Datasets:

harpreetmann

/

imdb_with_label_text

like 0

"Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is a sort of "Harper Valley P.T.A." with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle "Vinnie" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of "Grease.") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!

positive

Another Excellent Arnold movie. This futuristic movie has great action in it, and is one of Arnie's best movies. Arnold is framed as a bad guy in this movie and plays a Game of Death. This movie is excellent and a great Sci-Fi / action movie. I've always liked this movie and it has to be one of the greatest adventure movies of all time. 10 out of 10! PERFECTION

positive

Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.<br /><br />On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.<br /><br />I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.

negative

I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film

negative

I see where a few people involved in this debacle wrote reviews to share their side of the story, and I thought what they wrote was helpful in understanding it. The fact that they basically came up with excuses -- rewrites, budget constraints, production formats etc -- simply underlines how bad this movie is. And my criticisms in panning it are not personally directed but simply a warning that this one doesn't make the cut.<br /><br />It's watchable, but barely so. There are plot holes in every corner, the dialogue borders on the ridiculous, and the ending is telegraphed a mile away. The modestly interesting feature of a hologram interacting with a recon team get drowned in silly dialogue like who makes a meal in the midst of what is supposed to be a tense and deadly encounter with an unknown enemy. Would ya wrassle us up some Hamburger Helper Sally, between us getting killed by these automated carpet sweepers? Apparently this elite team equipped with the latest gizmos and red plastic tubed wonder armor has no access to MREs. Once they get into the last rooms they treat the place more like a four star motel than a deadly encounter zone.<br /><br />The rationale for the encounter with the fearsome Rook is that it can't be killed single handedly. Yet only one scene ago, the hero making that case abandoned King to do exactly that. Huh? Vivian Woo was attractive and hands down the best acted character in the movie. But that's not saying much.

negative

I wish "that '70s show" would come back on television. It was the greatest show ever!!! They should make episodes between the other episodes but of course that would be confusing. But I wish it would come back and make more episodes. Please come back... The show was absolutely hilarious. You couldn't laugh without seeing an episode. There is a really funny part in every episode and plus the show was so much better when Hyde and Jackie were going out with each other. Those were the best episodes. "That '70s show is the best".... It will be and always will be the best show ever. It was really sad when the show ended. They should make new episodes.

positive

Some of those guys that watch films and complain about them for a living are forgetting something: DVD menu system. I tell you the people, I watched the main screen repeat in this one about 35 times. It was awesome. A cinematic tapestry of cascading brilliance that had me from where it was, which was the very beginning. Many times the sum and Bam! I was hooked. Over and over and over. And over.<br /><br />"Doot de doot, de doo de dodedo." And that's just the soundtrack! <br /><br />I is laid aside in the bed, curled up with my Vaio. The rain is in the flat roof and tonight soft is again soft. The cat is comfortable and my ankle which crosses in me, is already rested. I popped in the DVD. I was mesmerized. Through the night. "doot de doot, de doo de dodedo."<br /><br />The Blob. See it. Steve Queen, two cops, and one girl in a dress. Two thumbs way up!

positive

The best Cheech & Chong movie so far!! Of all the Cheech and Chong this is most certain the best so far. I think I've seen them all about twelve times at least, and I love them all. But this is most definitely the best. Compared with the others this one covers a lot of themes and gives you a lot of good laughs. Part of the texts are still part of our language today, after 25 years. I hope that one day they can make another one, because they still are great comedians. I heard they are writing a new script so who knows... I guess these guys are the only ones who succeeded in making decent movies in this genre. I wonder if John Ashcroft ever watched one of them...

positive

I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.<br /><br />The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.<br /><br />Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.<br /><br />The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.<br /><br />The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.<br /><br />This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.<br /><br />Go see it, if you get the chance.

positive

In 1942 a film TALES OF MANHATTAN told a set of stories that were basically unrelated, but tied together with a suit of men's evening wear. Each story began when the "tails" were passed from one owner (Charles Boyer, for instance) to another (Ceasar Romero). WINCHESTER '73, a superior film, and a great western, has a similar plot twist. Initially it is about how Jimmy Stewart is seeking Stephen (Horace) MacMahon for some deadly grudge. But in the course of the film the two men get into a shooting contest, the prize (given by Marshall Wyatt Earp - Will Geer) being one of the new Winchester rifles. Stewart barely beats out MacMahon, but the gun is stolen from Stewart, and the chase is on. <br /><br />The gun passes from hand to hand, including John McIntyre (as an arrogant trader who fatally does not know when to stop being arrogant), to Rock Hudson (in a surprising role - and a brief one at that), to Charles Drake, to Dan Duryea (as the delightfully deadly and psychotic Waco Johnny Dean), to MacMahon. Eventually it does return to Stewart.<br /><br />The film is expertly directed by Anthony Mann. Every character has a wide variety of experiences. Duryea gets the rifle literally over Drake's dead body (Duryea forces the issue). But he loses it to MacMahon, who is faster on the draw - not that Duryea is stupid enough to fight for the rifle. As he and Shelley Winter look at MacMahon in the distance, Winter (who watched Duryea kill her former boy friend Drake) drops her distaste for the gunman momentarily to ask why he put up with MacMahon's bullying for the gun. Philosophically, Duryea explains he can wait. Some opportunity will come up later on (i.e., when he can safely kill MacMahon and get back the rifle). <br /><br />The characters are remarkably human. Winters first appears as the future bride of Drake, but she sees a really big negative side to him - an unforgivable side. Drake is aware of this lapse, and it helps lead to his destruction. Other characters have realistic touches, such as J.C. Flippen as an army sergeant who fights an Indian attack with Steward and Steward's friend Millard Mitchell. Oh yes, and with Flippen's fellow soldier - Tony Curtis. Flippen makes one believe this soldier has been on a hundred battlefields before, since 1861 probably. Steward had showed emotions in other films. In IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE he showed a degree of anger at times, and also a near nervous breakdown when he thinks everything is wrong with his life. But here he showed a demonic anger - at the expense of a surprised Duryea (who normally would show such anger himself).<br /><br />The parts of this film fit very neatly together, under Mann's competent hands. This is one western that never wears out, as the audience watches the travels of a Winchester rifle.

positive

After reading some quite negative views for this movie, I was not sure whether I should fork out some money to rent it. However, it was a pleasant surprise. I haven't seen the original movie, but if its better than this, I'd be in heaven.<br /><br />Tom Cruise gives a strong performance as the seemingly unstable David, convincing me that he is more than a smile on legs (for only the third time in his career- the other examples were Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July). Penelope Cruz is slightly lightweight but fills the demands for her role, as does Diaz. The only disappointment is the slightly bland Kurt Russell. In the movie, however, it is not the acting that really impresses- its the filmmaking.<br /><br />Cameron Crowe excels in the director's role, providing himself with a welcome change of pace from his usual schtick. The increasing insanity of the movie is perfectly executed by Crowe (the brief sequence where Cruise walks through an empty Time Square is incredibly effective). The soundtrack (a distinguishing feature of a Crowe movie) is also sublime.<br /><br />You will be shocked and challenged as a viewer. The plot does seem a little contrived but the issues explored behind it are endlessly discussable. The movie isn't perfect, but its a welcome change of pace for Cruise and Crowe and for those raised on a diet of Hollywood gloss, should be a revelation.

positive

Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement.

negative

This is one of the most brilliant movies that I have seen in recent times. Goes way above even any international movie of any repute. I am really surprised why this has not received the recognition it deserved. Sonali Kulkarni winning the National Award is perhaps the only consoling fact. Renuka Daftardar simply amazes as she speaks volumes through her eyes. There are a few scenes that stand out: When Gauri comes back from the city on Krishna's wedding, she and Krishna meet for the first time in many years. Krishna notices a change in Gauri, but not a single line of dialogue is said. The entire gamut of emotions is conveyed through subtle mannerisms and the eyes. There's another towards the end when Krishna pleads to Abhay Kulkarni to marry Gauri instead. If you are not moved by that scene, you don't have a heart.<br /><br />Watch this movie for sheer movie-making brilliance and acting capabilities.

positive

Let's be honest here: the only reason anyone bought this, the only reason anyone reviewed this, and the only reason anyone could possibly claim to enjoy this is because David Lynch made it and because you want to have David Lynch's children. But guess what? Even David Lynch can produce a piece of crap.<br /><br />Maybe Lynch wanted you to transcend normality and experience absurdity in-itself as a pure subject-of-knowing. Maybe the atrocious, cacophonist sounds, and chicken-scratch visuals are supposed to imply something about humanity's place in the world, about our relation to the Real, about the absurdity of it all.<br /><br />Instead, it just says one thing to me: I just lost $20.<br /><br />If I wanted offensive for the sake of offensive, I could crank Hansen on high and let me ears bleed. If I wanted absurd for the sake of absurd, I could just take a dump on a plate and watch that for 33 minutes.<br /><br />There is a single redeeming quality to Dumbland -- it is meta, meta funny. That is, it is so bad that it isn't even funny because it's so bad. This fact, however, is a little funny.<br /><br />If you hate yourself and hate your money, then buy Dumbland. If not, spare yourself the agony.

negative

I've just had the evidence that confirmed my suspicions. A bunch of kids, 14 to 22 put on the DVD of "Titanic" on a fantastic state of the art mega screen home entertainment type deal. Only two of them had actually seen it before. But they all had seen the moment of Kate, Leo and Celine Dion so many times that most of them felt they had seen the whole movie. Shortly after the epic started, they started to get restless, some of them left asking the others -- "call us when the iceberg appears" Over an hour and a half into the movie, only the two girls who had seen the movie before, were still there. They started shouting: iceberg, iceberg. A stampede followed, they all came back to see the sinking of the Titanic. They sat open mouthed, emitting Ohs and far outs. So, just like I thought when the movie first burst into the scene. What is this? One and a half hours waiting for the bloody thing to sink but what about the rest of the of it. Dr. Zivagho, for instance, had a similar running time, but think how much takes place in that film within the same period of time. In "Titanic" Leo teaches Kate how to spit. Look at the faces and hands of the, supposedly, creme de la creme in the first class dining room of the ship. Look at the historical details, if you can find them. The storyline is so thin that they have to introduce guns and shootings in a ship that is about to sink. The real sinking here is of film standards. All the efforts are focus on special effects and opening week ends. The film went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time so, what do I know?

negative

Sly's best out and out action film. It is a superbly enjoyable movie with some interesting characters, solid performances and Renny Harlins direction is stylishly assured. Stallone is rarely this interesting in his action films and he certainly looks the part in terms of the action scenes. This was one of the best action films of the year and one of the most thrilling and enjoyable of the 90's, a definite genre classic. As a Stallone fan this is one I look back on with fond memories. Plenty of superb action and Sly in prime action man form. Action lovers appreciate this film because it has all the hallmarks that make a good aciton film. The film looks great and there is great support from Janine Turner, Michael Rooker and John Lithgow. ****

positive

This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy.

negative

What horrible writing and acting. No personality. What, you can't make a good movie with a single character? Hmm, it was done in Castaway with self dialog.<br /><br />So this kid goes on a trip to see his father. The kid, Jason, takes a plane and the pilot has a heart attack and dies mid-flight. So the kid crashes in a lake and survives. Then he runs around, surviving in the wilderness until he gets rescued.<br /><br />During that time he fights a bear twice. The first time he fights it off in the lake. The second time he makes a spear out of a branch and spears the bear. Two shots of fake blood spurting out of the bear's chest reminded me of Monty Python's "The Holy Grail".<br /><br />Also the kid decides to kick a porcupine with predictable results.<br /><br />Gag.

negative

Pufnstuf is what it is. I saw this in the cinema at age 4 and I have very fond, and vivid, memories of it. Seeing this as as adult allows one to catch the references that are way over the heads of the target audience - like the bit where Jimmy's grey witch wig is ripped off and Witch Hazel (Cass) sneers "I KNEW she had brown roots!". It is of course heavily influenced by the flower power culture of the time, and in some ways quite progressive. The track Different, for example sends a clear message to the young viewers about being yourself, not running with the pack, and cherishing what is is about yourself that is different. This could be an anthem to the gay community, it should be, great track.<br /><br />Martha Raye, Cass Elliot and Billie Hayes are all great as witches, and the Living Island cast give it their all in the confines of their character suits (includes Billy Barty, Felix Silla and other famous names). There is a LOT of over acting in this film - there's really nothing subtle, and when little Jack Wild has to emote his concern for the kidnapped residents of Living Island it's really little more than yelling. This is drama and comedy spread on with a trowel. While I think of it - I never could stand the flute though.<br /><br />I love the soundtrack, especially the above mentioned Different but also Zap The World, Pufnstuf and even Jack Wild's touching If I Could. What's more, it IS now out on CD from the tasteful people at El Records in London. See here for more: www.cherryred.co.uk/el/artists/pufnstuf.htm

positive

Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.

negative

not to long after Jeff Jarrett left the WWF for good he spoke of that night . Owen Hart and him where good friends and both 2nd generation wrestlers. Jeff first remarks "I was literally pushed thru the curtain as my lifeless friends body was wheeled past me " . Debra McMichael( Steve Austin's Ex wife as well as Steve Mondo McMichael Ex wife".) <br /><br />As Owen Hart Fell, a video promo the ring was darkened, as a Blue Blazer (owen Hart Promo was played. The fall and video of owen in the ring was never showed on TV. There are a few news photos that got posted. When they came back from the video promo Jim ross was talking over a all we had was a crowd shot \., He stated that Owen Hart as The blue blazer has fallen and doesn't look good. Lawler then came back from the ring his face was ashen he told Jim that the situation was very critical paramedics where working hard to revive him. Rock And HHH where going there match in a private room when another Referee came in and told them Owen fell at first,knowing Owen Harts constantly being a prankster they thought it wasn't real. But both later stated that the look of the referee face said it all. In fact as he fell ,as mentioned in other post , he yelled for the referee and ring announcer to move. <br /><br />Brother Bret hart was a plane heading to LA to do a angle on the Tonight Show , he couldn't get any of the plane phones to work, One of the captains got a message to call home something had happened. When he landed in La Eric bishoff was there told him what had happened, and put him on a charter flight to Kansas City to the morgue, Bret even later with Owens widow Martha went up to the top of the arena where Owen was standing. Police found no foul play formerly closed as a accident .<br /><br />Most of the Information in Bret Harts book as well as the book by Martha Hart ,

negative

Oh yes, Sakura Killers is a goofy, horrible ninja movie, make no mistake. But it's also an incredibly enjoyable one. This is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one Chuck Connors, who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. I suppose he's supposed to be sort of an Obi Wan Kenobi type ("The tough ninja-buster", the box copy exclaims) but his 'wisdom' is laughable. "Move without thinking"??? My friend says this is the sign of mental retardation, not of supreme concentration.<br /><br />But really, his two aides, Sonny and Dennis, have such horrible dialogue that 'Brooklyn', as we call The Colonel, tends to shine in comparison. Especially watch for Dennis' logic regarding the 'genetic splicing' the Sakura are involved with. If you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. And yes, this is a major plot point, folks.<br /><br />A terribly fun movie, Sakura Killers is a hard-to-find gem. I won't spoil the 'trick' ending for you either, except that it's a perfect set up for a Sakura Killers 2. Too bad Chuck Connors died. :-( Because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.

negative

I guess that "Gunslinger" wasn't quite as god-awful as most of the movies that "Mystery Science Theater 3000" shows, but westerns just aren't Roger Corman's forte. Portraying Rose Hood (Beverly Garland) becoming sheriff in an Old West town after her sheriff husband gets murdered and having to fight off baddies, the movie is pretty predictable. John Ireland is Rose's new hubby, secretly working for unctuous Allison Hayes (yes, the 50-foot woman). Also appearing briefly is frequent Corman co-star Dick Miller as a mailman (Miller nowadays stars in Joe Dante's movies).<br /><br />I do wish to assert that you'll probably want to watch the "MST3K" version to really enjoy this movie. They had a great time with it.

negative

Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.<br /><br />This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap.

negative

Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.<br /><br />Well, let's start with the good news first:<br /><br />THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.<br /><br />The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.<br /><br />The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.

negative

Wonderful family drama/comedy starring MacClaine and Garr that entertains and warms the heart every time I see it. Strongly recommended for all ages from 9 year olds to grannies. Lovely period piece capturing 1962. The story encompasses the struggling Garr, her two children and Aunt Zena (MacClaine) trying to make ends meet without a man as head of the household. The "family" heads west to take the inheritance of a long forgotten relative that has left Garr a run down, ramshackle road side cafe right out of the late 1940's. The tenacious Garr, as the sweet but determined mom, gets the whole family into the restoration and opening of the cafe. But wait......Aunt Zena is an old circus performer with card tricks, magic powders and a jesters sense of humor......she loves to get the kids and her into silly and sometimes dangerous games.....What happens next is a delightful combination of "Miracle at Lords" thrown together with the Cuban missile crises (with authentic TV news from the real event) and a "ghost" prank that gets totally out of hand. This film entertains, philosophizes, questions religiosity and gives an unnerving glimpse of the frightening scare of October 1962's Cuban missile crises. In the end one is left with the wonder of faith, family and rediscovered love. Oh, and the music from the era of the early 60's is just great!<br /><br />Recommend STRONGLY as a FEEL GOOD FILM 10 out 10

positive

Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....

negative

Just get it. The DVD is cheap and easy to come by, the length is now standard and you've gone long enough without it. (When home video started, there were at LEAST three versions with parts missing..) Everything you've read is true. There is no defending it, and no living without it. The color is lush and wonderful to look at, and the production values are pretty good for a Saturday afternoon kiddie epic. But no question..the whole Santa Vs. Satan angle is so jaw dropping STRANGE it made the movie a hit at the time and a cult fave once home video really got underway. How good/bad/strange/ is it? I only saw the TRAILER as a kid,and remembered IT for nearly 30 years..including Murray's over the top voice over..I told my older sister, and she called me a liar and could not believe it was POSSIBLE for ANYONE to make a movie where Santa vs.Satan.. Add to it stuff like Santa asking for the Virgin Mary's blessing before setting off on Christmas eve, kids wanting to capture him and make him their SLAVE..and an international kiddie sweat shop..and it probably comes close to a lot of nightmares kids had in the 60's.. Like others here, I watch the thing every holiday season now. (My version of choice is The Mystery Science Theatre 3000 edition). But any old way you choose it, the movie is a demented masterpiece and a total must (along with Brianiac, by the way..).It never fails to make me laugh. Better, I think, then SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS. Parts of it can still make you cringe or just creep you out.(How many parents do YOU know go out for cocktails on Christmas Eve? "If you get bored, just go downstairs and play the piano." DANG..) Freaky, boring, disturbing, funny, childish, strange..hey, what more can you want?

positive

Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...

negative

There is no doubt that during the decade of the 30s, the names of Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi became a sure guarantee of excellent performances in high quality horror films. After being Universal's "first monster" in the seminal classic, "Dracula", Bela Lugosi became the quintessential horror villain thanks to his elegant style and his foreign accent (sadly, this last factor would also led him to be type-casted during the 40s). In the same way, Boris Karloff's performance in James Whale's "Frankenstein" transformed him into the man to look for when one wanted a good monster. Of course, it was only natural for these icons to end up sharing the screen, and the movie that united them was 1934's "The Black Cat". This formula would be repeated in several films through the decade, and director Lambert Hillyer's mix of horror and science fiction, "The Invisible Ray", is another of those minor classics they did in those years.<br /><br />In "The Invisible Ray", Dr. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) is a brilliant scientist who has invented a device able to show scenes of our planet's past captured in rays of light coming from the galaxy of Andromeda. While showing his invention to his colleagues, Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi) and Sir Francis Stevens (Walter Kingsford), they discover that thousands of years ago, a meteor hit in what is now Nigeria. After this marvelous discovery, Dr. Rukh decides to join his colleagues in an expedition to Africa, looking for the landing place of the mysterious meteor. This expedition won't be any beneficial for Rukh, as during the expedition his wife Diane (Frances Drake) will fall in love with Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), an expert hunter brought by the Stevens to aid them in their expedition. However, Rukh will lose more than his wife in that trip, as he'll be forever changed after being exposed to the invisible ray of the meteor.<br /><br />Written by John Colton (who previously did the script for "Werewolf of London"), "The Invisible Ray" had its roots on an original sci-fi story by Howard Higgin and Douglas Hodges. Given that this was a movie with Karloff and Lugosi, Colton puts a lot of emphasis on the horror side of his story, playing in a very effective way with the mad scientist archetype and adding a good dose of melodrama to spice things up. One element that makes "The Invisible Ray" to stand out among other horror films of that era, is the way that Colton plays with morality through the story. That is, there aren't exactly heroes and villains in the classic style, but people who make decisions and later face the consequences of those choices. In many ways, "The Invisible Ray" is a modern tragedy about obsessions, guilt and revenge.<br /><br />A seasoned director of low-budget B-movies, filmmaker Lambert Hillyer got the chance to make 3 films for Universal Pictures when the legendary studio was facing serious financial troubles. Thanks to his experience working with limited resources, Hillyer's films were always very good looking despite the budgetary constrains, and "The Invisible Ray" was not an exception. While nowhere near the stylish Gothic atmosphere of previous Universal horror films, Hillyer's movie effectively captures the essence of Colton's script, as he gives this movie a dark and morbid mood more in tone with pulp novels than with straightforward sci-fi. Finally, a word must be said about Hillyer's use of special effects: for an extremely low-budget film, they look a lot better than the ones in several A-movies of the era.<br /><br />As usual in a movie with Lugosi and Karloff, the performances by this legends are of an extraordinary quality. As the film's protagonist, Boris Karloff is simply perfect in his portrayal of a man so blinded by the devotion to his work that fails to see the evil he unleashes. As his colleague, Dr. Benet, Bela Luogis is simply a joy to watch, stealing every scene he is in and showing what an underrated actor he was. As Rukh's wife, Frances Drake is extremely effective, truly helping her character to become more than a damsel in distress. Still, two of the movie highlights are the performances of Kemble Cooper as Mother Rukh, and Beulah Bondi as Lady Arabella, as the two actresses make the most of their limited screen time, making unforgettable their supporting roles. Frank Lawton is also good in his role, but nothing surprising when compared to the rest of the cast.<br /><br />If one judges this movie under today's standards, it's very easy to dismiss it as another cheap science fiction film with bad special effects and carelessly jumbled pseudoscience. However, that would be a mistake, as despite its low-budget, it is remarkably well done for its time. On the top of that, considering that the movie was made when the nuclear era was about to begin and radioactivity was still a relatively new concept, it's ideas about the dangers of radioactivity are frighteningly accurate. One final thing worthy to point out is the interesting way the script handles the relationships between characters, specially the friendship and rivalry that exists between the obsessive Dr. Rukh and the cold Dr. Benet, as this allows great scenes between the two iconic actors.<br /><br />While nowhere near the Gothic expressionism of the "Frankenstein" movies, nor the elegant suspense of "The Black Cat", Lambert Hillyer's "The Invisible Ray" is definitely a minor classic amongst Universal Pictures' catalog of horror films. With one of the most interesting screenplays of 30s horror, this mixture of suspense, horror and science fiction is one severely underrated gem that even now delivers a good dose of entertainment courtesy of two of the most amazing actors the horror genre ever had: Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. 8/10

positive

Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.<br /><br />'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.<br /><br />Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.<br /><br />'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin.

negative

This movie is simply awesome.It was a very sensitive issue and movie was superb.This movie did not create any controversy in India (as far as i know) and its publicity was also kept low.Initially i thought that this movie would simply be a waste of time since most of the Indian directors and producers used to change the theme even though its very sensitive and adds a love story in original story and spoils the whole thing...most of the Indian viewers would agree on this topic if they remember Ashoka, Mangal Pandey,LOC etc..<br /><br />There have been so many movies in India which would have become milestone or mega hits if the love story part would not be unnecessarily added.<br /><br />But its treatment is pretty similar to Pinjar movie (also a must watch).<br /><br />If it counts then i would like to thank Anil Kapoor ( producer ) and Firoz Abbas Khan ( the director) for making such a great movie..

positive

As Jack Nicholson's directorial debut, Drive, He Said displays at the least that he is a gifted director of actors. Even when the story might seem to lose its way to the audience (and to a modern audience - if they can find it, which pops up now and again on eBay - it might seem more free formed than they think), the film contains vivid, interesting characterizations. The film tells of two college kids: the protagonist is Hector (William Tepper, in what borders on a break-out performance), a star of the Leopards, the college basketball team he plays on. While he has to deal with a coach (Bruce Dern) who puts on the pressure to stay focused, and a on and off girlfriend (Karen Black) with her own emotional problems, there's Gabriel (Michael Margotta), the other kid. Gabriel, it seems, is just a little more than freaked out by the possibility to be drafted, and so in his own radical mind-state he does what he can to keep out. But as Hector tries to find the balance between his oncoming fame and those he loves, Gabriel is going over the threshold of sanity.<br /><br />Nicholson, on the technical side of things, displays a fascinating editing style that keeps things on edge during the basketball scenes, and implements darkness in many other scenes with a documentary-feel throughout. And from Tepper, Black, and even Robert Towne (writer of Chinatown, Last Detail, and Mission: Impossible among others, who rarely acts) he garners some credible acting work. Though in Tepper there is a tendency to downplay his emotions. In some scenes, for example, when he could act brilliantly sarcastic, he doesn't play it for what it's worth. From Margotta, on the other hand, there is a vibrant, twisted force in his performance, and as he descends it's frightening, but perhaps understandable from the times (and what a climax). Dern steals most of his scenes, by the way, in a performance that should have garnered him an Oscar nomination. Every line of his dialog is appropriate, true, and it's never hammed up like in recent coach movie performances. <br /><br />But what drags down the film is that elements involving the characters aren't explained to the degree one might wish more. The film was based on a novel by Jeremy Larner, who co-wrote the script with Nicholson, and I was expecting that the film to be longer than it was. It's a slim volume with a lot of information, about the times, about the sport, about the underlying feelings that were with those of the younger generation. Nicholson presents us with these characters and situations, and rarely are they shown to what's motivating them (the anti-war protesters not included, their part's understandable enough). Gabriel is perturbed by what's going on in Vietnam, but what else is there? Hector, too, is a guy who has apprehensions about being drafted for the NBA, and he still loves to play, but what's holding him back? This whole atmosphere is intriguing, how the late 60's college/basketball experience was, but that intriguing quality, which does lead to some unconventionality, is kept at a point where it can't go too further. Overall, the effect of the film as a whole is bittersweet, and somewhat memorable for its good points, and not for it's low ones. And, for sure, you can tell who's behind the lens every step of the way. B+

positive

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

negative

The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.<br /><br />The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.<br /><br />The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.<br /><br />The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.

negative

First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.<br /><br />FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!

negative

My children just happened to stop at this movie the other night and as things started to play out it really piqued my interest. I had to head out for bowling league so I had them record it for me on the dvr so I could watch the rest later. Well I just got done watching it and the front of my shirt must be soaked after crying buckets. It was an excellent movie even though I could almost feel the pain and anguish these girls were experiencing. And I never in a million years would have guessed the reason why Alissia had gone from this beautiful girl to an anti-social goth. This was probably WHY my shirt was soaked because I've experienced that same pain that Alissia was feeling. I too would not have sought out this movie, but I'm sure glad I saw it. Very moving, very touching. Great for those who love a good drama or tear-jerker.

positive

Let's start by the simple lines. From the viewer's side, there a couple of good "director details", some points of view at the movie scenes that are nice. The special effects are good enough, a good acting/good scenery also. But the story is way too simple. It shows how a elite Army bomb squad unit lives, acts and sometimes dies. It shows the drama of living in war. In my movie experience as a serious action movie "addicted" guy, I missed that click that gets my eyes and mind stuck on the screen. One of the things that need to be present in a movie in order to I consider it a good one is the ability of immerse the viewer in the movie reality and time. It didn't happened to me. I stayed "conscious", for the entire movie.<br /><br />Honestly speaking, I think that this movie gained its place in fame based on the "subconscious" appeal of American patriotism, a healthy and genuine feeling, but not the adequate use as a movie fame generator. More than a movie about war, it grows its popularity based on that.<br /><br />A simple thought: if this was a world war II or I movie, only changing time, with everything remained the same, would it be this awarded? Sure not. Why? Because there are great ones that elevate the bar way to high.<br /><br />Compared against its rivals in the Oscars, I don't think that all of the prizes it won are correctly awarded.

negative

The narrative affirms the classic image of good versus evil in the form of a struggle of brother against brother. The main character, Lin Macadam, played by James Stewart, represents justice and righteousness. His brother, who operates under the persona of Dutch Henry Brown, played by Stephen McNally, stands for the classic stage-coach robbing western outlaw, chased by his brother for having killed their father. The world the story takes place is the classic dystopian west where the only way to prevent its inhabitants from killing each other is to take away their sidearms as soon as they enter town, and the man responsible for keeping this law and order is the classic western lawman Wyat Earp. <br /><br />Present as well are such flat characters typical of the western, such as the murderous Indian warrior, the besieged cavalryman, and the bonnet-clad damsel in distress. <br /><br />Another important archetype in this film, that which gives the film it's name, is a custom made Winchester rifle. The weapon can be viewed as an allegory for the rewards given to those who do things honorably. Once it is stolen from its rightful owner, it brings tragedy to everyone that comes in contact with it. In this sense it resembles other such icons like the holy grail in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the blood stained letter in Saving Private Ryan. This gives the film an element of surrealism which is usually absent from westerns, a genre not known for esoteric themes and symbols. <br /><br />Being essentially a revenge film, it shares this element with many other examples of the genre, such as Jack Arnold's No Name on the Bullet, and Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. <br /><br />There is also a tacit theme of rape in Winchester '73. Waco Johnny Dean, one of the film's villains played very effectively by Dan Duryea, abducts a woman after killing her husband. The volatile cowboy toys with the tenderfoot husband, and dispatches him like a caricature of a cat toying with an insect before biting its head off. Waco Johnny Dean eventually gets what is coming to him after coming in contact with the ominous Winchester rifle. <br /><br />The main story of Winchester '73 is reminiscent of the mythological tale of Jason and his quest for the golden fleece, as told in Apollonius' Argonautica. Both stories deal with the acquisition of a sacred object that possesses some sort of intangible quality. Like Jason, Stewart's character hops from one adventure to the next in search of a one-of-a- kind prize. Another theme in Winchester '73 that is similar to a mythic tale is the struggle between brothers. Several stories of antiquity deal with this issue, such as the Hebrew Bible's tale of Cain and Abel, and the vulgate tale of Romulus and Remus. <br /><br />As for the theme of abduction and rape present in Anthony Mann's film, it is present in many mythological works, such as the rape of Europa as told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses. <br /><br />Winchester '73 is a fine example of the western genre, and acts as the objective correlative for many classic American western and ancient mythological themes.

positive

This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more. <br /><br />It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western.

positive

Trifling romantic drama directed by Clint Eastwood about the loving relationship which grows between a comely hippie (Kay Lenz) and a Los Angeles real estate agent in his golden years (William Holden, surprisingly affable within this highly-concocted arrangement). The script is slight but not without some thoughtful passages; still, the scenario is such a middle-aged cliché by now that most of the picture comes off as puerile. It may have worked much better with different leads: Holden and Lenz don't match up well (her stature is so slight he seems to tower over her), making their intimate scenes less stirring than simply uncomfortable. Dated, blurry-romantic, and mostly unmemorable. ** from ****

negative

This Drummond entry is lacking in continuity. Most of them have their elements of silliness, the postponed wedding, and so on. However, this has an endless series of events occurring in near darkness as the characters run from one place to another. The house seems more like a city. There's also Leo G. Carrol who is such an obvious suspect who no-one seems to even look at. He is a stranger and acts rather suspicious, but Drummond and the folks don't seem to pick up on anything. Still, it as reasonably good action and a pretty good ending.<br /><br />I know that Algie is supposed to be a comic figure, but like Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flicks, he is so buffoonish that it's hard to imagine anyone with taste or intelligence being around him. Is there a history behind him that will explain how he and Drummond became associates?

negative

Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.

negative

Magnificent and unforgettable, stunningly atmospheric, and brilliantly acted by all.<br /><br />I really cannot understand what sort of people are panning this masterpiece and giving the preponderance of votes as 8 (and nine ones!)<br /><br />This, along with Grapes of Wrath, is John Ford's greatest movie. I would say that Long Voyage Home is next in line, though quite a way back.<br /><br />Rating: 10. It deserves a 12.

positive

Time paradoxes are the devil's snare for underemployed minds. They're fun to consider in a 'what if?' sort of way. Film makers and authors have dealt with this time and again in a host of films and television including 'Star Trek: First Contact', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure', 'Groundhog Day' and the Stargate SG1 homage, 'Window of Opportunity'. Heinlein's 'All You Zombies' was written decades ago and yet it will still spin out people reading that short story for the first time.<br /><br />In the case of Terry Gilliam's excellent film, '12 Monkeys', it's hard to establish what may be continuity problems versus plot elements intended to make us re-think our conception of the film. Repeated viewings will drive us to different conclusions if we retain an open mind.<br /><br />Some, seeing the film for the first time, will regard Cole, played by Bruce Willis, as a schizophrenic. Most will see Cole as a man disturbed by what Adams describes as 'the continual wrenching of experience' visited upon him by time travel.<br /><br />Unlike other time travel stories, '12 Monkeys' is unclear as to whether future history can be changed by manipulating events in the past. Cole tells his psychiatrist, Railly (Madeleine Stowe), that time cannot be changed, but a phone call he makes from the airport is intercepted by scientists AFTER he has been sent back to 1996, in his own personal time-line.<br /><br />Even this could be construed as an event that had to happen in a single time-line universe, in order to ensure that the time-line is not altered...Cole has to die before the eyes of his younger self for fate to be realised. If that's the case, time is like a fluid, it always finds its own level or path, irrespective of the external forces working on it. It boggles the mind to dwell on this sort of thing too much.<br /><br />If you can change future events that then guide the actions of those with the power to send people back in time, as we see on board the plane at the end of the film, then that means the future CAN be changed by manipulating past events...or does it? The film has probably led to plenty of drunken brawls at bars frequented by physicists and mathematicians.<br /><br />Bonus material on the DVD makes for very interesting viewing. Gilliam was under more than normal pressure to bring the film in under budget, which is no particular surprise after the 'Munchausen' debacle and in light of his later attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. I would rate the 'making of' documentary as one of the more interesting I've seen. It certainly is no whitewash and accurately observes the difficulties and occasional conflict arising between the creative people involved. Gilliam's description of the film as his "7½th" release, on account of the film being written by writers other than himself - and therefore, not really 'his' film' - doesn't do the film itself justice.<br /><br />Brad Pitt's portrayal of Goines is curiously engaging, although his character is not especially sympathetic. Watch for his slightly wall-eyed look in one of the scenes from the asylum. It's disturbing and distracting.<br /><br />Probably a coincidence, the Louis Armstrong song 'What a Wonderful World' was used at the end of both '12 Monkeys' and the final episode of the TV series of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. Both the film and the TV series also featured British actor Simon Jones.<br /><br />'12 Monkeys' is a science fiction story that will entertain in the same way that the mental stimulation of a game of chess may entertain. It's not a mindless recreation, that's for sure.

positive

This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!

negative

Geniuses William Cameron Menzies and Herbert George Wells craft this extraordinary anticipation film, with ambition and scope hard to find today. They predict World War II and the way Great Britain was attacked, and also the fact that the war would be followed by a space race. They change the timing; in the film the war and the space exploration are much longer, but there are so many qualitatively correct things that it's amazing. We even see an helicopter (the film is older than them).<br /><br />Unforgettable giant planes and a futuristic meritocracy of scientists that seem Romans with bubble-helmets: if you can see through those funny costumes you may appreciate the state of the art architecture by masters from the 30s, Well's vision of a rationalistic society, interesting reflections on the nature of power, and John Cabal as archetype of the adventurous and inventive human being, the one that chooses to shape reality and not to be shaped by it.<br /><br />9 1/2 out of 10. Inspiring like that final monologue by John Cabal.

positive

This movie is a mess. I'm surprised it even has a theatrical release. WIthout Robin Williams it would have gone straight to video. It is poorly written. It is poorly directed. It's worse offense is that it has taken an interesting topic and reduced it to a ridiculous and BORING thriller that has no thrills and no suspense and no inner or emotional logic.Especially after the first half hour the movie dovetails into a series of ridiculous set pieces that are so over the top that the audience I saw it with was laughing at it. Save your money. The trailer is totally misleading - it is not suspenseful and there are no thrills - in fact the movie's truly worst offense is that it is simply boring.

negative

Sidney Stratton is having trouble maintaining jobs at various textile mills mainly because of his experimentation in the textile laboratories. Stratton's experimenting on a formula for a new fabric which would create the ultimate fabric, one that never gets dirty, never wrinkles, or wears out. When Stratton eventually creates the fabric he creates enemies in all the textile workers (who will lose their jobs) and the owners (who will lose money since one mill has the exclusive rights), so Stratton in his white suit becomes the most hunted man in England. The film is ideal and only Ealing could have made it so. Guiness' performance (and a great supporting cast such as Greenwood, Thesiger, and Parker) and Mackendrick's direction make the film a delight, but the real hero is the story itself, a nice satire on business and industry with additional elements of drama, romance, and suspense. Rating, 8.

positive

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

positive

I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.<br /><br />However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.<br /><br />Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV.

negative

You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least.<br /><br />Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh. <br /><br />Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.

negative

Julia Ross (Nina Foch) agrees to take a position as a secretary with the rich Hughes family to get over her boyfriend leaving her. Almost immediately she is drugged and shipped off to the family's estate in Cornwall. When she awakens they keep telling her she's Marion Hughes, has been mentally ill and keep her locked up...but why? You'll probably guess why but won't mind because this one is fun.<br /><br />Along with "The Narrow Margin" and "Face Behind the Mask" this is one of the best B pictures ever made. (B pictures were low budget pictures made quickly with low budgets and no major stars). It's just as long as it needs to be (only 65 minutes), is well-directed, fast paced and exciting. It only stumbles at the end which I found a bit too implausible to buy.<br /><br />Foch (a good actress) is just OK in the lead but Dame May Witty is great and George Macready is excellent (and frightening) as the villains. Well worth catching. A perfect example of how you can make a great movie on a small budget.

positive

This is an amazing movie from 1936. Although the first hour isn't very interesting (for the modern viewer), the stylish vision of the year 2036 that comes afterwords makes up for it. However, don't plan on being able to understand all of the dialog - the sound quality and accents (it's American - but "1930s" American) make it difficult.<br /><br />Basically, the story is a sweeping 100 year look at a fictional US town called "Everytown". It spans from 1936, when a war is on the horizon, to 2036, when technology leaps forward and creates its own problems.<br /><br />The first one hour is a bit slow - although it's tough to tell what audiences back then would have thought. The events, suspense and visuals are pretty low-key in today's terms. However, when it gets to the future, it's just plain fun to watch. The large sets and retro sci-fi look of everything is hard to beat.<br /><br />Unless you have great listening abilities, this movie is hard to listen to. I think I understood only 80% of the dialog. It could use closed-captioning.<br /><br />If you're a sci-fi fan, this is one of the genre's classics and is a must see (well, at least after the first hour). For the average viewer, wait until there's a closed caption version and then watch it if you're comfortable with movies of this time period.

positive

First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.

negative

This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.

negative

I reached the end of this and I was almost shouting "No, no, no, NO! It cannot end here! There are too many unanswered questions! The engagement of the dishwashers? Mona's disappearance? Helmer's comeuppance? The "zombie"? Was Little Brother saved by his father? And what about the head???????" ARGH!! Then I read that at least two of the cast members had passed on and I have to say, I know it probably wouldn't be true to Lars von Trier's vision, but I would gladly look past replacement actors just to see the ending he had planned! Granted, it would be hard to find someone to play Helmer as the character deserves. Helmer, the doctor you love to hate! I think I have yet to see a more self-absorbed, oblivious, self-righteous character on screen! But, I could overlook a change in actors....I just have to know how it ends!

positive

Surprised to see the rather low score for this movie. Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years, and was reminded why I like it.<br /><br />Come back with me, children, to a time when Michael Keaton was a straight-up comedy guy, and you might find some joy in this film. It's a gentle comedy -- the kind Ron Howard specializes in -- but if that's your thing, you should check this out. Keaton's low-key charm is just right for this project.<br /><br />"Gung Ho" is a bit dated, because it takes places in the last stage of the pre-global economy world, when it still mattered what country a business was based in. That said, it delivers laughs as well as a lesson on how people can learn from each other, to great benefit.<br /><br />You could watch this film and enjoy it without remembering one scene in particular you really liked, but that's because the whole movie provides a slow but constant stream of laughs. It's like an I.V. drip. And I mean that in a good way.

positive

Can Scarcely Imagine a Better Movie Than This<br /><br />Hey, before you all go "Chick Flick" on me. I am a very Large Strong & Masculine, Macho Man, who happens to think this was one of the better movies of the last 20 years. <br /><br />The acting was Superb and the Story was Marvelous. This is wonderful medicine for the heart and soul. The Acting could not have been better nor the movie better cast. <br /><br />I have known for a Good while that Mercedes Ruehl, along with Holly Hunter, Joan Plowright, Dame Edith Evans, Sissy Spacek, Judi Dench is among the greatest actresses ever to appear on film. And of course Cloris Leachman (also in this film) in my view may in fact exceed them all in the shear magnum of her talent and varied roles she has appeared in over the years.. At any rate this was an Amazing cast. This film was like a book that you cannot lay down, and when you have reached the last page wish for more...still more. I cannot for the life of me understand why this film here on the IMDb only rates a 3.9<br /><br />That rating here is utterly Amazing to me. Or perhaps not. Perhaps in fact I do understand it ever so well and that is what makes me really sad. It makes me ever so sad that films like "American Beauty" "Leaving Las Vegas" "Sexy Beast" and "Fight Club" ratings skyrocket off the charts in popularity when they in fact at least in this viewers opinion should have received an "R" rating...R that is for "Rubbish". Hey o.k., I realize there are a lot of different stories in this world for a lot of different audiences, but it is a sad commentary when this lovely, powerful...extraordinarily, Directed, Acted, and written film seems to be over looked. <br /><br />It obviously was at the Academy Awards as well....How Sad. And How predictable. My summation is that if you want to see a powerful, Happy, Sad, beautiful story? watch ......preferably own this film...

positive

Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.<br /><br />Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.<br /><br />Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours.

positive

Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick. <br /><br />I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get "Double Impact". Even least of the expectations were not met. <br /><br />I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !

negative

This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in "Follow That Dream."

negative

Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.

negative

As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.<br /><br />The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.<br /><br />As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.<br /><br />Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.<br /><br />Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.<br /><br />If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!

positive

Bill and Ted are back, only this time an evil dude from the future has sent back an evil Bill and Ted to destroy them, thus destroying 'Wyld Stallions' and the basis for human society in the future. This time Bill and Ted have to travel through the afterlife 'Totally Bogus' and save humanity 'Excellent'<br /><br />With much of the same zany humour and some wonderful new characters like the grim reaper, station and robot Bill and Ted (stations creation) Bogus Journey once again entertains, and is worth watching for its soundtrack alone.<br /><br />7/10 <br /><br />A most triumphant sequel <br /><br />Party on Dudes! Hehe

positive

This very strange movie is unlike anything made in the west at the time. With its tumultuous emotions and net of visions, dreams, and startling images, its effect is both beautiful and unsettling. The actors are choreographed more like dance than acting. It contains the only dream sequence I know of that actually resembles a real nightmare (sorry, Dali fans).

positive

THE BLOB is a great horror movie, not merely because of the vividly horrific images of its nearly unstoppable, flesh-dissolving title character, but because it features a real societal message. It is, in many ways, a "feel-good horror film." The clever storyline is helped immeasurably by solid performances from the entire cast. The two romantic leads, Steve McQueen and Aneta Corsaut, bring surprising depth and sentimentality to the proceedings. They are misunderstood but very well-meaning young people, and it's very easy to root for them.<br /><br />This is a pro-society movie, and its juvenile delinquent characters cause trouble mainly out of boredom, not out of some malevolent character flaw. Steve McQueen's drag-racing rival almost appears to be an enemy early on in the proceedings, but quickly joins in McQueen's campaign to save the town from the oozing invader once he sees McQueen's seriousness. In this way, a character situation that at first appears to be cartoonish suddenly develops depth and human realism.<br /><br />The authorities' initial skepticism of the kids' wild claims is proved wrong--and once the threat is acknowledged by all, all conflict within the society disappears. This unification of purpose, and the validation of the "troublemaking" teens, becomes official when Aneta Corsaut's father breaks into the school to obtain the fire extinguishers needed to freeze the Blob. On any other day, breaking into the school would be considered an act of vandalism typical of a juvenile delinquent--on this particular day, it is a necessary action performed by an adult authority figure. At this turning point, it is clear that there are no lines of division between the young and the old.<br /><br />This is an unusual film in that it acknowledges the perception of a "generation gap" but suggests that it is more imaginary than real, and that given a real crisis, people will naturally band together to restore order. "The Blob" is a perfect tonic for the kind of depression that generally comes with a viewing of "Night of the Living Dead" (1968).<br /><br />Much has been made of the film's cheap but innovative (and effective!) visual effects. They are undeniably clever. A lot of the gravity-defying tricks we see the Blob perform were achieved with miniature sets designed to be rotated. The camera was typically attached to the sets in a very firmly "locked down" position (the lights had to be similarly attached so that the lighting remained steady as the room was turned this way and that). These scenes were often photographed one frame at a time as the room was slowly turned--the silicone blob oozed very slowly and its action needed to be sped up. In a way, this was similar to stop motion photography, but utilizing a blob of silicone rather than an articulated puppet. Even today, the effects are startling and bizarre.<br /><br />A very good film with an exploitative-sounding title, THE BLOB is a must-see.

positive

I was bored, around 10pm, so I watched this movie. And I could not stop laughing. Everything was so ridiculous. The way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. One of the kids had a ring, that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. It gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster.<br /><br />It's pretty hard to take little kids seriously, especially when it has to do with eating worms. They act like everything is such a big deal, like if Billy (the main character) doesn't eat the worms then the world will end.<br /><br />This is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says 'penis'), but not for teens or adults who don't want to waste their time.

negative

Almost 30 years later I recall this original PBS film as almost unbearably tender. Periodically, I check here at IMDb hoping that someone has had the good sense to purchase the rights and put it on a DVD. It's September of 2004, and I keep hoping -- deep sigh.<br /><br />One of the two lead actors went on to a small career primarily in a prime-time evening soap; the other, Frances Lee McCain, was seen in small roles here and there for a few years. But nothing they did before or after ever matched this little movie which was produced, as I recall it, on a short-lived PBS series which showcased original screenplays by new and up-and-coming playwrights.<br /><br />I watched it every time it was shown on PBS, maybe 2 or 3 times. That was before the era of VCRs, so I have no record of it, except in my mind's eye.<br /><br />12/31/2006 addition to above: Happy New Year, ladies! This wonderful film is finally available on DVD at ladyslipper.org. My understanding is that the DVDs are burned from the writer's own personal copy.

positive

After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.<br /><br />I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.<br /><br />So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.

negative

Generally I don't do minus's and if this site could i would give this movie -3 out of 10 meaning I really hated this movie. I thought Uwe Boll's alone in the dark was the worst i've seen yet but at least i gave it a 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion(Stephen Dorff shooting at nothing made me laugh so i boosted the ratings a bit). Hell if it was if compared to bloodrayne, Bloodrayne would win a Oscar for best movie if they were competing.<br /><br />Now to the plot, this movie is about the BTK killer which is fine but they've could have done better. The start looked OK but that's it I had to fast forward most of it because the death's where boring. I like killer movies and even if they suck they could still get some cool deaths. I'm not a fancy movie expert but believe me he would have shot himself if did see this. Sorry for rambling but there's nothing good to say about it, because it looks like someone took a camcorder and film this.. this.. thing of disaster. Uwe Boll your movies are no longer on my list of worst movies ever this took the cake.<br /><br />Well sorry i couldn't explain the plot(if there was one) but that was the best i could. Now if you don't mind i'm going to crawl into a corner and move back and forth and reminding me of how bad this movie scared me for life.... OK not for life

negative

When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time – Avoid at all costs.

negative

This should be re-titled "The Curious Case Of The Unscrupulous Filmmakers Who Misrepresented A Non-horror Snorer As A Shock Film." It's one long, boring tale of a fraternity hazing, a gag so transparent that even Flounder from Delta House could see through it. Jeff East, an actor in the dues-paying stage, can be forgiven for taking any work he could get. The same can't be said for Charles Martin Smith, who formerly acted for such cinematic heavyweights as George Lucas and Sam Peckinpah. Once available on tape but, thankfully, not out on DVD. Misrepresented garbage like this belongs in a landfill and nowhere else.

negative

Another attempt by modern Japanese directors to redefine the chambara genre. Successful, and not, in varying degrees.<br /><br />Buddhist monk has a vision that he is to slay a legendary (and very active) demon at the Gojoe bridge in order to attain enlightenment. While not at the forefront, Buddhist thought is at the heart of this movie, much like Kurosawa's "Ran". It probably what made the movie the most interesting to me although it's nowheres near "Ran's" league. <br /><br />Stylish visual direction and excellent photography keep the movie mostly interesting throughout the two hour and eighteen minute length. The lead actors are uniformly excellent. The music is really good. The two weaknesses are the story and the fight scenes. The movie drags in the middle which could have been fixed by some prudent editing. And the fight scenes are mostly filmed in blurry close-ups. This works for most of the film but the finale feels like a cheat. Another recent film like this is Tsui Hark's "Seven Swords", great film but the promised fight scenes are disappointing. Asano really doesn't move like a sword wielding demon, his acting is great but he would be an extra in a traditional chambara fight scene.<br /><br />Good movie, you'll probably find it interesting just don't expect traditional sword fights.

positive

This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with "Charles" has been pretty bad.

negative

In the hands of lesser actors than Claudette Colbert and Robert Ryan this film could have become silly and trite. But, with these two experienced thespians leading the way, I found "Silent Fury" to be a most exciting and pleasurable little mystery. When their wedding is interrupted by a stranger who claims that Colbert is already married, and that he was best man at that wedding, one can sense that there is some sort of plot against her at work. As Colbert, Ryan, and her attorney set out to disprove the strangers claim of a prior marriage, they are met at every turn by more evidence that seems to reinforce the claim that she is indeed already wed. Although it's not very difficult to figure out just who the main "baddie" is, it's still lots of fun as the intensity and pace of the story increases. All in all, a good, solid mystery film with fine performances by the two leading actors and a fine supporting cast which includes the often underrated Paul Kelly.

positive

Being a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.<br /><br />Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.<br /><br />Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on.

negative

Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio. <br /><br />Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the "phantom." He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as "hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat," etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.<br /><br />We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the "little guy."<br /><br />These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.

negative

What a complete waste of time. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even worse acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely horrible. The ending is ridiculous and the story contains no twists, not plot surprises and just a plain bad ending. I liked some of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It just doesn't happen. It's a total "Wrestler" ending with none of the good acting. I can't believe I spent the time watching this. It's not "fun" as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is a stretch and he should have shot the main actress first.

negative

Life in some future fascist or near fascist state which severely restricts personal freedoms is a recurrent theme both in modern literature and for film makers. Such works post us warnings about undesirable trends in our society to watch out for; but to be effective they must also be entertaining. Unfortunately most of the books are probably more effective in posting the warnings than in entertaining us enough to become really widely read; whilst with the films the problem is usually the other way round. The first such work to become really widely known was probably George Orwell's "1984" (first published in 1948), and this is still readily available both in the form of a book and as a film.<br /><br />Watch or read it: and then, when you are feeling a little depressed by man's inhumanity to man, reach for Cinderella 2000. This is a feather light low budget film comedy based on the same theme which provides effortless but unrewarding viewing; and as with 1984 the calendar has now passed beyond its erstwhile period. Most of the comedy is laid on with a trowel although there are just a few genuinely funny moments. To exercise your mind in the long intervals between these you can focus it on the question of whether this film will gain a new extension of life by being released as a DVD or whether it will finally disappear into oblivion as existing tape copies deteriorate past redemption. There are many worse films appearing as DVD's these days, and frankly I do not care much what happens either way.<br /><br />So far the best of the films of this genre has probably been "The Handmaiden's Tale", but I would very happily swap them all for a well made film of Jack London's towering novel "The Iron Heel". Ambitious as this would be, it still seems incredible that no modern film maker has yet dared to attempt it (IMDb only lists a B/W silent version made in Russia in 1919).

negative

Yet another example of what British cinema can achieve: a simple story, told and acted well. Brenda Blethyn gives a layered and warming performance as the recently widowed and financially straitened Grace, ably assisted by a solid supporting cast. The "quirky small town" card gets played to the hilt, similar to many TV series and films that have come from the British Isles in recent years (Ballykissangel, Hamish Macbeth and others come to mind). Like the forementioned, this film makes use of some ravishingly beautiful rural scenery, in this case the wet and wild Cornish coast.<br /><br />Some viewers might find wholesale acceptance of cannabis use a bit challenging, others might find the ending just a little too cute and safe. But it's an enjoyable spliff, to be sure.

positive

I didn't expect much when I rented this movie and it blew me away. If you like good drama, good character development that draws you into a character and makes you care about them, you'll love this movie.<br /><br />Engrossing!

positive

I searched for this movie for years, apparently it ain't available here in the States so bought me a copy off Ebay.<br /><br />Four young hunters and three of their girlfriends venture into the woods searching for a bear that apparently has killed several campers. What they find is an ex-Vietnam vet gone crazy (he kills some of his victims using a glove with long metal finger nails a la Freddy Krueger). As soon as the night falls, one of the girls goes for a walk after a brief argument with her boyfriend, she gets killed. After one of the group finds her body, they all hide in their tents waiting for daylight. Once the sun comes up, all of them try and make it out, but fall victim one by one.<br /><br />Seven bodies, not a lot of gore, but a couple of good murders, especially the girls'deaths. The guys get killed in somewhat bloodless ways (blown up in car, shot to death, knife through head). <br /><br />Overall, INFERNAL TRAP is a nice slasher film from the late 80's. Nothing new, just well acted, fast paced and some pretty ladies. 10 out of 10.

positive

this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10

negative

Sabrina the Teenage Witch was one of my favorite T.V shows of life :D i used to watch back to back episodes everyday when i got home from school. So far i think i've watched every episode at least once and the whole series 3 or 4 times. Melissa Joan Hart plays the perfect teenage girl/witch with normal teenager troubles that we can all relate to. She's funny, smart, outgoing, witty, and a lot more. Caroline Rhea and Beth Broderick both fit the part very well as Sabrina's aunts. Zelda, the intelligent scientist, and Hilda the crazy, wacky one make a perfect balance in Sabrina's life. Though i must agree that the college years aren't as good as her high school years, but that doesn't mean they weren't still good. I think the ending was awesome although it was not what i hoped, it made sense and i loved it anyways. :)

positive

I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of "The Big Chill" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like "The Big Chill," it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt ("where have you been all this time" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did "Unca Lou" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, "Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?" She replied, "No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of."

negative

From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.<br /><br />"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.<br /><br />I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.<br /><br />To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.

negative

Isn't anyone else tired of that old cliché' where a nearly dead person shows up in a horror film, gives us some informations, and then blasts his head off for no apparent reason? I know I am.<br /><br />The sad thing is that it's use in this film is worthless. If you have seen the first film (the first remake I should say) then the information given is completely worthless, because you would have already known it. I guess, you can that it isn't worthless to the main characters..but then why does the idiot shoot himself in the head? Wouldn't he want to live? Sure, he would have died anyway..<br /><br />This is the second film to be titled "The Hills Have Eyes II." The first being the sequel to the original 70's film. This is where it gets a little complicated for someone like me. See, I'm probably part of minority of people my age that even knew there was a HHE2 to begin with, much less an original HHE1. And now that we have a sequel to a remake and the fact that this sequel is named exactly as the sequel to the original HHE1...it just makes it worse! But anyways..<br /><br />Wes Craven's original Hills Have Eyes was decent. In the end, though, the idea was better than the presentation, but he most likely had a low budget. To be quite honest, Wes Craven isn't that good of a horror director. He's only made a few good horror movies (Nightmare on Elm St., New Nightmare), a few alright ones (Scream) and a bunch of horrible ones (Cursed, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn). Oh yeah, and he made Swamp Thing, as well...but the original HHE2 falls under the latter category. I've only seen a few minutes, but it was terrible.<br /><br />Now he has co-written the new HHE2..and it's such a disappointment! Last year's HHE remake was even better than the original film. It was tense. I guess it had to do with the fact that the main characters were a family, and not a bunch of beer and pot and sex crazy teenagers. It made us feel dirty. For the first hour, we were in hell, and finally in the last few moments, the good guys got revenge on the bad guys and it felt good..<br /><br />This new film has no tension. No suspense whatsoever. Just violent things happening to mostly stupid people. There is hardly any menacing presence here. Just ugly hobos hiding under rocks.<br /><br />I'm getting tired of horror movies where people die because of the stupid mistakes they keep making. It was just the other day that I watching "Deep Blue Sea" where Samuel L. Jackson kept on walking around the water, while giving the speech, and then he gets eaten by a shark, only because the idiot stayed to close to the water..something that nobody would do in the given situation! Here is the exact same thing. People go off by themselves to take a leak even though they know people are dying..seriously, couldn't a potty break wait? And then when you think people would have learned, someone else goes of by themselves! Seriously, isn't more scary when the characters are bringing their A-game and still losing? I would think so...<br /><br />It even under delivers. It should have made the first remake look like "The Fog" remake (which was less menacing than an episode of "Becker"). More bad guys. More time in the caves. More tension. More of everything.<br /><br />But it actually downgrades. Less bad guys. No tension. Sure we have more time in the caves, but not a whole lot happens there. In the end, it only seems like there is two or three bad guys. The last film made it seem like a whole tribe of people. Where is this tribe? Who keeps on watching them through binoculars? Seriously, these are the things this film should have brought us, but it ends with the exact same promise that the last film gave us, with that exact same "being watched" scene. Come on! I'll give the devil it's due. The look of the film is good..but thats it.<br /><br />I don't even think fans of gore will like this..though I'm probably wrong! There is gore (though most of it is sped-up while in the dark), but without the tension, and characters you even care about..the gore does nothing in my book! In the end, you're not frightened. You;re not shocked (unless you're an 8 year old girl). You don't even feel like you have seen anything new.

negative

This movie is so bad, you almost feel contaminated by it. Actually, there is a strong sense of relief when it's over, relief that you can now put the cassette back in the rewinder and RUSH this back to the video rental store before it contaminates the rest of your video collection. I jokingly suggested when we rented it that it looked like the kind of film where William Hurt would "phone in" his performance. I meant that he would not be trying very hard. But lo and behold, in a huge number of scenes in this film, Bill Hurt is actually ON THE PHONE! Our realization of this irony was the only pleasure we derived from this confusing mess. The cinematography and editing are murky and befuddled, the story is chaotic, and the soundtrack is barely audible. There is a very slight resemblance to "Falling Down", but that film had a boldly disturbing story-line, great writing and acting, and an engaging soundtrack. "Contaminated Man" is just some kind of broken down old European tourist trap, and watching it is like driving along some unfamiliar back road in an unknown country where you don't speak the language in a steady rain just after nightfall as the windshield keeps fogging up. You get the picture? Don't get this one.

negative

From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance.

negative

I'm overwhelmed by the work of Jim Carrey. I keep on getting this movie stuck in my head. The Grinch liking Martha May, Cindy Lou(who's very annoying; her sweet innocence) who tries to get the Grinch in the Christmas spirit, the childhood of the Grinch (very funny!), and moreover the weak obvious ending with- Christmas isn't all about presents. I have to say, I felt stupid walking out of the theater with a bunch of babies and toddlers laughing and so forth, but this movie was a good full-lengthed adaption of Dr.Seuss's short film and IS for all ages.

positive

Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.<br /><br />But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?<br /><br />Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.<br /><br />He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history? <br /><br />He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.

negative

I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better.

negative

Ever since I heard of the Ralph Bakshi version of "The Lord of the Rings" I wondered: What the hell is 'rotoscope' animation?!!! Well... I finally found out... I saw this movie about three years ago not having any idea who Ralph Bakshi is... And I liked it... a lot... Very good story line... it even has a little character development which is great for a cartoon... See it if you get bored with contemporary animation.... Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it's just a nice cartoon... It's a pretty good movie too...

positive

OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.<br /><br />There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.<br /><br />Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please.

negative

My room-mate ordered this one off of the web a while back and I finally got around to watching it. It is gross. It is cheezy. It is pretty dumb... but it is also a lot of fun. I mean, this was the most fun we have had watching a movie like this since "City Of The Walking Dead" ages ago. It was like being at the old Drive-In Theater again! You could tell the guy who made this movie liked all the horrible dubbed zombie movies. This one has all the cliches and tricks from those films rolled into one, and it's neat because it is SUPPOSE to be like that. The cheeze factor is high, the gore flows and the laughs roll! The effects go from sloppy to good, with the one where the guy gets torn in half and the one where a guy gets his heart shoved through his chest both being excellent! The acting goes from terrible to actually pretty good. There is not much plot, just lots and lots of gore. This one is patterned after the zombie movies from Italy and Spain I think, because they linger on the gross scenes forever, like this movie. If you like Troma movies, cheezy B-grade stuff, then you can do no wrong watching this one. A nice way to waste a Friday night!

positive

W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage is supposed to be a English language classic. If so, much must have been missing from the film version here. Phillip's (Leslie Howard) attraction to Mildred (Bette Davis) is so utterly inexplicable as to make the scenario seem like the post-breakup retelling of a relationship from the man's point of view. Being a family lawyer I've heard many such accounts; the man depicts himself as noble and always correct, and the woman is a hellion who has had no other objective than to exploit the man.<br /><br />Indeed, unless one is willing to laugh at the social assumptions of the film maker, this is an uncomfortable movie to watch. Phillip even indulges Mildred when she brings over a baby of indeterminate paternity, but the real high point comes when Phillip allows Mildred - enraged and now of dubious sanity - the free run of his flat, with predictable results. Bette Davis was attractive for about five years of her life, but that period didn't occur here. In fact, by the end of the movie she looks a lot like the Baby Jane character she would play thirty years later.<br /><br />I note how Howard's character is always impeccably dressed and groomed. It tells me that Phillip craves middle class respectability. Someone like that could not run from a woman with a course Cockney accent fast enough. Phillip is, for most of the movie, a student; such a person would have been more believable if he had been younger, and had the disheveled looks that bespeak the low income and the low self esteem that often accompanies student status - an English Raskolnikov, as it will. And balanced that by allowing Mildred a modicum of charm.

negative

...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.<br /><br />I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...<br /><br />1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT <br /><br />There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!<br /><br />Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?<br /><br />When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask "What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!"? <br /><br />What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? <br /><br />Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?<br /><br />and finally, Why? Just, Why? <br /><br />BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...<br /><br />...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....<br /><br />either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake.

negative

Amateurish in the extreme. Camera work especially overwrought - documentary camera operators needn't spin around ALL THE TIME.<br /><br />The script is truly inane, and the acting is even worse. On top of that, the story is disjointed and meandering - with some gaping holes in logic. At one point the lead wishes to get thrown in jail in order to rub shoulders with suspected Al-Quada operatives, and thus get an interview with Osama. I found the story entirely unbelievable as a result of so many flaws. The "filmmaker"/lead role really portrays a rash, idiot frat boy. The only item of interest really, is that the filmmakers did in fact film on location. It's truly a shame they wasted their opportunity to make something interesting.<br /><br />Who financed this crap?

negative

From the first scene you are given clues as to what may be going on here. It becomes more and more obvious as the story rolls on. The acting is excellent throughout and these actors touch your soul. Even though I knew what was going to happen I was extremely puzzled by the motive. I'm still puzzled as to why Ben did what he did. We could see in his face "second thoughts", but the ultimate sacrifice seemed to go against his emotion and feelings. It was a very interesting and touching story but it left me confused. Maybe that was the point of the film. I did like the film and Wil Smith can wrack up another good film choice. This guy knows how to entertain an audience!

positive