mythologies of people around the globe that similar people also share parts of their individuality, and that individuality, therefore, is not something erratic, but rather diffusional, so that the borders between persons are open, such and similar believes build a strong backbone of irrational-ism despite our otherwise strongly rational thinking - a source of Gespenster of the most interesting kind.

trimmed_train

Los Debutantes is the story of two orphaned brothers who have moved to Santiago from the South after their mother dies. The confident and streetwise Silvio, the elder brother, gets a job working for a sleazy strip club's owner after taking the naive Victor there for his 17th birthday.<br /><br />As Silvio blossoms under his boss's tutelage, both brothers get involved with the owner's sexy and manipulative mistress, Gracia. As the film unfolds, characters are redefined as we begin to see the subtle and overt ways that each one manipulates the next.<br /><br />The film is well made, with good cinematography and fast pacing. It's also pretty sexy, with a lot of nudity and some fairly explicit sex scenes. It uses the now-popular technique of layering different scenes from different points of view, out of chronological sequence. Many people hate movies like this because they don't understand what's going on - Memento, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and many other good films use this device. The plot itself is really nothing new, there are elements of Body Heat, Pulp Fiction, and many other good film noir.<br /><br />As the different layers are revealed, our understandings of the characters and their motivations evolve. While the plot may be somewhat cliché, it is also clever and entertaining.<br /><br />I would call it an enjoyable movie, worth watching, but nothing memorable. I haven't seen many films from Chile, and it's always interesting to see film noir from other countries. Other than that, rent it if it's available but don't lose any sleep if it isn't.

trimmed_train

A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10

trimmed_train

When its DVD was released i came to market and bought it. And i think my money was on right way as i expected before buying it. Awesome movie what else i can say for Will Smith, He's been an awesome actor like always whether in actions movies or serious. Always he gives a record braking performance. I think this is the movie after August Rush which makes a person cry while watching it. The way the director described the story was really awesome. His previous life and his new life in movie was correctly elaborated to the audience. Even i could not find any fault in the story or the way they shoot it. I think its DVD should be a household because this will be really a nice thing for your collection. It is not the movie which needs pop-corns for enjoyment, this is the movie which let the audience learn a lesson. now what is the lesson you can see that while watching. And i advise those people who are movie critics please watch this if you could find any criticism about this movie then please talk to me.

trimmed_train

I'm not tired to say this is one of the best political thrillers ever made. The story takes place in a fictional state, but obviously it deals with the murder of Kennedy. A truthful and honest district attorney (played by Yves Montand) does not believe that the murder was planned and executed by the single man Daslow (=Oswald) and though all other officials want to close the case he continuous to investigate with his team.<br /><br />The screenplay is written tight and fast and holds the tension till the end. Just the part dealing with the Milgram experiment about authorities is (though not uninteresting) a bit out of place. The ending sequence - explaining who Icarus really is - partly shot in slow motion and intensified by a Morricone soundtrack is the most powerful sequence I have ever seen in a movie.

trimmed_train

Just don't bother. I thought I would see a movie with great supspense and action.<br /><br />But it grows boring and terribly predictable after the interesting start. In the middle of the film you have a little social drama and all tension is lost because it slows down the speed. Towards the end the it gets better but not really great. I think the director took this movie just too serious. In such a kind of a movie even if u don't care about the plot at least you want some nice action. I nearly dozed off in the middle/main part of it. Rating 3/10.<br /><br />derboiler.

trimmed_train

Why should you watch this? There are certainly no reasons why you shouldn't watch it! Superbly and amusingly directed by Albert and David Maysles, Grey Gardens was originally intended to be a film on the gentrification of East Hampton, but it turned out to the brothers that it would be more interesting to produce a study on the eccentric life of the two Edith Bouvier Beales, the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their life was certainly an amusing one (Edith spent most of her day in bed singing operas, Edie performing pirouettes and majorette dances with their many cats, one was named Ted Z. Kennedy) The film is interesting because it is both funny and sad - Edith died shortly after the film was released (in February 1977) aged 82 after experiencing some of the fame that she and Edie received after the film (she danced and sang in a nightclub Edie Beale Jr was born in 1925 and is still living in Miami Beach.This film is both engaging and spellbounding.

trimmed_train

getting to work on this film when it was made back in the summer of 1990. Shot partly in the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC and the remaining parts in Winston-Salem. The massive offices of the RJ Reynolds were used in several office scenes and places in around the beautiful city that is know as the tulip capital of the world Winston-Salem! I enjoyed my work although it was exceedingly hard work building all the sets like the Golf of Mexico where Renee Russo and Jim Belushi went on their date. I also had a big hand in decorating the bar where Larry encounters the magical bartender Mr. Destiny. I tacked all those pics on the wall of sports heroes and decorated that phone booth where larry makes a phone call for a cab. I even put my mothers photo at eye level so i could freeze frame it and show it to her when we watched it. I remember dyeing the grass at his old house with green dye because it first had to be sodded(it was a new house in a new development and I guess they leased it for the movie)..then I had to cut that newly laid sod to make it look nice..man that was hard! As far as the movie, when we made it we had no idea what it would be like but after seeing it i fell in love with it because really tells the story of "what if" as good as I ever had seen it, including the great It's a Wonderful Life. I cried so many times<br /><br />i can't count. I got to meet the wonderful actor Michael Caine while shooting scenes at an old minor league ballpark where Larry's boyhood scenes were played and replayed. I remember after he had done a take an was heading back to his trailer, I ran him down and asked him for a picture and he was quite amiable and said "why not!" He is a good guy and a really natural and forceful actor. I can't say the same for Jim Belushi..he was so full of himself, smoking big cuban cigars and talking loudly so<br /><br />everyone in earshot could hear his every word. His career never did take off but he has had a decent TV career recently. I would say watch this movie if you ever get the chance. It's wonderful and really heartfelt and real. You can feel Larry's pain after he enters into the new world Mr. Destiny gives him after hitting the homer, and as he wants so badly for people to believe he is not this bad guy everyone thinks he is. They all think he belongs in a nuthouse! But eventually he wins people over but by then he wants his real life back so badly, especially his wonderful wife, played so beautifully by Linda Hamilton..and he wants his dog back! So see it.

trimmed_train

Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???<br /><br />(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!)

trimmed_train

Surreal film noir released soon after the "real," genre-defining classics "The Maltese Falcon," "Double Indemnity" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice." Welles films shouldn't be evaluated against others. He was playing by different rules. In fact, he was playing. This starts where other femme fatale films leave off, so the vaguely logical (but interesting) whodunit is embellished with a display of Wellesian scenes (typical rapid-fire style), dialog (lots of "hard-boiled" philosophy), and unusual acting (good Hayworth presumably intentionally one-dimensional). To Welles "genre" may have meant "formula" but he seemed to like using "mysteries" as backgrounds for his "entertainments."

trimmed_train

I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.

trimmed_train

I'm a huge Steven Seagal fan. Hell, I probably weigh as much as he does although I don't have the street cred to sport the frizzy-mullet-ponytail. Having stated my own bias and affection for America's favorite corpulent stage and screen hero, it is with a heavy heart that I must declare this to be his worst movie ever. I'm not sure he could make a movie any worse than this.<br /><br />In his defense the major problems with this film seem to occur in post-production. It's painfully obvious that this movie was supposed to have a different storyline. That results in woeful voiceovers in which Steve's voice doesn't nearly sync up with that of the dubbed voice. The editing is pisspoor and overall this starts bad, gets even worse, and by the end you'll wish you had rewatched The Da Vinci Code instead. Yes, it's that bad.<br /><br />After this I don't know what to expect from Steve. My friends still laugh at me for listening to his CDs. Is it time I start checking out some of the Van Damme direct to DVD nutty logs? If you are tempted to watch this movie, rip your eyeballs out and flush them down the toilet. A lifetime of darkness is better than 89 minutes of this.

trimmed_train

(possible spoilers)<br /><br />Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.<br /><br />The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are undermined<br /><br />somewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much better<br /><br />use of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger<br /><br />(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).<br /><br />The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensively<br /><br />hypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandising<br /><br />campaign.<br /><br />The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). She<br /><br />seems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.<br /><br />Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in their<br /><br />stockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,<br /><br />manipulation, and heavy-handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm, wit, sincerity, and heart. The folks at Universal should get down on their collective knees and thank God that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they'd not be here today. Furthermore it made Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat possible!

trimmed_train

Serum starts as Eddie (Derek Phillips) is delighted to learn he has been accepted into medical school to carry on the family tradition of becoming an MD like his father Richard (Dennis O'Neill) & his uncle Eddie (David H. Hickey), however his joy could be short lived as Eddie is involved in an accident & is run over by a car. Taken to the nearest hospital it doesn't look good for poor Eddie so his uncle Eddie convinces his brother Richard to let him save Eddie with the serum he has developed, a serum which will give the recipient the power to self heal any sort of wound or illness. Desperate for his boy to live Richard agrees but the procedure has unwanted side effects like turning Eddie into a brain eating zombie which is just not a good thing...<br /><br />Executive produced, written & directed by Steve Franke I'll be perfectly frank myself & say Serum is awful, Serum is one of those no budget horror films which tries to rip-off other any number of other's & ends up being slightly more fun than having you fingernails pulled out with pliers. The script is terrible, it has the whole Re-Animator (1985) feel to it with mad scientists wielding huge syringes trying to eradicate death but it's so boring it's untrue, the first forty minutes is nothing more than a really dull soap opera that amounts to nothing expect to pad the running time out with Eddie arriving home after spending some time away & finding his ex-girlfriend has hooked up with someone else, arguments with his step-mom, getting drunk with his mate & generally boring the audience stiff. So, once the tedium of the first forty minutes is over & if your still watching it it takes another twenty minutes to get Eddie re-animated & then he kills a couple of people, police catch up with him & shoot him, the end. Thank god. Serum is devoid of any of the characteristic's that one would associate with a good film, the character's suck, the dialogue is poor, it takes itself far too seriously, it's dull, it's slow, it's forgettable & considering it's meant to be a horror film there's an alarming lack of blood, gore or horror. Not recommended, did I mention Serum was boring? I thought so.<br /><br />Director Franke does nothing to liven this thing up, although competent there's no style here at all. The gore levels are none existent, there's a bit of splashed blood, a bitten neck, a couple of scars on a dead woman's face, a couple of scenes where a needle pierces skin & that's it. Don't expect a Re-Animator in the gore department because if you do your going to be sorely disappointed, much like I was in fact. Filmed in what looks like one house, one restaurant & a lab the film has no variety either & just looks cheap throughout. There's a couple of scenes of nudity but that's nowhere near enough to save it.<br /><br />Technically the film isn't too bad, at least it looks like proper cameras were used, I can't really comment on the special effects because there aren't any but generally speaking Serum looks reasonably professional. Apparently shot in Texas, or should that read it should have literally been shot in Texas? The acting sucks although again I think they were proper actor's rather than friends or family of the director.<br /><br />Serum is a terrible film, it's dull, slow, boring, has no gore & feels like a horrible soap opera for the first forty minutes. I don't understand why anyone would feel the need to watch this when they can watch Re-Animator or one of it's sequels again instead, seriously I recommend you give Serum a miss. There I've just saved you from wasting 90 minutes of your life, you can thank me later.

trimmed_train

So many consider The Black Cat as the best Karloff/Lugosi collaboration. I disagree. The Invisible Ray is their best. A great storyline, fantastic special effects, and classic Karloff over-acting. I love it!!

trimmed_train

Why this movie has all but disappeared into obscurity is an absolute crime. "Conan" is perhaps the only Sword and Sorcery movie better. The brutal violence, cool character designs, and good pacing, make this one of the best fantasies around. It is certainly the greatest animated movie aimed at a more adult audience that I have ever seen. This is not similar to Bakshi's usual frenetic style. It's quite a departure for Bakshi, and in my opinion his best work. I hope that this film gets the recognition it deserves.

trimmed_train

I can find very little thats good to say about this film. I am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting I am afraid is not the standards I would expect from some very talented people. I would doubt that this features highly in their CV Filmography. Michael Caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the Doctor, and at no time no did I actually believe in his character. The plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. Some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films, that at times I wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. The lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all.

trimmed_train

I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars.

trimmed_train

When I was a kid I watched this many times over, and I remember whistling the "Happy Cat" song quite often. All the songs are great, and actually memorable, unlike many children's musicals, where the songs are just stuck in for no real reason. The scenes and costumes are lavish, and the acting is very well-done, which isn't surprising, considering the cast. Christopher Walken is very catlike, and doesn't need stupid make-up, or a cat costume for the viewer to believe he's a cat transformed to a human. And Jason Connery's so cute, as the shy and awkward miller's son, Corin, who falls in love with beautiful and the bold Princess Vera. This is a really fun, enjoyable, feature-length movie, where unlike most fairytales, the characters are given personalities. Some of my favourite parts are when Puss makes Corin pretend he's drowning; at the ball when everybody starts dancing a country dance, as it's "all the rage abroad"; when Walken is in the kitchen, dancing on the table (he's a pretty good dancer, too!); and when Vera tells Corin all the things she used to do when she was young, like pretending she was a miller's daughter. I'd recommend this film to children and parents alike, who love magic and fairytales. And it actually IS a movie you can watch together, as it won't drive adults up the wall.

trimmed_train

Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.<br /><br />Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.<br /><br />The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.<br /><br />There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover?

trimmed_train

Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!<br /><br />Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local "protection" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.<br /><br />Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.<br /><br />The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!<br /><br />There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....<br /><br />What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).<br /><br />I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with "mystery helpers" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!!

trimmed_train

Not even the most ardent stooge fan could possibly like the movie, (I one of them) the stooges just aren't given any material to work with. It is really a shame too because this is the only feature length movie the stooges did with Curly, and this one effort by them is painfully unfunny, when it could have had great potential. Awful musical numbers don't help any either. The short they did with the same title has more laughs.

trimmed_train

This is about a mad scientist who creates a half shark - half man type critter on an uncharted island, then calls up all his old business and academic buddies to come and see his creation (evil laugh) but actually he wants his sharkman to kill them! Lots of bad GCI, goofy plot elements, and babes sweating in tight T-shirts follow.<br /><br />These monster movies all follow a similar formula, but this one spices things up with a bit of humor (I guarantee the folks who made this had tongues firmly planted in cheek), not to mention the sexy babes. But let's mention those sexy babes - several hot babes, in tight T-shirts, sweating profusely. One's in her undies at the beginning, another at the end. Thank you, thank you, makers of bad movies! The plot is full of goofy stuff, a guy drives up in a jeep, slams it right into a tree, then offers to fly everyone off the island in a helicopter. Yeah, um, well, how 'bout we think about that for a while; we'll get back to you. The sharkman is hilarious - either awful CGI or an equally comedic guy in a rubber suit. The mad scientist gives a pretty good performance; he's evil, that's his motivation, he makes no apologies.<br /><br />Overall, if you want a stupid, FUN B-movie, this one should do the job.

trimmed_train

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

trimmed_train

This is a great "small" film. I say "small" because it doesn't have a hundred guns firing or a dozen explosions, as in a John Woo film. Great performances by Roy Scheider and the three "bad guys". John Frankenheimer seems to have more luck with small productions these days. The film is very easy to watch, the story is more of a yarn than a washing machine--instead of everything going around and around, it seems as though things just get worse as the plot thickens. Wonderful ending, very positive. I never read the Elmore Leonard book, but it can't be much different from the film because it FEELS like I'm watching an Elmore Leonard movie.

trimmed_train

I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story. <br /><br />Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie! <br /><br />Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it? <br /><br />Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!<br /><br />Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!

trimmed_train

Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)

trimmed_train

In 1967 I visited the Lake Elsinore glider-port and flew a yellow Pratt Read sailplane. Returning to Germany the above serious ran on TV and one segment was about the high altitude sailplane flights in California in the early 50ies. (The real life pilot was Bill Ivans, I don't know who played him in the series) It turned out that the sailplane in the film was the same (same N-number) as the one I had flown at Lake Elsinore. Ever since I saw that segment I have been searching for it and have been wondering if it is somewhere available. (other segments in that serious were about the Baker Ejection Seat; an instrument to find avalanche victims etc.

trimmed_train

A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.<br /><br />As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the "message" that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.<br /><br />The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones.

trimmed_train

This film is really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.

trimmed_train

just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!!

trimmed_train

This movies is the best movie to watch for comic book feel. The sets, costumes and the color are just so vivid it is just like stepping into a comic book. This is the movie I think of when the Mob is mentioned, the suits, the hats and the attitudes.<br /><br />Hoffman gives comic relief as Mumbles and you can't help but feel sorry for Madonna as she tries, and fails, to win Tracy over. This movie contains all the classic mob clichés - burying people in concrete, blowing up peoples cars, tieing up the good guy and attempting to blow up his girlfriends house.<br /><br />This movie is a classic in ever sense of the word, even camera angels cry out comic book. Its so great to be able to go back to an older movie and see that someone knew how a comic should be made into a movie after seeing such mistakes as Spawn and the Hulk. <br /><br />!!!YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!

trimmed_train

Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !! <br /><br />One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s ! <br /><br />There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!<br /><br />The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.

trimmed_train

I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable.

trimmed_train

Nothing is fantastic! Simple as that! It's a film that shouldn't work, yet does. Natali stays in the realm of Sci-Fi, however this film is also a comedy. Cypher it seemed was a big budget draining affair for Natali (at $7.5million! Woo-hoo Pa!) so with Nothing he scales down again. This is low budget, independent film-making at it's best. Simple, good old fashioned storytelling and an attempt at making a film for artistic merit as apposed to Hollywood's usual reasons for mostly financial gain. Nothing is a film about Nothing and before you ask, no it is not anything like Seinfeld! Basically Andrew and Dave are a couple of losers. They live in a strange looking house beneath two freeways. Andrew is a telesales travel agent who is agoraphobic while Dave is Andrews best mate who stays with him rent free to help him out. Dave is tired of it however and has a gorgeous girlfriend who he wants to move in with. By bizarre mis-fortunes however, Dave finds out his girlfriend embezzled a huge amount of money from Daves work-place incriminating Dave, and Andrew is wrongly accused of sexually assaulting a girl scout (Canadian humour people!). As it turns out Andrew's house is to be demolished as well and he can't stop it happening as the house was built on land it should not have been built on. Both Andrew and Dave are inside the house when the police and the demolition team come calling. They are desperate and can't escape, and in the panic and confusion just as the police burst in everything fades to white. What has happened? Have Dave and Andrew died? They wake to find themselves still in the house only it is quiet. No police, no demolition team, no angry girl scout mother! What happens is Dave and Andy discover they have the ability to "wish or hate away." As it turns out they have hated away the entire outside world. They are left alone. The house is surrounded by nothing, which is portrayed as pure white. So what this means is that the films setting is a house set and then just white. The film is an interesting view on human isolation and the psyche and of course as they spend more time alone together with no food and no water, they begin to tire of each other. They discover they can hate away hunger, which is useful but obviously things get out of hand shall we say. I can't reveal much but I must say bouncing heads are quite a sight to behold.<br /><br />This film is quirky, funny, interesting. The effects are simple yet effective and Natali brings together two buddies from Cube, David Hewlett, and Andrew Millar to lead the film. They have chemistry and also work very well. They have to hold 90% of the movie by themselves and much of it in a pure white background, yet it works. Certainly I expect this to get the same diabolical treatment as Cypher did and it should appear on DVD in a year or two in the states. Nothing is a top quality and unique film and although not as good as Cube or Cypher it once again proves Natali as one of the best up and comers.<br /><br />Natali is someone who has really interested me in his three features so far and I cannot wait for his next feature. I prey to god he doesn't do the proposed Necropolis, written and directed by ADD sufferer, the ever crap Paul Anderson. Vincenzo old buddy if Paul comes round to your pad, RUN!!! RUN LIKE THE WIND!! I hope and prey this guy doesn't take to Hollywood like Alex Proyas did (with the enjoyable yet pussy-footed, sugar coated, helium light: I Robot!). Keep your eyes peeled for this guy. ****

trimmed_train

I saw this movie yesterday on Turner, and I was unable to stop watching until it was over, even though I sort of could guess what would happen. Farrell was great in her role, and everyone else did a super job. Some of it seemed to stretch the limits, but all in all, I loved it!! If you get the chance to see it, please do! I actually cried at a few scenes, but then I guess if you are a mom you would. Loretta is beautiful, and I was just in astonishment at the very idea of their being unwed moms there, it seemed ahead of its' time. I say, WATCH IT if you can, and don't listen to criticisms. As they say, I laughed, I cried! I thoroughly enjoyed it!

trimmed_train

I've always been a big Cybill Shepperd fan, ever since I saw her series a few years ago!! This film certainly shows her in her best light yet!! The film was so wonderfully cast and played!! Every now and again she drops little amusing lines, just to make this film one of the best I've ever seen!! Everybody really out does themselves!! Especially Robert Downey Jr and Cybill Shepperd, they really made the film come true!! Also I loved the little bit where Mavis loses her wig and she nearly dies when she falls to the floor!! This is film at its best!!

trimmed_train

Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were.

trimmed_train

i watched this series when it first came out in the 70s.i was 14 years old and i watched it at my best friends house as my dad didn't want to watch it.it became a weekly ritual every Sunday, and as anyone will tell you for two fourteen year olds to watch a documentary in almost reverential silence must mean that this was something special.<br /><br />the broad sweep of the events of world war 2 makes for a difficult subject to document.so the makers broke it down into what they considered to be the most significant key happenings and devoted one episode to each.some episodes covered long periods such as 'wolf pack' which covered nearly all six years of the battle of the Atlantic.while the battle of Stalingrad had one episode to itself.<br /><br />this documentary could not be made today quite simply because most of those interviewed are dead.the list of significant players appearing gives an amazing insight into the thinking at the time.Anthony eden the foreign secretary,Carl donnitz,head of the u-boats,Albert speer,pet architect confident and later armament minister for Hitler.in one of the later episodes we see traudl junge, Hitler's secretary,who was with him in the bunker and it was to her that he dictated his last will and testament-she left the bunker after Hitler's suicide and escaped through the Russian lines.these and many others play a major role in the realism of the events portrayed.<br /><br />if i have any criticism of the series it is that the code-breakers of bletchly park are not included but the revelations of their part in the war only emerged after the series had been made so i cannot blame the programme makers.<br /><br />the opening titles and music are magnificent,and Lawrence Olivier's narration lends a natural gravity to the script.<br /><br />the best documentary series ever made? without doubt.unmissable

trimmed_train

This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made. Even for a biker movie, it's rock bottom. The minimal plot involves a gang of bikers taking over a small town (how original!) and the townspeople's attempts to fight them off. Why don't they call for outside help? Who knows? The fight scenes are obviously fake. Adam West and Tina Louise are in it but both have little to do and both look ashamed to be there (understandably) This movie belongs in the trash heap!

trimmed_train

The master of cheap erotic horror, Rolfe Kanefsky, finally makes a movie that doesn't go straight to the Playboy Channel. "The Hazing" borrows heavily from everything that came before it from Nightmare on Elm Street to Evil Dead, but still manages to do it with enough humor to make it watchable... just barely. The characters are cardboard, the dialogue is wooden, the story is paper-thin and the actors couldn't act their way out of a grocery bag. Put that all together and you have a pulpy ball of mulch for a movie. Sometimes, when I'm bored, I like to eat paper. Watching this movie is a lot like that. Chew on it for 90 minutes and you're left with a weird taste in your mouth and no nutritional value.

trimmed_train

Cinderella....<br /><br />I hadn't watched this film for about five years the last time i saw it. The magic remains. There is something that definitely contains that storybook feel, the songs entertain and the secondary character's all please. The villains in the form of step sisters are perfectly evil and vile. Then there is the most magical of all Disney, the mice making the dress and well you know the rest. To sum up the four of the Disney princess movies are all great but this is a charming magical experience, watch and enjoy. Oh and of course, Cinderella is wonderful as the main character in the movie.<br /><br />If you think about it Disney movies can really lost their charm. With Elene Wood and others the movie has such a feel to it, you simply can't help but smile<br /><br />They say the moral of this story is that dreams come true. Of course in the real world some are believers others are hoper's. In this film it's even more the magical when her rainbow comes smiling. <br /><br />And of course the rest is...Cinderella

trimmed_train

There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)

trimmed_train

I found this a bit hard to follow to the extent that it seemed to dip in the middle while I tried to make head or tail of who was fighting who and why. One of the problems is the cultural/language one. Here we have a Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese problem of which we know little and because we are simply reading English subtitles inevitably loose some of the subtleties. Another problem is that there seem to be just too many only half explained twists and coincidences. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that there is a wholly bad Miiki film and this certainly is not that. Plenty of stylish and bone crunching violence, a window upon some less than orthodox sexual goings on plus the family aspect. All in all a decent ride but maybe checking out the storyline might actually be helpful before watching this one.

trimmed_train

I was eager to see "Mr. Fix It" because I'm a huge David Boreanaz fan. What I got, though, was a 1-1/2 hour nap. The premise seemed enjoyable: Boreanaz is Lance Valenteen, proprietor of a business called "Mr. Fix It", where dumped men enlist his help to get their girlfriends to take them back.<br /><br />Among the problems with this movie are the editing, script, and acting. Although I've found Boreanaz delightful in his other film roles (with the exception of that "Crow" movie he did), this was disappointing. At times, his character was interesting and others, flat. The supporting cast reminded me of soap opera day players. I realize it wasn't a big-budget film, but some of the scene cuts and music just didn't seem right.<br /><br />My advice: watch at your own risk.

trimmed_train

Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.<br /><br />So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.<br /><br />Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good.

trimmed_train

Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film.

trimmed_train

This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.<br /><br />And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.<br /><br />When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.<br /><br />This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.

trimmed_train

Comedy Central has a habit of putting on great programs at times-Chappelle's Show, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and then there are those that some people love or hate-Stella, Dr. Katz. Then there are some shows that have their defenders but are just plain awful- Mencia, and now, Sarah Silverman.<br /><br />This show is based on the fact Silverman is self-Centered, which can be funny (Colbert Report) but can be horrible (Mind of Mencia). It should shock no one that I believe the latter is the case. This show is a parody of a sitcom and society, a program so absurd it loses itself in its absurdity and it simply isn't funny. A woman farting has been done in comedy many many times because its not something that's common. We don't need 25 minutes of it. When a criminal is disarmed by a queef, it simply loses its appeal-we saw it in Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, except the women were hotter, and the whole scene was more absurd, making it better. But the best comparison of this show is to Stella, except Stella was more subtle, which is what made the absurdist comedy funny. It had better acting, and I suppose, a bit more of a fantastical realist view.<br /><br />Perhaps the fact some reviews are so negative (I'm very skeptical of the critical acclaim but do not dispute fan reaction) to this show is the amount of advertising on it, very obnoxious ads through many programs far outdo advertising on for other programs. Many people are wondering why Sarah Silverman has a career, and others are still bitter when better shows have been canceled. This show should've never made it past the unaired pilot stage. Back to Norm showed far more promise, yet this show makes it further. And as far as critics being correct, many things have been universally panned have seen their status rise immensely. Last I checked, Britney Spears gets good reviews too also. Take that comparison however you want because someone will no doubt accuse me of being psychotic on IMDb for not liking this show.

trimmed_train

<br /><br />I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.<br /><br />**spoiler**<br /><br />Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending.

trimmed_train

Gurinda Chada's semi-autobiographical film (2002) is a gentle, poignant comedy set in the ethnically diverse community near Heahthrow Airport in West London.<br /><br />Like the airliners which constantly arrive and depart from overhead, we follow the ups and downs of the two main characters Jess Bhamra (Parminder Nagra) and Jules Paxton (Keira Knightley) as they strike up an unlikely friendship which centres around their mutual passion for soccer and their technical infatuation with David Beckham.<br /><br />Much of the comedy grows out of the misunderstandings of the families of these two talented girls as they break all the expectations and conventions of their very different family backgrounds.<br /><br />Somewhere in the middle, as broker, peacemaker and blighted athlete, Joe (Jonathan Reece-Myers) - team coach for the Hounslow Harriers - intercedes in times of crisis, while at the same time remaining the main object of affection of both the main characters.<br /><br />Eventually, and not without many obstacles and triumphs on the way, we finally see our dedicated and beloved soccer heroines soaring away to realise their dreams.<br /><br />With great performances from Bollywood veteran Anupam Kher (Mr Bhamra), Shaheen Khan (Mrs Bhamra), Juliet Stevenson (Mrs Paxton) and Frank Harper (Mr Paxton) this really is a film that captures the urgent passion of adolescence and crosses all ethnic frontiers.<br /><br />Pinky Bamrha (Archie Panjabi) and (Taz) Trey Farley are struggling their own struggles, but nevertheless contribute greatly to our understanding of the main characters in the film.<br /><br />In it's own special way, this film tells an important story that in quite incidental the football. It celebrates the evolution in the understanding of ordinary people in ordinary families and the innate ability of the young to teach the old.

trimmed_train

Great movie, enough laughs and action for any audience.<br /><br />Since the last person who posted on this movie took it upon themselves to call Woody Allen incestuous and not comment on the film, here I am.<br /><br />The film follows an unlikely duo, Johansson and Allen, as they follow a tip given to them by the ghost of a recently deceased English reporter. Their search takes them into the home of the killer, and eventually to a somewhat tragic end. But don't let the plot fool you, the film truly is hilarious and the acting is superb.<br /><br />It seems that as directors reach a certain age they really get things right. Clint Eastwood, Allen and Pollack all seem to making some of the most imaginative work of their respective careers. Also, from watching the movie in a pact theater, you can just tell that people really love Woody Allen and are ready for him to really make a comeback. The second he walked on screen audience lit up. There's just something about the man and he really shines in Scoop. <br /><br />Check it out, it's worth the trip.

trimmed_train

Well, I must say that this was one hell of a fun movie. Despite the fact that the dubbing was pretty cheesy, and there were some odd moments where the film seemed to turn dark blue for no apparent reason, I was not disappointed. The story was actually pretty interesting: the last member of the Poison Clan must track down the other five members and discover who among them is using their skills for evil, and who is using them for good. The catch being that during training, all of the clan were masked, and all have since returned to society in disguise and changed their names.<br /><br />The fights are a joy to watch, as each member of the Poison Clan has a different fighting style: toad (my favorite), snake, scorpion, lizard, and centipede. The fight scenes have the actors jumping all over the place, and thankfully the camera stays planted and uses a wide enough shot so you can clearly see all of the action.<br /><br />The one drawback to the movie is that the story tends to drag a bit in the first half up until the first fight sequence. But stick with it, and you won't be disappointed!

trimmed_train

ERROL FLYNN had one of his favorite roles as the brash braggart from a fighting Irish family who went on to become the heavyweight champion of the world at a time when John L. Sullivan (WARD BOND) went around claiming that he "could beat any man alive." Both Flynn and Ward Bond give what is probably among the best performances they ever gave on screen.<br /><br />Raoul Walsh has directed the colorful tale with robust style, capturing the family life as well with scenes that are warm-hearted and full of good humor. All the Warner contract players make up the fine cast--including the always reliable ALAN HALE as Flynn's rambunctious father, proud of his son's fighting abilities, and ALEXIS SMITH who makes the most of her role as a feisty society girl who enjoys taking Flynn down a peg with saucy one-liners dealing with his conceited manners.<br /><br />All of the 1880s atmosphere is captured in glorious B&W, although it's too bad Warners didn't have more faith in Flynn to do the film in color. He was entering a rocky phase of his film career at the time, engaged in a widely publicized rape trial that had all of the tabloids busy sorting things out.<br /><br />The fighting scenes are among the best ever choreographed for the screen, with Flynn obviously in fine form and making very little use of doubles for most of the action. And the scene where Bond turns over his award plaque to Flynn at a social gathering is one of Ward's finest moments in a long career as a character actor.<br /><br />Summing up: Maintains interest all the way through, whether you're a sports fan or not.

trimmed_train

I caught this on Showtime tonight and was amazed by how a movie with such a interesting premise could wind up being so unbelievably awful. WHO'S YOUR DADDY? stars Brandon Davis as an adopted high school senior Chris Hughes, a geek who inherits the heir to a porn empire left to him by his biological parents. Though the premise sounds like the movie could be a lot of fun, it is ruined by inept directing from first-time director Andy Fickman, a clichéd and predictable screenplay, and acting that is even bad by direct-to-video standards. Even the normally funny Charlie Talbert turns in a surprisingly dismal performance as the best friend. Ali Landry is the only good part of this lame and unfunny dud. 1/10

trimmed_train

CAT SOUP is a short anime based on the legendary manga Nekojiru. It won the award "Best Short Film" at The 6th Fantasia Film Festival and also won the "Excellence Prize" at Japan's Media Arts Festival.<br /><br />When little kitten Nyaako's soul is stolen by Death, she and her brother Nyatta embark on a bizarre journey to get it back. In the surreal dreamscape of the Other Side, they encounter many fantastic characters and remarkable, often disturbing adventures.<br /><br />CAT SOUP is an anime like nothing you've ever seen. It's Hello Kitty on acid! It is very original, stunningly beautiful and possess a great sense of strangeness and lyricism. CAT SOUP is very surrealistic (there are no dialogue) and sometimes cruel and gory. So it is more an anime for adults than children (they may not understand at all!). A great journey for those who get the chance to see this absolute masterpiece. An must-see!

trimmed_train

This is a cartoon series where most of the action takes place in the human body where the actors are vitamins, viruses, blood cells etc. I will not try to explain it in more details, you will simply have to see it for yourself: You will not be disappointed.<br /><br />I remember watching this as a kid in the 80s (with Swedish voices). I have talked with a few people who were also children in the 80s and they loved it also! I must admit that the education-part of the episodes didn't get through to me at a conscious level but the whole idea of educating children while they have fun is wonderful. I have recently seen a few episodes; there is a humour and heart in it that is hard to find in other children programs nowadays.<br /><br />5/5

trimmed_train

Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things. <br /><br />The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.<br /><br />Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.

trimmed_train

I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.

trimmed_train

In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.

trimmed_train

I have just read the lead comment for this film that is on the front page with the voting results and cast run down.<br /><br />Why is it that some people can not take a film for what it is supposed to be.<br /><br />This film is supposed to be a light hearted, tonge in cheek, family comedy, things to make the kids laugh and things for the adults, and that is exactly what this film does.<br /><br />I laughed my nuts off at this film, I thought Carey put in a great performance and the whole film (if watched at Christmas) really give you a bit of festive cheer<br /><br />So to all of you film reviewers stop trying to sound like film students and knock every film because it is not "Taxi Driver" or "The Godfather" and take films for what they are supposed to be, entertainment!!

trimmed_train

Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.<br /><br />The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.<br /><br />Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.<br /><br />In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.<br /><br />My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.<br /><br />By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top!

trimmed_train

The premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. But this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director Ravi Tandon in his film "Jawab'(1985) too. The problem here is Ace Director Rajkumar Santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action-thriller (viz. Khakee) or an emotions-rich heavy duty drama (Viz. Damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. If we ignore two of his-Pukar (2000) and Lajja(2001), this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. Therefore this film comes as a surprise, as to what made this script –sensitive director going for half-baked characterization of both of his protagonists-Amitabh Bachchan and Aryeman. As the film is getting over, audience didn't know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. Therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self-realization and regret by the Don about what went wrong with his own family. The revelation of Don's son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in 'Khakee" worked so effectively with Aishwarya's character. That is not all, there is more to it. The whole dramatization of life of an Underworld Don, operating from abroad looks quite illogical. His openly landing up at Mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. Pitching a mediocre, newcomer actor like Aryeman opposite Mr. Bachchan is again not a good idea. But nonetheless film has some plus points. Ashok Mehta's fine camera-work, two good fight sequences (co-ordinator Abbas Ali Moughal), some light well-acted scenes of Akshay Kumar in the Ist half, Santoshi's fast-paced slick treatment and of course Mr. Bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. But all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your Family!

trimmed_train

I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!

trimmed_train

Some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. Not painful to watch with your significant other? I was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie. <br /><br />It was so slow and awfully strange. <br /><br />Both Redgraves,Vanessa and Natasha were unfit for this, especially with Vanessa doing that ridiculous brash American accent. <br /><br />Claire Danes was the same wiggly-lipped awkward girl that she was in My So-Called Life. She has yet to push herself in any way. Girl, find a new way to pretend to cry! <br /><br />Meryl Streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie, she was on screen for five minutes, and I swear to God, she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake. <br /><br />Oh! And Hugh Dancy, who gets better every time I see him. <br /><br />Glenn Close and Eileen Atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes. <br /><br />I mean, this was a well-shot movie, it was very pretty, the settings were interestingly dressed, providing relief for the intense boredom I was feeling. <br /><br />I don't know, It's just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of "The greatest actresses of our time" sucks so much. It sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors, and the main character (Ann) was a huge jerk. I was glad she died. But that's because I felt bad for Lila, Ann's friend -- mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy. <br /><br />Ugh. BAD job, Evening the film. You weren't entertaining and you weren't even thought-provoking. I sure hope the book was better, so it didn't waste even more of people's time. 3/10

trimmed_train

Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world – living all life – curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene – and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour – that's the key to life. And looking through the camera – focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life.

trimmed_train

It is written in stone that Disney animations simply ~must~ be musicals. Right? Where? Show me. Because I found this attempt to be much more enjoyable for ~not~ containing the hokey made-for-five-year-old standard Disney musical fare. <br /><br />While the story was not as enthralling as it could have been, it was still quite good, enjoyable, and adventurous. I had hoped for a bit more, yes, considering the subject matter, but this movie is ~not~ the bitter disappointment or utter failure it has been billed to be. <br /><br />The animation quality is average, but the dialog is quite compelling, as is the story line, plot, sub-plot, and amazing creativity I found within this production. I will refrain from outlining the plot, as it has been done and done, but this movie is well worth a view if you are a fan of fantasy.<br /><br />This is, in my opinion, THE BEST Disney Animated Feature Length Film.<br /><br />It rates a 9.4/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.

trimmed_train

Weak Bobby "Pineapple Salsa" Flay and Mario Batali bring this down.<br /><br />Flay being the worst. Definitely a one trick pony, I think they could have gotten other American chefs to come to the table on this one as the Iron Chefs. The kind of dishes this duo come up with really...don't reflect on the creativity of the original Iron Chef Series. I don't think Batali even went to chef school, actually. There are a lot of great chefs in America, I just wonder why they don't appear on the Food Network.<br /><br />It would also help to have more regional ingredients and perhaps co-hosts who can handle the pressure. I like Alton Brown, but he is a bit too flippant/funny for this role.

trimmed_train

A SPECIAL DAY (Ettore Scola - Italy/Canada 1977).<br /><br />Every once in a while, you come across a film that really touches a nerve. This one offers a very simple premise, almost flawlessly executed in every way and incredibly moving at the same time. It's surprising Ettore Scola's "Una giornate particulare" is relatively unheralded, even hated by some critics. Time Out calls it 'rubbish' and Leonard Maltin, somewhat milder, 'pleasant but trifling.' I disagree, not only because this film is deeply moving, but within its simple story it shows us more insights about daily life in fascist Italy than most films I've seen. The cinematography is distinctly unflashy, even a bit bland, and the storyline straightforward, which might explain the film's relative unpopularity. Considering late '70s audiences weren't exactly spoiled with great Italian films, it's even stranger this one didn't really catch on with the critics.<br /><br />The film begins with a ten-minute collage of archive footage from Hitler's visit to Italy on may 8th 1938. Set against this background, we first meet Antonietta (Loren), a lonely, love-ridden housewife with six children in a roman apartment building. One day, when her Beo escapes, she meets her neighbour Gabriele (Mastroianni), who seems to be only one in the building not attending the ceremonies. He is well-mannered, cultured and soon she is attracted to him. During the whole film, we hear the fascist rally from the radio of the concierge hollering through the courtyard. Scola playfully uses the camera to make us part of the proceedings. After the opening scene, the camera swanks across the courtyard of the modernist (hypermodern at the time) apartment block, seemingly searching for our main characters, whom we haven't met yet. <br /><br />Marcello Mastrionani and Sophia Loren are unforgettable in the two leading roles, all the more astonishing since they are cast completely against type. Canadian born John Vernon plays Loren's husband, but he is only on screen in the first and last scene. I figure his voice must have been dubbed, since he's not of Italian descent and never lived there, to my knowledge, so I cannot imagine he speaks Italian. If his voice has been dubbed, I didn't notice at all. On the contrary, he's completely believable as an Italian, even more than the rest of the cast. The story is simple but extremely effective, the performances are outstanding, the ending is just perfect and the framing doesn't come off as overly pretentious but works completely. Don't miss out on this one.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 9/10

trimmed_train

This movie was a really great flick about something that affects us all. I know I've personally run into this many times. Thank goodness Will Smith has jumped onto the societal issue of text messaging while driving. People, don't do it. An hour and forty five minutes is not enough time for this cause. Personally, I wanted to throw away my cell phone after the movie. I was glad to see other people in the theater saw the message and dumped their phones with the empty bags of popcorn. I decided to disable all text messaging on my phone and would encourage others to do the same. If you care about your family, make them watch this vital Public Service Announcement on text messaging while driving or they could kill seven people. Thanks for showing us the way.

trimmed_train

Domini Enfilren (Marlene Dietrich) has spent most of her life caring for her father. Now that he has died she is free--but doesn't know what she wants. Boris Androvsky (Charles Boyer) is a monk who has fled a monastery to taste more of life. They meet accidentally in Algiers, fall in love and get married. But he can't leave his past behind and she can't live without him...<br /><br />WAY overdone romance full of hysterically bad dialogue and situations. Dietrich and Boyer do their best to give good performances but NOBODY could get away with some of their lines! Still, in a way, it is a classic. It's shot in gorgeous Technicolor (try to see it on DVD) where every frame is breath-takingly beautiful. Dietrich is always dressed to the 9s (even in the middle of the desert) and strikes hysterical poses to show off the clothes and her body. Boyer just walks around looking stricken (no shock there). Still I was never bored. It was wonderful to look at and the non-stop stupid dialogue kept me in stitches. The end almost had me falling out of my chair because I was laughing so hard! Now I love corny romances and give them plenty of space but really---this is unbelievable! It also runs a very short 80 minutes.<br /><br />As a camp classic I give this an 8. As a serious movie--a 1.

trimmed_train

I have to admit that for the first half hour or so of this movie I was basically lost. There had been some mildly amusing humour, but at best a barebones plot and a general sense of pointlessness that was on the verge of making me think that I was wasting my time. Then - for no apparent reason - I suddenly realized that I was enjoying this. There was no blinding moment of realization and no suddenly dramatic scene that grabbed me. In fact nothing very exciting happens in the entire movie. It was as if I just all of a sudden realized that the movie was meant to be largely pointless - and that in its very pointlessness was its charm.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman starred as an unnamed actor who finds a “little project” to jumpstart his career. He's going to play a supermarket manager, and spends the day in a neighbourhood supermarket to research the role. While there he meets and bonds with Scarlet (played by Paz Vega) - a cashier who wants more out of life. He helps her prepare for a job interview as if she's auditioning for a role, while she introduces him to real life. It's truly funny watching “him” (for that's how the character is identified in the credits) be overwhelmed by a visit to the local Target store.<br /><br />Freeman and Vega were great together, with a strange but completely believable sort of combined romantic but father-daughter chemistry. If you feel lost at the beginning, stick with this. In the end, it turns out to be a delightfully charming movie. 7/10

trimmed_train

Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****

trimmed_train

I was particularly moved by the understated courage and integrity of l'Anglaise, in this beautifully acted, intellectually and visually compelling film. Thank you so much, Monsieur le directeur Rohmer.

trimmed_train

This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:<br /><br />1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?<br /><br />2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?<br /><br />3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).<br /><br />4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.

trimmed_train

I watched to movie today and it just blew my mind away. It is a real masterpiece of art and I don't understand why most of the people think it's garbage. The main idea of the movie - take your ego away and then you will have true power! This was the main battle at the end of the movie and Guy Ritchie has shown that in a magnificent way. "The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you will ever look" - do you remember this from the movie? Because our true enemy is in us - it is our ego... That voice that always tells us that we are important, that gives us our pride, that tells us not to give, but only to take, that creates our aggression, that wants to be in control, that creates all the negative feelings and thoughts. GR expressed this idea in an astonishing way and has shown that the only way to gain true control is when you loose control and you just let go of your personal importance. A superb movie!

trimmed_train

Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.<br /><br />It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...<br /><br />From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...<br /><br />The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.

trimmed_train

Tripping Over. I must say at first I was a little disappointed in the first few episodes, but having faith in the show, and Abe Forsythe's unquestionable talent, I continued to watch. I can safely say I'm now glad that I did. The story did develop quite well, and all the characters have a strong base, and most don't have any information missing.<br /><br />The only thing I can fault in this production is the somewhat annoying voice and pronunciation possessed by the character Lizzie.<br /><br />Some good acting coupled with a stellar plot really gets this show over the line. Here's to hoping for another season!

trimmed_train

This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.

trimmed_train

You'd think you're in for some serious sightseeing when the premise of the movie takes place primarily between two characters as they travel 3000 miles or so from France to Saudi Arabia, going through most of Europe - Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Turkey, before arriving in the Middle East. But this is not a tour, and there are no stopovers for soaking in the sights.<br /><br />Reda's father is in his twilight years, and wishes to do the Haj. However, since walking and taking the mule is out of the question, he chooses to travel to Mecca by car. He can't drive, and therefore enlists the help of Reda, to his son's protest, to get him there in their broken down vehicle.<br /><br />But Reda doesn't see the point of having him go along, when his dad could opt for the plane. He resents the idea of having put his personal life on hold for this pilgrimage he couldn't understand. And hence, we set off in this arduous journey with father and son, being not the best of pals.<br /><br />The beauty of this movie is to witness the development of the father and son pair, the challenges they face, the weird people they meet, having to duke it out in varied weather conditions, and alternating rest stops between motels and sleeping in the car. We see an obvious generation gap in them trying to communicate to each other, the father trying to impose on his son, and the son trying to assert himself as an adult, but circumstances we see, reveal that Reda is quite a fish out of water. Through the many encounters, they actually team up quite well despite their differences.<br /><br />It's perhaps quite apt to have this film released here last week to coincide with Hari Raya Haji, and having the opportunity to watch our protagonists join the other pilgrims in their Haj. The final scene in Mecca is truly a sight to behold, and you too would feel the claustrophobia and fear as Reda tries to hunt down his dad amongst the thousands of people congregating. The sights of Europe were perhaps deliberately not dwelled upon, so as to build up the anticipation of and focus on the final destination.<br /><br />It certainly rang home the thought of telling and showing loved ones how much you appreciate them for who they are. Don't miss this, and yes, book early - I was pleasantly surprised that this evening's session was still a full house.

trimmed_train

Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.

trimmed_train

To review this movie, I without any doubt would have to quote that memorable scene in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994) when Jules and Vincent are talking about Mia Wallace and what she does for a living. Jules tells Vincent that the "Only thing she did worthwhile was pilot". Vincent asks "What the hell is a pilot?" and Jules goes into a very well description of what a TV pilot is: "Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a 'pilot'. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows. Some pilots get picked and become television programs. Some don't, become nothing. She starred in one of the ones that became nothing." Now to stretch on what Jules was talking about, there are BILLIONS of television shows/pilots that were never aired because they simply were not...well, good. Probably the most notorious pilot that comes to mind is "W*A*L*T*E*R", a spin-off to "M*A*S*H" with Gary "Radar" Burghoff as the lead. Hmmm, would somebody really want to be watching Radar for a half-hour trying to solve crimes? Hence, the show was never picked up. What many people don't know (or what they thought they knew) is that pilots are hardly ever shown on the air, for they are made strictly for the Television networks for them to decide. Some have made they're way past and got onto the air (The pilot for the animated series "American Dad" comes to mind, as the show's serial itself didn't begin until nearly four months later. However, there are times were we should all be glad pilots never make it to air, and this here is why.<br /><br />"Black Bart", a supposed tie-in with the Mel Brooks comedy classic, "Blazing Saddles", is a stale and bland "sitcom" with little heart and no soul. "Saddles" was a controversial comedy, nevertheless, with it's racist humor and vulgar comedy, which comes to mind "what idiot decided this would make a great television show FOR PRIME TIME TV?!?" I say "supposed", because none of the memorable characters from the movie, aside from Bart, on in this mess of a TV show. Mel Brooks wasn't even involved with the production of the serial and this was the first mistake in a long line (In a related story, I recently found out about an unaired TV pilot for a series based on the movie "Clerks." that Kevin Smith was no involved in....you see what happens?!?).<br /><br />Set somewhere around the same time as the movie (or at all), the story circles around the only Black sheriff in the wild west, named appropriately 'Black' Bart, who is this time played by future Academy Award winner Louis Gossett Jr., obviously before his stint in "real" acting, whereas in this he is playing a "G-rated" Richard Pryor. Most of the other characters are carbon (if not, really bad) copies of the characters in the movie: Jim, The Waco Kid is replaced by a similar looking character named Reb Jordan, a former Confederate soldier who is quick with the gun. Lilian Von Schtupp is now Belle Buzzer, a more of a ripoff of the character being that she's a show dancer and a German with a Marlene Dietrich-type accent and personality. While that's pretty much the end in similarities, The lead "bad guy" in the story is Fern Malaga, played by Noble Willingham, who I assumed would've been Hedley Lamar if Warner Bros. secured the rights to the name (See trivia for "Blazing Saddles") and his son Curley...I dunno, Taggart I suppose? The story is a poor excuse for a sitcom, much less a pilot. Bart deals with the mayor's drunk son and he's out-of-control behavior which has caused the town to spin. Really, it's a story that tries to introduce all the characters in the "series" and doesn't focus on the variety and context that would make this an "alright" show. I can't really call it a sitcom (and even if I wanted to) and that's primarily the fact it was shot on the backlot at Warner Bros. Studios and later added a laugh track, so the show is set up almost exactly like "M*A*S*H" (complete with a bland and dull "laughing" that is identical to the series). The acting is so-so, but there's one part that always make me laugh, and that's when the actor playing Reb Jordan almost seems to forget his lines and tries really hard to remember them while trying to sputter out a piece of dialogue. HA! The script is rather dull and is attempts to make racism more humorous than it was in the movie (Surprisingly, they use the word "N***er" numerous amount of times through a 22-minute episode, rather touchy for it's time period and even for today) and it gets repetitive.<br /><br />If you ever get your hands on this unseen piece of sssss...surly interesting novelty item, watch it just for the sake of the feeling for watching pilots (It's on the collector's edition of "Blazing Saddles", God knows why). There, yourself get a first hand chance for the reason why many movie tie-in pilots never air.

trimmed_train