Datasets:

harpreetmann

/

imdb_with_label_text

like 0

To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER<br /><br />3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.<br /><br />4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.<br /><br /> rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale<br /><br />thank you I am as always<br /><br /> JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN

negative

The sun should set on this movie, forever.<br /><br />It goes on forever (which isn't usually a bad thing - The English Patient, Schindler's List) but is SO tedious. The aging of the actors is unbelievable and so is the drawn-out never-ending story line which really seems to go nowhere.<br /><br />In short, a waste of talent and film.

negative

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...<br /><br />Another computer generated mutant croc on the prowl for human lunchmeat, let loose by another one of those facilities conducting mad science. Gereco Biotech company is fooling around with growth hormone research, accidentally releasing a baby crocodile which is evolving at an accelerating rate.<br /><br />B-movie cast add a deal of fun to this run of the mill "genetic mistake monster movie". Costas Mandylor evokes Mick Dundee, Aussie accent, hat, big ass knife, the works, as a croc specialist hired by Gereco executive Joanna Pacula(..wasted in the stereotypical role of corrupt administrative executive who denies any involvement with the gigantic beast her facility let free on innocent people). Charles Napier is the local sheriff whose town is in danger and Jane Longenecker is his hot daughter, who works at the animal shelter. Soap opera star Matthew Borlenghi is Longenecker's love interest, a local artist who welds sculptures(..his brother is a victim of the croc). Of course, this skill will come in mighty handy when our heroes set up a created trap for the croc, hoping to poison it with carbon monoxide.<br /><br />The croc itself is never the least bit convincing as it rampages through a reserve looking for food, the special effects of a low grade variety. In regards to Roger Corman productions dealing with renegade dino-monsters, I stick with Carnosaur. The monster here is essentially a crocodile standing on it's hind legs, often upright as it pursues potential victims. I felt Mandylor and the filmmakers were spoofing Crocodile Dundee with his croc hunter, and this imitation might amuse where the monster itself fails. Borlenghi and Longenecker actually have pretty good chemistry together on screen. As expected, Pacula gets her commuppance in hilarious fashion(..gulp).

negative

Personal taste rules when it comes to talking about movies such as this treasured little gem. Way back in the eighties, the early eighties, i discovered this movie, like so many released at the time, "Night Patrol" "Bad Manners" or even "King Frat" the artwork and blurbs on the back of the covers tempted and teased you.<br /><br />Of course being of an age, movies like that i have already mentioned as well as stuff like "Screwballs" and the many others, captured the imagination, and thankfully many years later i still remember some with fondness and some with disdain the many movies that help maintain my love of such genre as parodies or pastiches.<br /><br />Made many years after the huge success of "Animal House" and having seen how it had fared down through the years, I now know that there would be no way this movie would ever eclipse the box office bucks obtain aforementioned nor would it linger in the memory, much like that of National Lampoon's Vacation.<br /><br />To be honest, not everything that has carried the National Lampoon Logo has been a wild success, however to me Class Reunion remains one of my all time favourite movies, with instantly recognisable characters, such as the aloof Bob Spinnaker played to perfection by Gerrit Graham, so good in Charles Band's "Terrorvision" still lingering in the past glories of his youth. Or how about Stephen Furst's brash and ballsy turn as the high school lazy drunken sex crazed bum Hubert Downs.<br /><br />Sweet as. Which makes me ponder. As i already said, personal taste not withstanding. People can be so cruel, so it will never win any awards or be compared to the like of its's peers within the comedy world. It does have some merit. Being one of the earlier scripts penned by John Hughes, who would later go on to do one of my own favourites of his work "Weird Science" as well as having a wonderful theme title sung by the great Gary U.S Bonds.<br /><br />What more can i say, it's a movie just waiting to be rediscovered, time and time again.

positive

I work in a library and expected to like this movie when it came out 5 years ago. Well I liked Parker Posey a lot (she's a wonderful actress) and Omar Townsend was really cute as her boyfriend (he couldn't act but when you look like him who cares?) but the movie was bad. It wasn't funny or cute or much of anything. Posey kept the movie afloat with her energy. But she learned the Dewey Decimal system OVERNIGHT and then shelves tons of books to the beat of music??!!!!??? Come on! Also I did have a problem with the way she looked when she became a full-fledged librarian at the end--hair in a bun, glasses, no sense of humor--can we let that stereotype go please? Worth seeing for Posey and Townsend but that's about it. The TV series was much better.

positive

Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor. <br /><br />He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".<br /><br />Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows.

negative

This movie had it all,action,comedy,heroics,and best of all some of the finest actors.Gunga Din will remain a classic to be enjoyed by all who like good movies.Excellent picture,i have it in my collection.

positive

If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.<br /><br />Wu Du it!<br /><br />9 out of 10<br /><br />

positive

Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.<br /><br />But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.<br /><br />Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.<br /><br />The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.<br /><br />The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.<br /><br />Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.<br /><br />I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.<br /><br />In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.<br /><br />It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.<br /><br />Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.<br /><br />Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.<br /><br />Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.<br /><br />Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.<br /><br />Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.<br /><br />Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.<br /><br />It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.<br /><br />Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)

positive

Name just says it all. I watched this movie with my dad when it came out and having served in Korea he had great admiration for the man. The disappointing thing about this film is that it only concentrate on a short period of the man's life - interestingly enough the man's entire life would have made such an epic bio-pic that it is staggering to imagine the cost for production.<br /><br />Some posters elude to the flawed characteristics about the man, which are cheap shots. The theme of the movie "Duty, Honor, Country" are not just mere words blathered from the lips of a high-brassed officer - it is the deep declaration of one man's total devotion to his country.<br /><br />Ironically Peck being the liberal that he was garnered a better understanding of the man. He does a great job showing the fearless general tempered with the humane side of the man.

positive

Ridiculous. This movie is actually a vehicle for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. If you are wondering who the *bleep* Ramtha is: "Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight's kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha's channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood's version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze." John Wheeler, one of America's finest theoretical physicists, would roll his eyes about this movie. He has in the recent past criticized parapsychologists for their misuse and misinterpretations of quantum theory. This movie does the same thing as those fools.<br /><br />There is a great review of this movie at Skeptico. I recommend anyone considering watching this movie read it first before contributing to a cult's coffers.<br /><br />http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html I noticed one reviewer here at IMDb say to take this movie with a grain of salt. It will take enough salt to kill a horse to wade through the garbage-thinking of this movie.

negative

The closing song by Johnny Rivers was the only great thing about this movie. Unfortunately that is all the positive I can say about this western movie. I have to write 8 more lines for my comments to be posted, but there is more than 8 lines of awful in this western. I am not sure if the movie was a tribute to Hopa Along, or just a spoof. The hero and the villain in this movie were too plastic. Not realistic at all. A lot of the supporting actors in this movie looked authentic, but the shooting scenes were a joke. A previous commentator thought this movie was great, and in the comments took a cheap shot at President Bush. This was not a democratic or republican western. It was just a bad western movie to be sold commercially. I wonder if it made any money. At times I thought I was watching a movie made by college movie students. If that was the case, then it was a great movie.

negative

They had me from the first show.<br /><br />Welcome to Trinity County. A sleepy little Mayberry-like place with one slight difference. The sheriff is really Satan. There's the spoiler. Not like you wouldn't figure it out in 10 minutes anyway.<br /><br />Oh, but that's not all. It turns out that Satan has a son named Caleb. Some people are trying to keep him good, but it's an uphill battle. Sheriff Buck (Satan) knows who Caleb is and likes to spend time with him teaching him the ways of darkness. Subtle. Sneaky. He doesn't always come off as evil. Most of the time he's a hero. Everyone owes him a big favor, because he often sets up a calamity and saves them from it. So every time you think someone will finally take him down, one of his friends comes out of nowhere to sabotage it.<br /><br />In one of my favorite episodes, Lucas and Caleb were out in the woods in a cabin and some guys with guns decided to rob them. Lucas used it as an excuse to teach Caleb a lesson about evil.<br /><br />The robber (Ted) was hesitant to shoot them. Lucas told Caleb that Ted had half a conscience. If he had no conscience, he would have shot them by now. If he had a real conscience, he never would have become a criminal. So he started calling him Half-Ted. It was pretty funny. He was taunting the criminals. And of course he stayed 10 steps ahead of Half-Ted at all times. And of course he was in complete control at all times. They actually had you favoring Satan.<br /><br />Very very excellent show. it was one of my favorite horror shows of all time. Twilight Zone Night Stalker Circle of Fear American Gothic Supernatural<br /><br />That's good company.

positive

Wow. I do not think I have ever seen a movie with so many great actors that had such a pivotal role so miscast. Justin Timberlake is perhaps the single worst actor to land a bigtime role in a movie with the star power and money behind it that Edison had.<br /><br />His acting was PAINFUL to observe. The story was OK and all the other characters were played by professional actors, heck, even LL Cool J was fine since he has had numerous small parts to cut his teeth on. How the director and movie company figured that Timberlake was ready for this role there is no way to comprehend.<br /><br />His character ruins the entire experience since every time he is on screen you are actually rooting for the corrupt cops to cap his sorry ass, and he is supposed to be the hero... I would not waste money on this one at the theater or on video. MAYBE if you have HBO and have NOTHING else to do at 2am on a Saturday night and you are drunk and stoned, this may be OK.<br /><br />Watching Timberlake in this role was like watching a human 'Kermit the Frog' act in a Hollywood Blockbuster, just didn't work at all.

negative

Extremely dull drama starring a very young Roddy McDowall, who trains a wild horse, the Flicka of the title, and is the only reason for watching the movie in the first place. Coated in blaring, overbearing music and weighed down by schmaltzy dialogue, this is one of those interminable films that bores you to the point of a gnawing headache. The naffly-titled sequel, 'Thunderhead, Son of Flicka', in which McDowall trains the next generation of nag, is marginally better than the original but the pace remains slow and the score continues to pummel you into submission, although there are at least one or two scenes that don't induce a coma.

negative

While thinking of "The Great Escape" I allowed my mind to wander back to this little gem of a movie from my childhood. I had read and re-read the autobiographical novel from 1949 which inspired it, and when it came to the only cinema (we never used that word then , actually) in town that showed "foreign" films, I was first in line to buy my ticket.<br /><br />As someone brought up on wartime newsreels and propaganda films during WWII, I had an avid interest in exploring the realities of that conflict as reflected in the memoirs and stories of men who were there in person. That extended later to a keen willingness over the years to buy any book on the subject, and eventually to read the equally compelling novels of Hans Helmut Kirst and Erich Maria Remarque, which provided an even deeper sensibility. The movie versions, however, were unlike this one in that they rarely delivered the goods.<br /><br />The medium of black-and-white film has never been served so well as it was in those years. I have never seen any technicolor version of war that seems as authentic as do the deep chiaroscuros of films like "The Wooden Horse." If it is true that we are destined always to be captive to the images of our childhood, then I confess it freely.<br /><br />And there will never be another the likes of Leo Genn as the emblematic British war hero on film. Not even Sir Alec.

positive

This is one of those movies that apparently was trying to ride the martial arts wave craze. Kind of like Billy Jack I guess. However, whereas Billy Jack did have one notable martial arts scene there are none in this one unless you consider some gentlemanly grappling and roughhousing as such. We are introduced to the star who is described as having learned Judo in the marines. I was in the marines and while they are pretty established in boxing, I really don't remember any emphasis on Judo. As a result the antagonist, James Macarthur, makes reference to the Judo when he offers an excuse for why he, a state champion wrestler was so easily defeated. Lame.

negative

While Fred Schepisi's "I.Q." doesn't really have any important qualities, it's still worth seeing. Walter Matthau plays Albert Einstein, trying to help mechanic Ed Walters (Tim Robbins) fall in love with Princeton mathematics doctoral candidate Catherine Boyd (Meg Ryan). Probably the funniest scene is when Dr. Frizzyhead and friends (Lou Jacobi, Gene Saks and Joseph Maher) try to make Ed look like a scientist: he ends up looking like a French impressionist.<br /><br />Obviously little of the movie is historically accurate, but that's not the point. It's not intended as anything except a light comedy, quite the opposite of Robbins's most famous movie from 1994 (The Shawshank Redemption). A movie about Einstein's whole life would have to focus not only on his scientific achievements, but also his political activism, namely how he wrote a letter on behalf of the Scottsboro Nine and came out against nuclear weapons (it got to the point where the FBI kept a file on him).<br /><br />So anyway, this one is acceptable. Also starring Stephen Fry, Tony Shalhoub, Frank Whaley, Charles Durning and Keene Curtis.

positive

Melvyn Douglas once more gives a polished performance in which, this time, he inhabits the role of a detective who can't place love before duty and adventure, and the warmly beautiful Joan Blondell (who, far from being illiterate, as one reviewer suggested, wrote a novel about her early life) is as enjoyable as ever as his ever-suffering sweetheart.It's almost a screwball comedy, almost a Thin Man-type movie, almost a series, I guess, that didn't quite make it to a sequel. It doesn't quite reach classic status, but it has all the ingredients for a fun 85 minutes with an episodic but pacey script, fine character actors, and direction that keeps it all moving fast enough so that you nearly don't notice that Williams (Douglas) isn't exactly Columbo when it comes to detecting. I wish there were more films like this.

positive

This movie is now appearing on digital TV at least once a month, I've watched it a dozen or more times, and it never ceases to delight me. If it was on tomorrow I'd watch it again. Such is the artistry that Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, two great magicians of the acting profession can create, helped in no small way by the superb supporting trio of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart and Robert Morley. Not forgetting others in minor roles.<br /><br />It is a simple tale, simply told, of an ex-con, a lovable embezzler, battling and succeeding with the then "new age technology" i.e computers, and finding affection in the process. Even if it is a tad (tongue in cheek) implausible, even unbelievable, the characters are not. There is no violence, no sex, no bad language, and best of all no awful method acting which is so prevalent today. A real lesson to modern movie-makers on how to make a great show from, and with, virtually nothing...except outstanding talent.

positive

Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.<br /><br />I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.<br /><br />Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.<br /><br />To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.<br /><br />There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'<br /><br />Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.<br /><br />'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)<br /><br />The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?<br /><br />Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?<br /><br />Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.<br /><br />When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.<br /><br />I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'<br /><br />What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.<br /><br />At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?<br /><br />Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.<br /><br />I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.<br /><br />Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again.

negative

What an amazing film. With very little dialogue, the whole story is told with glances and body language. Very involving almost voyeuristic. My only gripe is that it has not been released on video in Australia and is therefore only available on TV. What a waste.

positive

This film is a complete re-imagining of Romeo and Juliet in Tel Aviv and Nablus. The lovers are one from Tel Aviv et the other from Nablus. There is a border between them, and a constant state of war with the Israeli army ever present everywhere and the Palestinian militants everywhere else with their bombs. The situation is bleak enough. We can imagine love in that enormous loveless trap. But the film goes several light years further by imagining the two lovers are gay, Noam from Tel Aviv and Ashraf from Nablus. To be gay is accepted in Tel Aviv. It is off limits in Nablus. The conflict between the two peoples, the two communities is thus doubled with a conflict between two cultures, two ethics. But this could even be livable if the war did not bring some extra dimension. Ashraf's sister is going to get married to a militant activist in Nablus. Ashraf finally tells his sister about his being gay. She cannot accept it but accepts to speak about it later. From the wedding itself the newly married husband sends a commando into Tel Aviv to set up a bomb attack. It takes place in a café in Tel Aviv and one friend of Noam's is severely wounded. Bad enough. The Isareli army sends a commando to Nablus to arrest the person responsible for this attack, but it turns sour and the newly married wife is shot dead in the street. The funeral follows the wedding. The husband and widower volunteers for a suicide bomb attack. Ashraf volunteers to take his place. The exiled lover comes back to Tel Aviv to die and kill a few people to avenge his sister. He arrives at a diner managed by some friends of Noam's. But Noam sees him and gets out to speak to him. Ashraf has moved back to the middle of the street and he detonates his bomb when Noam reaches him in the street. The vengeance reunites the two lovers in death. We thus have the dual conflict but we do not have the Prince of Verona, a neutral character that can impose peace, or even worse the Prince seems to have chosen sides and to be on the side of Israel. The game is entirely false and death is sure on both sides. But the dimension of impossible love is all the stronger because it is redoubled by a play in the film, a play that shows love in Auschwitz, between two prisoners, one wearing a yellow star and the other a pink triangle. This is both strikingly strong and breathtakingly shocking: gay love in Auschwitz. What comes out of the film is that over there in Tel Aviv or Nablus love is impossible. The film is thus a denunciation of the conflict in Palestine that cannot but continue though it has no reason to even exist though it has thousands of reasons to go on. We should never have let Great Britain deal with the region a long time ago. Today we have to find a solution in which no one will be humiliated. This will only be able to succeed if everyone comes together in order to find a lasting solution. But so far everyone is trying to avoid that general confrontation and discussion preferring bilateral manipulations. So suffering will go on and love will be forbidden, of course not sex since children are needed for the war to go on: so let's procreate more and more little soldiers. But love is just an extra-terrestrial concept.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

positive

At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book – which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death – because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.<br /><br />What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy – since most of us have read the book – and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to "leave him the f*** alone". This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.<br /><br />Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question – how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel? – but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well – seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that – but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel? When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history – probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap – and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted? Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.<br /><br />I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that.

positive

this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.

negative

This movie has a special way of telling the story, at first i found it rather odd as it jumped through time and I had no idea whats happening.<br /><br />Anyway the story line was although simple, but still very real and touching. You met someone the first time, you fell in love completely, but broke up at last and promoted a deadly agony. Who hasn't go through this? but we will never forget this kind of pain in our life. <br /><br />I would say i am rather touched as two actor has shown great performance in showing the love between the characters. I just wish that the story could be a happy ending.

positive

The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.<br /><br />Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.<br /><br />To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.<br /><br />I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless.

negative

Smallville episode Justice is the best episode of Smallville ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It's my favorite episode of Smallville! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

positive

I can only echo the praise of the other reviews here. It's a delightful film with a feelgood factor that it achieves without crossing the line into soppy sentimentality. Naturally sweet - no added sugar.<br /><br />One small point: it seems to me that the mild objections raised about Ustinov's character Pendelton being able to walk in and defeat the system security ignore the fact that Pendelton is clearly a genius/savant at this sort of thing. Yes, the film was pretty computer illiterate, but it did show Pendelton 'studying computers' at his flat, and I believe the implication was supposed to be that his gifts allowed him to simply engulf the whole subject, practically overnight.<br /><br />There were a few odd moments when it appeared in some scenes that Gnatpole was trying to test Pendelton's knowledge and call his bluff. I'm not sure whether we were supposed to believe that Pendelton cunningly weaselled his way out of these situations, or whether he was actually knowledgeable enough to pass the tests - it was a little unclear.<br /><br />Certainly he had to know enough to set up the dummy accounts. Presumably Wallach and Ustinov were relying on their own rather foggy notion of how computers worked in those days, and in order to understand in detail what they were getting at, it's necessary to know quite what their concept was. They knew there was something about 'procedures' which was important; they thought that the 'smart light' could actually control security, rather than just indicate its state; they thought that the (dumb) user terminal's features would strongly influence what could be done on the mainframe itself - though apart from things like graphics feature I don't see it meself.<br /><br />Mostly, I think they tried to avoid the subject of actual computer operations as far as they could, and they did that rather well. Allowing them a bit of artistic license, I don't think their efforts had any flaws worthy of note.<br /><br />CD

positive

After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great.

negative

Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.<br /><br />Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.<br /><br />I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name. <br /><br />The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with. <br /><br />Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.<br /><br />Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.<br /><br />Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.<br /><br />Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first.

positive

There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.

negative

Remakes (and sequels) have been a staple of Cinema from the beginning of the media. It is pretty much a hit or miss venture though. If you take what's good of the original and build upon it and update key features too current standards, you can have a success. Note, such films like THE THIEF OF BAGDAD (1924/1940) or KING KONG (1933/2005) succeeded in their attempts. Others like KING KONG (1976) fail, miserably.<br /><br />BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1945) is the template for this film. It is as perfect as could be made on such a subject and we rate it IMDb**********Ten. The story is simple, Love, innocently found by accident and tragically lost. Why, it just happened for the two (2) principals involved at the wrong time. These are portrayed in a convincing and sensitive manner by TREVOR HOWARD and CECILIA JOHNSON. Neither are conventionally leading Star material, but quality Character Actors. For the details watch the film.<br /><br />Now what went wrong? A T.V. Movie, remade practically scene for scene with name actors RICHARD BURTON and SOPHIA LOREN should have at least scored IMDb******Six. Both actors though appear disinterested, just showing up to punch their time-clocks and pick up their checks. Neither are involved with their characters or with each other. You do not believe they are in Love or when they finally separate it is any great loss to either of them. That should not be and that's why it fails in its intent. Sometimes it is just better to leave things alone.

negative

I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.<br /><br />Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.<br /><br />Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.<br /><br />The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.<br /><br />(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.<br /><br />The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.

positive

This film moves the Cinderella story forward to the early 1950s and makes good, if eccentric, use of the Isle of Man as a background. The Ugly Sisters have become wildly glamorous upper-class English girls, and together with Kathleen Turner as the stepmother they flounce about in various wonderful period costumes. The story is altered a little from the traditional version: early on it is oddly combined with the plot of "King Lear", and in later stages Cinderella is rather more assertive than is usual. It looks splendid and works on the whole pretty well, but does go over the top at times.

positive

I must admit I am a big fan of South Park and was expecting Basketball to be funny but nowhere near as good as it turned out to be! I think this is what happens when you mix David Zucker, Matt Stone, and Trey Parker together. This movie has so much replay value and at no point bothers to take itself seriously. The slap stick style humor mixed with Stone and Parker just works flawlessly. The kind of humor present in Basketball was not popular upon the time of it's release and had it come out today it would be a hit. Don't bother trying to be critical, just leave your brain at the door and expect endless laughs to come. Recommended to anyone with a good sense of humor.

positive

This is probably one of the most original love stories I have seen for ages, especially for a war based (briefly) film. Basically it is a story based in two worlds, one obviously real, the other fictitious but the filmmakers say at the beginning that it is only coincidence if it is a real place. Anyway, Peter Carter (the great David Niven) was going to crash in a plane, he talked to June (Planet of the Apes' Kim Hunter) before he bailed out and said he loved her. He was meant to die from jumping without a parachute, but somehow he survived, and now he is seeing and loving June in the flesh. This other place, like a heaven, is unhappy because he survived and was meant to come to their world, so they send French Conductor 71 (Marius Goring) to persuade him to go, but he is obviously in love. Peter suggests to him that he should appeal to keep his life to the other world's court, he is granted this. Obviously love prevails when the two lovers announce that they would die for each other, June even offers to take his place! Also starring Robert Coote as Bob Trubshawe, Kathleen Byron as An Angel, a brief (then unknown) Lord Sir Richard Attenborough as An English Pilot and Abraham Sofaer as The Judge/The Surgeon. David Niven was number 36 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, the film was number 86 on The 100 Greatest Tearjerkers for the happy ending, it was number 47 on The 100 Greatest War Films, it was number 46 on The 50 Greatest British Films, and it was number 59 on The 100 Greatest Films. Outstanding!

positive

THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against "heroic" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.<br /><br />For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.<br /><br />My favorite line: "Guess it's caused from steroids."

positive

The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.<br /><br />Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.<br /><br />I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.

negative

"Mechenosets" is one of the most beautiful romantic movies I've ever seen. The name of the film can be translated in English as "the sword-bearer". The main hero (Sasha) was born with one exceptional ability: he can protect himself with the extremely sharp sword which emerges from under the skin in his hand. At first side he can seem one more foolish superhero from the senseless movie about unreal events and feelings. But it is not about Mechenosets. He hardly can be even called the anti-hero. I think he is just a person who lost the purport in his life and faith in good, justice and love. In his life he has never met someone who could understand and love him (except his mother). Every his step is stained with blood; he takes revenge on everybody for his gift which became a damnation for him. And suddenly he meets her. She doesn't need the idle talks and explanations. She loves him for what he is. She doesn't care what he did. The fact that he's next to her is more important than anything else. But soon she finds out his secret: he kills two people (her ex-boyfriend and his bodyguard) to protect her before her very eyes. Even after that she couldn't escape her feelings. They try to run but it's hart to hide. Finally they have a serious car accident. He is caged; she is in a mental hospital. They don't know anything about each other, but she believes that he'll save her. He surmounts a lot of obstacles but finally finds her. They run again but they aren't invulnerable. She is wounded, she needs a rest, but police almost catch them. He doesn't know what to do, they drive into a corner, and then his sword begins to cut down trees, helicopter around them, but there is no need for it, because she is already dead in his arms, and he is the lonely person in the whole world again.

positive

I just got through watching this DVD at home. We love Westerns, so my husband rented it. He started apologizing to me half way through. The saddles, costumes, accents--everything was off. The part that made me so mad is where the guy didn't shoot the "collector" with his bow and arrow as he was taking the fat guy's soul. His only excuse was "he only had 2 arrows left." We watched it all the way through, and, as someone else said...too many bad things to single out any one reason why it sucked. I mean, the fact that the boy happened to snatch the evil stone from the collector on the same month and day it was found, what's the point of that? And why were there a grave yard where everyone died on April 25 but the people whose souls were taken by the collector were still up walking around? If you want a movie to make fun of after a few beers, this may be your movie. However, if you want a real Western, you will hate this movie.

negative

I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame." But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!

negative

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

positive

"Show People" is an absolutely delightful silent directed by King Vidor and starring Marion Davies and Billy Haines. What gems both of them are in this charming comedy about a young girl, Peggy Pepper, whose acting is the talk of Savannah trying to make it on the big screen. Though she's a success in comedy, what she wants to do is make "art" so she moves up to High Arts Studio. Soon she becomes Patricia Pepoire and is too good for the likes of her friend Billy.<br /><br />Many stars of the silent era have cameos in "Show People," including Davies herself without the curly hair and makeup. I'm sure when people saw the film in 1928, they recognized everyone who appeared in the elaborate lunch scene; sadly, nowadays, it's not the case, even for film buffs. In one part of the film, however, she does meet Charlie Chaplin; in another, author Elinor Glyn is pointed out to her, and Vidor himself has a cameo at the end of the film. Other stars who pop up in "Show People" are John Gilbert, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, Leatrice Joy, Bess Flowers, Renee Adoree, Rod LaRoque, Aileen Pringle, and many others.<br /><br />Davies was adorable and a lively comedienne. It's a shame William Haines quit the movies - he was cute and energetic, deservedly an enormous star back in the day.<br /><br />"Show People" is a simple story told in a witty way. It's also a look back at an exciting era in Hollywood's history and contains performances by two wonderful stars.

positive

Rudy does it again with this hot off the streets follow up to Dolemite. This entry is filled with the requisite Rudy Ray Moore raunch, humor and martial arts. Rudy eludes a crazy red-neck sheriff in this movie that also features an infamous scene where Rudy dives down a steep hill. See it for laughs and for a brain-blasting hit of Blaxploitation magic.

positive

I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO

negative

This film is one of Michael Keaton's best. Throughout the film he is 'on'. With co-stars like Ms. Henner, Joe Piscopo and Danny DeVito, you can't go wrong. Great laughs, great fun for everyone.

positive

Yes I have rated this film as one star awful. Yet, it will be in my rotation of Christmas movies henceforth. This truly is so bad it's good. This is another K.Gordon Murray production (read: buys a really cheap/bad Mexican movie, spends zero money getting it dubbed into English and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960's.) It's a shame I stumbled on this so late in life as I'm sure some "mood enhancers" would make this an even better experience. I'm not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said, a Christmas movie with Merlin, the Devil, mechanical wind-up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors I have ever seen bar none. I plan on running this over the holidays back to back with Kelsey Grammar's "A Christmas Carol". Truly a holiday experience made in Hell. Now if I can only find "To All A Goodnight (aka Slayride)" on DVD I'll have a triple feature that can't be beat. You have to see this movie. It moves so slowly that I defy you not to touch the fast forward button-especially on the two dance routines! This thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese-guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. Feliz Navidad amigos!

negative

Camera work - Why is the camera work in this movie so jumpy? This is annoying and distracting. Editing - the Flashes of the still pictures were way too short. Many of the other scenes were too short also. Just flashes. Sound - the background music was way too loud and covered up the voices. One should not have to rewind and replay to catch what was said. Doesn't anybody check these things and make them do it over again. Please reduce the volume of the background music in future. Is adjustment of the relative sound levels the job of the editor, Julia Wong? The plot had way too many loose ends. The basic story line had potential. I think the film needed more work. Was it rushed? Perhaps they ran out of money. Like a lot of movies, it started out great but just petered out toward the end. I really don't understand this, you know you have the story board before it goes into production so why doesn't all the loose ends get taken care of in the storyboard.<br /><br />Sorry to be so critical.

negative

This is probably the fastest-paced and most action-packed of the German Edgar Wallace "krimi" series, a cross between the Dr. Mabuse films of yore and 60's pop thrillers like Batman and the Man from UNCLE. It reintroduces the outrageous villain from an earlier film who dons a stylish monk's habit and breaks the necks of victims with the curl of a deadly whip. Set at a posh girls' school filled with lecherous middle-aged professors, and with the cops fondling their hot-to-trot secretaries at every opportunity, it certainly is a throwback to those wonderfully politically-incorrect times. There's a definite link to a later Wallace-based film, the excellent giallo "Whatever Happened to Solange?", which also concerns female students being corrupted by (and corrupting?) their elders. Quite appropriate to the monk theme, the master-mind villain uses booby-trapped bibles here to deal some of the death blows, and also maintains a reptile-replete dungeon to amuse his captive audiences. <br /><br />Alfred Vohrer was always the most playful and visually flamboyant of the series directors, and here the lurid colour cinematography is the real star of the show. The Monk appears in a raving scarlet cowl and robe, tastefully setting off the lustrous white whip, while appearing against purplish-night backgrounds. There's also a voyeur-friendly turquoise swimming pool which looks great both as a glowing milieu for the nubile students and as a shadowy backdrop for one of the murder scenes. The trademark "kicker" of hiding the "Ende" card somewhere in the set of the last scene is also quite memorable here. And there's a fine brassy and twangy score for retro-music fans.<br /><br />Fans of the series will definitely miss the flippant Eddie Arent character in these later films. Instead, the chief inspector Sir John takes on the role of buffoon, convinced that he has mastered criminal psychology after taking a few night courses. Unfortunately, Klaus Kinski had also gone on to bigger and better things. The krimis had lost some of their offbeat subversive charm by this point, and now worked on a much more blatant pop-culture level, which will make this one quite accessible to uninitiated viewers.

positive

This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.

negative

This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.<br /><br />While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.<br /><br />There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.<br /><br />Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out.

positive

I think I agree that a lot of the comments here must be fake. Even if the movie is not necessarily bad its definitely below average. "Dark Remains" is basically a Ghost Movie with a premise of your own ghosts and bad emotions haunting you. The movie starts off already with 2 stories loosely inter-webbed which even later are not tied together. A couple loses its child which is found slashed in its bed. They move to a country house to flee their past and guess what... the house is haunted, kind of. From here on Dark Remains starts off very slow with some scary moments indeed (The first ghost appearances are nice and the flashlight sequence also worked very good). OK, then... Woman sees ghost of daughter, other ghosts of people died in accidents or suicides appear, man tries to solve secret of houses past, woman gets depressed, strange neighbors appear. Its pretty much all been there, but the premise of it being their own emotions is nice, so you wait for the twist. There is no twist, you are just confused by a haunted house history story, the strange neighbor, a totally pointless creepy prison and the dead daughter thrown together with a photo-idea reminding me a lot of "The shutter". The end is ridiculous because when you start and end a movie this slow and with piano music its pretty lame to include some hoards of ghosts at once which look like a zombie flick, of course just to return to slow pacing and piano music. <br /><br />To make it short... Dark Remains could have been a nice scary ghost story if the script was not trying to go everywhere and arriving nowhere.Too many stories mushed together which just don't make any sense and contradict in the basic atmosphere of the movie. And beside... please never use abandoned prisons again. Its so worn off and in this case it even makes no sense at all. "Hey, there is this creepy prison uphill, lets shoot there". I guess a lot of ingredients in Dark Remains were thrown in the mix like this.

negative

As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.

negative

A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.

positive

The key to The 40-Year-Old Virgin is not merely that Andy Stitzer is a 40-year-old virgin, but rather the manner in which Steve Carell presents him as one. In a genre of crass "comedy" that has become typified by its lack of humor and engaging characters, The 40-Year-Old Virgin offers a colorful cast and an intelligent, heartfelt script that doesn't use its protagonist as the butt-end of cruel jokes. That Andy is still a virgin at forty years old is not as much a joke, in fact, as it is a curiosity.<br /><br />Carell, a veteran of Team Ferrell in Anchorman and an ex-Daily Show castmember, uses the concept of the film to expand his character – we get to understand why Andy is the way he is. It's the little things that make this film work. When Andy's co-worker at an electronics store asks him what he did for the weekend, Andy describes his failed efforts at cooking. When Andy rides his bike to work, he signals his turns. He doesn't just adorn his home with action figures – he paints them, and talks to them, and reveals that some of the really old ones have belonged to him since childhood. A lesser comedy wouldn't even begin to focus on all of these things.<br /><br />The plot is fairly simplistic – Andy's co-worker pals find out he's never had sex and they make it a personal quest of theirs to get him in bed with a woman. It's a childish idea and the film makes no attempt to conceal its juvenility.<br /><br />Andy's friends are a complement to his neurotic nature: David (Paul Rudd) has broken up with his girlfriend over two years ago but is still obsessed with her, Jay (Romany Malco) is a womanizing ladies' man and Cal (Seth Rogen) is a tattooed sexaholic. Their attempts at getting Andy in the sack backfire numerous times, and each time leaves Andy feeling less and less optimistic.<br /><br />Finally Andy meets single mom Trish (played by Catherine Keener) and, much to the chagrin of his worrying buddies who claim mothers aren't worth it, he falls in love with her. They begin a relationship and agree to put off having sex for twenty days – Trish being unaware that Andy is still a virgin.<br /><br />The 40-Year-Old Virgin was directed by Judd Apatow, the man who produced Anchorman and The Cable Guy, and began the short-lived cult TV show Freaks and Geeks. Apatow is renowned for his unique sense of humor, and the script – co-written by Carell – offers plenty.<br /><br />However, in the end the most interesting and (indeed surprising) aspect of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is its maturity. By now you are probably well aware that the film received glowing reviews from the critics, and even I was surprised by its warm reception. But after seeing the film, it's easy to understand why. We like Andy. We care about him. He's not just some cardboard cutout sex-comedy cliché – he's a real, living, breathing person. His neurotic traits combine the best of Woody Allen with childish naivety. His friends are not unlikable jerks and his romance is tumultuous and bittersweet. It strikes a chord with the audience.<br /><br />Although this is far from being a perfect movie and definitely contains some rather crude innuendo and sexual humor, it doesn't offend to the extent that other genre entries might have because we have affection for the people on-screen. The best sex comedies work this way – from Risky Business to American Pie – and that is the major difference between something like The 40-Year-Old Virgin and 40 Days and 40 Nights.

positive

I have to say, as a BSG fan I wasn't exactly sure what I'd think of this show. I saw it on the big screen at the Arclight cinema tonight (as part of the Paley Center screenings), and the cast and film makers spoke after-wards. Ron Moore said they 'wanted to make a clean break from Battlestar, and do something different, and that yes they would lose some fans but hopefully they'd gain others". <br /><br />Even without their talk, I am now a fan of the new show. But here's what I thought of the film.<br /><br />I loved it. It was really very good. I guess I'm a true sci-fi (or 'syfy' - do I really have to type that?) geek, because I'd totally watch this as a series. It has a strong and rich story, and kept my interest. <br /><br />It starts with a small group of teenagers plotting something, which to me was the weakest part and a bit confusing. The actor playing "Ben" should have given us more of a glimpse into his intense beliefs. The actress playing "Zoe" seemed a little posy, but she was playing a teenager (and I'm sure I won't be the only one who thought "Zoe" was a cylon at first, perils of being a BSG geek). If they're hoping these will be the new Bamber/Helfer/Park, they may want to rethink it. Surprisingly, it was the adults that captured the audiences attention.<br /><br />Eric Stoltz gives a stellar performance as Daniel Greystone, a man so haunted by his family tragedy that he jumps at the first chance of getting out of his grief and doesn't let go. He does a chilling and enthralling job of conveying his character's sly knowledge of the inner world of computers and people, especially in a scene in which he spins a web for the young teenage friend of his daughters, traps her, then dismisses and releases her. No sign at all of the 'serial killer' he played on Gray's Anatomy, really impressive acting.<br /><br />Equally as strong though not in it nearly as much is Paula Malcomson as his wife Amanda Greystone. She is just as smart and well written and beautifully played as Stoltz's part, and I completely believed that they are a couple, and a couple that have been together forever and have a strong relationship, something rarely seen these days. I look forward to seeing what happens with this family, and hope they give her as much to do as Roslin in BSG- she is strong and smart and when she lashes out at her kid, you cringe, it's really great. Not to mention her eyes, which could hold magical powers, that's how intense they are. The scene where she takes on the government agent- very short scene, but beautifully played- really gives you an idea of her power.<br /><br />The other part of the show that did not work 100% for me were the scenes with Esai Morales, and the mafia type clan of his. He does a good job overall, but I did not believe in this mobs power, nor intimidated by their threats. I found myself wishing that this whole story line was a bit more mysterious and hard to figure out; the way it is presented is almost an homage to the Godfather, they kind of hit you over the head with it a bit. But given time, I can see how this will develop into an interesting 'Upstairs/downstairs' kind of thing, with the poor minorities (Morales et al) versus the rich folk who rule the planet (Stolz et al). And to be honest, I did enjoy it when he spoke to his son about the origin of their name- that was a very well played scene.<br /><br />Note to BSG fans, the boy playing 'Willy Adama' doesn't really look much like Olmos, but he's just a kid. Whether or not he'll be featured any more than he was in this film, who knows? I sure couldn't tell. But it didn't bother me, because he wasn't as interesting as everything else going on around him.<br /><br />Polly Walker plays 'Sister Clarice', and she's chilling and odd in every scene she's in. I'm not sure where she'll go or who she'll end up with, but I was very impressed with her acting. In this film she was sort of on the side, but obviously being set up to play a very important part later on. She was nothing like her character in "Rome", something I always find impressive in actors.<br /><br />One nice surprise- the music is actually better and less obvious than BSG, even though it's the same guy doing it, Bear McCreary. It has a haunting and unusual approach that took me by surprise, I'd buy this score if I had the chance.<br /><br />As to the 'panel discussion' after the show, it was hosted by Seth Green. Ron Moore was very smart and articulate, David Eick was cracking wise (much like his video diaries), Esai Morales told a long story about how he was cast, and Eric Stoltz was very funny and didn't really answer the questions ( but I've always had a thing for him). Paula Malcomson was tough (she took Seth Green to task for mistakenly saying she was on '24'), and the girls who played Zooey and Lacey were both darling. Grace Park and Tricia Helfer were there as well, answering questions about how they did the scenes acting with themselves on BSG. Overall a very interesting and wonderful evening.<br /><br />I'm giving the show a 9 out of 10, and very much looking forward to watching it all unfold.<br /><br />NOTE: I just watched this a second time and really hope they explore what the HOLOBAND was originally made for. I have no idea what that may be, but it holds a great deal of fascination to me.

positive

The plot intellect is about as light as feather down. But the advantage here is the boy and girl classic refusal we have become accustomed to in "The Gay Divorcee" and "Top Hat" is now absent. Instead of the typical accidental acquaintance, the dancing duo are the former lovers Bake Baker and Sherry Martin, who are still in love since their dancing days.<br /><br />Of course, being a 30s musical, there's the problems of misunderstood romance, classy courtship and the slight irritation of a sabotaged audition with bicarbonate soda has costing Ginger something rather special. And then in the grand tradition of dwindling finances, there's nothing better for Hollywood's best entertainers than put on a show.<br /><br />Delightful numbers from Irving Berlin are sprinkled throughout the show. Top hats and evening dresses are saved right until the end, which remains a refreshing change. Fred and Ginger are out again to charm the world...and charm the navy. Everyone and everything is once again just so enjoyable.<br /><br />Pure classic silliness at its best. But with Astaire and Rogers, we just know it's got to work.<br /><br />Rating: 8.25/10

positive

It was difficult to sit through this horrible heretical adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Apparently Matt Frewer was cast because he is tall and skinny. His skull-like face made for a good zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake, but as Sherlock Holmes he looks like a scarecrow. Not only does Frewer have a lanky lackadaisical walk that is hard to watch, but he looks uncomfortable in the stereotypical Holmes overcoats that he is wearing. Not only that, but while the coat is gray twill they apparently could not find a matching cap. So his cap is black and it looks shiny as if it were made of polyester. Whatever the cap was made of, it looked very new and artificial. Jeremy Brett occasionally wore those traditional outfits, but Brett did not have to dress-up like Sherlock Holmes in order to look the part. Frewer on the other hand is painful to watch. Even in the full "Holmes" outfit, he does not carry himself like Sherlock Holmes.<br /><br />Frewer's cadaverous face grinning all the time as he spouts on and on in a very bad "Upper-Crust" British accent is painful to see and listen to. To say that Frewer is overacting is an understatement. After he finishes each sentence with some kind of nasal hum, he then sneers as if that were some kind of British trait. When I started watching this I thought it might be a comedy featuring Wishbone, the Jack Russell Terrier. I thought Frewer had been cast as some kind of foil for Wishbone. But sadly, there is no dog in this movie except for Frewer. Wishbone would have made this movie a lot better.<br /><br />Not only does Frewer's version of Sherlock Holmes never stop talking (in that awfully artificial British nasal accent), but he is much to friendly and kind. Frewer is always smiling at the witnesses he talks to, and he is so polite and courteous that he could be teaching at a Charm School instead of being a Sleuth. Perhaps since this is a Hallmark Channel production, they are trying to make a children's version of Sherlock Holmes (Wishbone was better at that, too) that was kindler and gentler. Whatever the point of Frewer's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, it is flatter than a pancake, and easily the worst version of Sherlock Holmes that I have ever seen (including the previous worst, by Charlton Heston).<br /><br />Overall, the tone of this film is awful. It reminded me of a typical episode of Barnaby Jones or Murder She Wrote or Diagnosis Murder. All the suspects over-acted suspiciously and glared at the victims before they were killed. Holmes and Watson are explaining every clue to each other during the entire movie. Even on Murder She Wrote there is less exposition.<br /><br />This Sherlock Holmes does not even compare very well to Jim Rockford of the Rockford Files and it is miles below Columbo. The awful dialog is probably the fault of the writer. It is obvious that who ever wrote this script has very little familiarity with Sherlock Holmes, especially the BBC version with Jeremy Brett. This movie has all of the atmosphere of an episode of Little House on the Prairie. The fact that the actors seem to be smirking when they enunciate their lines in their fake accents does not help.<br /><br />The only minor bright spot is Ken Walsh who plays Doctor Watson with some dignity. Walsh does not ham it up compared to Frewer, and when he is often interviewing witnesses, his demeanor and conversational style are much more natural and credible. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is amateurish, and the visual clues they give by glaring and making faces at each other (to show they are suspicious) is something that I had not seen in any modern movie.

negative

While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.<br /><br />Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.<br /><br />Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.<br /><br />Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.<br /><br />Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V.

positive

I absolutely LOVE this movie and would really like to have it someday. It's just a fascinating legend about an eagle who wears a Turquoise necklace, I loved it and would like to see it again! I don't remember too much about it, but that a Native American boy lives in a nice village with his family, and I don't remember what happens, but he is supposed to go out to the wilderness alone. His sister packs him some food and he goes. While he's out there, some other Indian boys come running out and put some feathers on him, and he turns into an eagle. The legend says that if you ever see an eagle wearing a Turquoise necklace, it is the boy. I was always fascinated with legends, particularly Native American legends and I would love to see this released someday to a DVD, PLEASE RELEASE IT, whoever's concerned!

positive

This whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: "What is going to happen?"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a movie.

negative

Forbidden Siren is based upon the Siren 2 Playstation 2 (so many 2s) game. Like most video game turned movies, I would say the majority don't translate into a different medium really well. And that goes for this one too, painfully.<br /><br />There's a pretty long prologue which explains and sets the premise for the story, and the mysterious island on which a writer (Leo Morimoto) and his children, daughter Yuki (Yui Ichikawa) and son Hideo (Jun Nishiyama) come to move into. The villagers don't look all too friendly, and soon enough, sound advice is given about the siren on the island, to stay indoors once the siren starts wailing.<br /><br />Naturally and slowly, things start to go bump, and our siblings go on a mission beating around the bush to discover exactly what is happening on this unfriendly island with its strange inhabitants. But in truth, you will not bother with what's going on, as folklore and fairy tales get thrown in to convolute the plot even more. What was really pushing it into the realm of bad comedy are its unwittingly ill-placed-out-of-the-norm moments which just drew pitiful giggles at its sheer stupidity, until it's explained much later. It's one thing trying to come up and present something smart, but another thing doing it convincingly and with loopholes covered.<br /><br />Despite it clocking in under 90 minutes - I think it's a horror movie phenomenon to have that as a runtime benchmark - it gives that almost two hour feel with its slow buildup to tell what it wants to. Things begin to pick up toward the last 20 minutes, but it's a classic case of too little too late.<br /><br />What saves the movie is how it changes tack and its revelation at the end. Again this is a common device used to try and elevate a seemingly simple horror movie into something a little bit extra in the hope of wowing an audience. It turned out rather satisfactorily, but leaves a bad aftertaste as you'll feel cheated somewhat. There are two ways a twist will make you feel - it either elevates the movie to a memorable level, or provides you with that hokey feeling. Unfortunately Forbidden Siren belonged more to the latter.<br /><br />The saving grace will be its cinematography with its use of light, shadows and mirrors, but I will be that explicit - it's still not worth the time, so better to avoid this.

negative

I imagine Victorian literature slowly sinking into the mire of the increasingly distant past, pulled down by the weight of its under-skirts. Along comes television: at its best, it has a redemptive power, and with dramatisations like those the BBC produce so finely, Victorian literature gets a new stab at life. The religious themes, the moral overtones, may be increasingly ill at ease in a world no longer easily shocked, and acquainted with cohabitation, affairs and domestic violence. But those old, well-told stories have enduring power, and this is one's a hidden gem.<br /><br />It's hard to gauge today just how forceful, feminist and extraordinary Ann Bronte's masterpiece, "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall", actually was. Emerging from the primeval slime of restrictive corsets – bodily, mental, societal – her heroine, Helen Huntingdon, escapes a miserable marriage, flees brutality and alcoholism, braves not only her abusive husband's fury, but society's pinched intolerance and malicious gossip, to wreak change in her life. She pays a price; but retains her self-respect; she falls in love along the way; she emerges battered but victorious, and strong. I just love watching women like these on screen.<br /><br />The actors are superb – the best Brits have to offer. The love story is beautifully handled, with real passion and feeling by well-matched actors. Tara Fitzgerald inhabits every aspect of the complicated heroine, and as has been said here by other reviewers, no less sharply defined and beautiful a face could survive that petrifying hairstyle. Toby Stephens, striking sparks off her, contributes just the right combination of headstrong, handsome youth and passionate, yearning vulnerability. Rupert Graves (one of my favourite British actors ever) enjoys himself as the charismatic villain (so much so that you're almost with him at the end. No one's perfect). The supporting cast ably create a world into which you sink without feeling that coarse compromises have been made to modern tastes, and without having felt preached to. Another BBC classic, highly recommended: this is how romantic literature should be dramatised.

positive

Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!

negative

This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!<br /><br />I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR.

negative

Murder and insurance fraud take an adulterous couple to "the end of the line"...<br /><br />TV was visually vulgar back in the early 1970s and this truncated, made-for-TV knock-off hurt my eyes. It can't possibly compare to the 1944 Billy Wilder Film Noir classic as anyone in their right mind ought to know -sight unseen- but that doesn't mean this update should be seen as a separate entity, either. Although based on the original Paramount screenplay, there's over half an hour cut out and the director's bland indifference makes what's left imminently forgettable. With rare exception, the younger generation wasn't interested in watching old black and white movies on TV back in 1973 (still true today, alas) so this lurid, compelling tale was new to the overwhelming majority of viewers; then as now, ratings rule and cashing in was its only reel raison d'etre. Gus Van Zandt remade Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO for similar reasons and if these redux led to the seeking out of the original films or novels, so much the better. I loved the James M. Cain source novel enough to tune in back then and I enjoyed this time capsule curio the second time around for the longish hair, halter tops, turbans, ugly decor, and lush auburn locks of "guest star" Samantha Eggar, who didn't try too hard. In addition to recognizing a few of the incidental cast from a childhood spent in front of the boob tube, Lee J. Cobb was able to hold my interest as a world-weary, tired-looking Keyes but Richard Crenna's affable and inoffensive Walter Neff only reminded me of Bill Bixby on a bad day. Improvement upon the original was, of course, never intended in a rush to make a buck but, instead of a mindless retread, a new adaptation of the novel would have been a novel idea. Cain's book differs somewhat from its celluloid incarnations and the horrific shark fins in the moonlight ending is killer. The completist in me is thankful this speeded up "Me Decade" update was included as part of the DOUBLE INDEMNITY DVD extras but the experience not only made me long to see the original, it had me nostalgic for any episode of the better-made COLUMBO TV series. I also flashed back to a very good 1973 ABC TV Movie Of The Week that I haven't seen since its initial airing: John D. Macdonald's LINDA starring the beautiful Stella Stevens as a ruthless femme fatale who murders her lover's (sexy John Saxon) wife and then frames her mild-mannered husband for the crime and, if I remember correctly, there's also an open-ended ending. Like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it was needlessly remade with TV movie queen Virginia Madsen as the titular vixen and Richard Thomas as the milquetoast husband.

negative

Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice.

negative

A bad one.<br /><br />Oh, my...this is one of the movies, which doesn't have even one positive effect. Just everything from actors to story stinks to the sky. I just wonder how low I.Q. you should have to watch this kind of flick and even enjoy.<br /><br /> Is there something than this is worth watching for? Well, there is a lot of nudity involved, but it's nothing particular. And when you just think that it couldn't get worse, your realize that all the naked ladies looked like there are forty years old. C'mon guys, where did you search for these actresses. In elderly home, perhaps.<br /><br /> Anyway, the leading actresses has some sex-appeal and knows how to show it. Again, too bad, that she is too skinny & old. All in all, skip these one.<br /><br />2 out of 10

negative

Notice that all those that did not like and enjoy this film commented that it was not as good as the book or that it differed from the book.<br /><br />I don't understand this type of criticism. Books and films are different media. While books have hours and hours to develop characters and story lines, films have about 120 minutes. Yet the film has the advantage of stimulating several senses: visual, audio, as well as the imagination. I don't care if a film is as good as or, in fact, has any resemblance to the book on which it is based. Who cares? I judge it for what it is.<br /><br />This TV movie was charming. An old and oft-seen story, prone to cliché, it could easily have been embarrassing. However, Riffen and Reeves pull it off. One reviewer found Riffen far to old. I would never have guessed she was 40 when she made this film. It is to her credit as an actress that she played a 23-24 year old amazingly well. I also think it is about the best thing Reeves ever did. The story could have been stronger, and I agree the screen play could have used "tightening." Nonetheless, it is well worth watching; clearly not a powerful love story, but rather, a charming romance which will leave you satisfied that love is a strong emotion and good overcomes evil. And it is nice to see a "love story" without the obligatory f#$% word, the naked buttocks, or hours of spit-swapping kissing.<br /><br />Lastly, the musical score is excellent.

positive

I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.<br /><br />Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.<br /><br />This movie helps set the record straight.

positive

it's amazing that so many people that i know haven't seen this little gem. everybody i have turned on to it have come back with the same reaction: WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!!<br /><br />i've never much cared for Brad Pitt (though his turns in 12 monkeys and Fight Club show improvement) but his performance in this film as a psycho is unnerving, dark and right on target.<br /><br />everyone else in the film gives excellent performances and the movie's slow and deliberate pacing greatly enhance the proceedings. the sense of dread for the characters keeps increasing as they come to realize what has been really happening.<br /><br />the only thing that keeps this from a 10 in my book, is that compared to what came before it, the ending is a bit too long and overblown. but that's the only flaw i could find in this cult classic.<br /><br />if you check this film out, try to get the letterboxed unrated director's cut for the best viewing option.<br /><br />rating:9

positive

We should have been suspicious to discover that with only two minutes to lights out we were the only ones there. Only five others joined before the movie began.<br /><br />There is nothing at all to redeem this movie. The acting is awful (especially Ms Hurley). The script is banal. The effects we've seen a million times. The film direction the worst that we've seen. Meandering and disjointed. No-one laughed including the kids.<br /><br />We left after 25 minutes. It would have been sooner if my wife hadn't gone for a hot-dog!!!<br /><br />Do not waste your money on this film. If there's nothing else to watch at your cinema then buy some drinks, popcorn and hot-dogs and do some people watching. You'll have a much more enjoyable time!!!<br /><br />

negative

This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.

negative

This movie is brilliant. The comments made before is from someone who obviously doesn't get it. The movie is campy- yes! But it is uplifting and fun. This movie is an underground hit and brings comparisons to Absolutely Fabulous. It is a must see!

positive

Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.

negative

Zombie Nation 2004 R<br /><br />Hey, I was bored. I looked in my Comcastic little box to find a movie to watch. Zombie Nation? Hey, I love zombie movies. Says the filmmaker has some sort of cult following in the description. Funny how it doesn't warn me not to watch this film. I could've used that advice.<br /><br />Zombie Nation is just like Troll 2 in that it's completely misnamed. It has little (if anything, depending on your point of view) to do with zombies, and takes place all within one city. This film revolves around a crooked cop, who acts as badly as possible (he has to be trying to suck this much), while he arrests women for trivial bullshit and then kills them. Yup, he's a serial killer cop. Not only is this film flawed in thinking that it's a zombie flick, it also gets its serial killer facts completely wrong. Serial killers enjoy killing, they live for it and they get down and personal with it. This guy knocks out the women, and injects them with some poison. He doesn't even have sex with the corpse or dismember it. Talk about boring! Eventually, one of the whopping five women he kills has Voodoo protection done to her and for no apparent reason, all five come back to life and head off to kill this guy. They were all buried or tossed into the ocean, but you wouldn't know it buy the sharp clean clothes they're all wearing. The women then act very poorly and take their revenge. Oh yay.<br /><br />This film was crap in every category. Crap acting, crap writing, crappier sets, and crappier make-up effects. The women don't look zombie-like, unless you count really dark make-up around the eyes to be the de facto definition of what makes a zombie. They can all talk, behave, think, and act perfectly human. The gore is weak compared to even many PG-13 films and the nudity is beyond brief. You see glimpse of breasts in the opening sequence... Then the exact same breasts later! Go figure. Guess only one actress was willing to go topless for this trite. The police station is so badly constructed that you can see where they stopped painting the walls of the warehouse they're obviously filming in. You can see the pipes and the bad lighting and the overly sparse set-up and even, unless you are blind, you can see the director failing. Steer clear, it's a waste of time.<br /><br />1/10

negative

Famous was "famous" for their tension and release style of cartoon where the semi-main character is in terrible peril, only to be rescued by the hero at the last second. This particular Casper is the only one I can remember where death actually takes a hand. But even in death, there is still a happy ending.<br /><br />The constant in Famous Studios cartoons is that "virtue always triumphs". Popeye always gets to his spinach in time, Baby Huey always out-foxes the fox, Little Audery always "learns her lesson". And some FS cartoons ARE really dark and depressing.<br /><br />You have to give them credit. as much as I love Looney Tunes and "Tom and Jerry" I don't think anyone was putting out a better cartoon product at that time than Paramount. Color, animation, music (the great Winston Sharples), editing, voices. They were consistent and a glowing example of the best that the art form had to offer.

positive

I'm glad that this is available on DVD now. This film is an excellent example of the triumph of content & style over empty-headed flashing lights & constant loud noises.<br /><br />Essentially, if you have a short attention span or lack the wit & imagination to engage with literary narrative you won't like this film. The reasons for this are quite simple, but unfortunately rarely achieved: Matthew Jacobs has done a fantastic job of transposing the story of Catherine Storr's novel 'Marianne Dreams' successfully to a screenplay. An unenviable task as anyone who has seen a film of a book will undoubtedly know.<br /><br />The casting is excellent, allowing director Bernard Rose to use the actors in a way that is rarely seen now; they indulge in the craft of acting! I know, I know, actors doing their job & acting instead of resorting to mugging inanely at the camera lens whist a kaleidoscope of car chases, explosions & fire fights break out around them is a genuinely rare treat, but it does actually happen in this film.<br /><br />This brings me to the final reason that this is a film for the imaginative thinker & not the spoon-fed tabloid reader - Apart from a solid script, direction & acting, it relies on atmosphere, suspense & implied horror. If it is to be categorized as horror then the presentation of 'Paper House' is more in the vein of Sophocles than Tobe Hooper.<br /><br />In conclusion then, if you like lots of loud noises, explosions, constant cuts, & bright flashing colours you'd be better off watching 'Transformers', but if you like a suspenseful story which unfolds through a skillful & evocative use of narrative without insulting your intelligence by force feeding you cacophonous nonsense then this might just be your thing.

positive

If somebody wants to make a really, REALLY bad movie, "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" really sets a yardstick by which to measure the depth of badness.<br /><br />Start with the pseudo-Chewbacca that follows around the main character ... Some poor schmuck in a baggy white "furry" costume that looks as if it was stitched together from discarded pieces of carpeting. Work your way slowly, painfully, through more not-so-special effects that thoroughly deny the viewer from suspension of disbelief. Add a garden gnome (just for the heck of it).<br /><br />On second thought, skip this movie entirely and find something else to do for an hour and a half.

negative

Deranged and graphically gory Japanese film about little beings taking people over and turning them into necroborg-zombie like machines- which beat and hack each other apart so that the winner can eat the loser. In the middle of this a pair of lovers become infected.<br /><br />Technically superb horror comedy(?) is only for those with strong stomachs as blood and body parts go flying. Good taste prevents me from describing what happens here, but lets just say its pretty gruesome. If you like this sort of thing with form several steps above slender content by all means see this film. Personally I'm not normally one to enjoy films like this on anything but the how sick and twisted do they go level. Here I was intrigued enough that I can suggest it to people I know who like really gory movies.. Its also a film with enough going on in the details that I want to see it again since now that I know what was going on-as revealed in the end-I want to go back and see what it was I didn't catch on to. There is an internal logic rare in these films.<br /><br />7ish out of 10 for those who like blood and severed limbs, its a zero or more precisely a run and hide alert for everyone else.

positive

Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.<br /><br />So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.<br /><br />The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.<br /><br />However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.<br /><br />So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".

negative

actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.<br /><br />this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.<br /><br />this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore!

negative

While essentially a remake of the original Chinese Ghost Story, this third installment has higher production values and greater subtlety in both the acting and the story. Tony Leung is particularly good. CGS III is a gorgeous, moving film.

positive

What a crime...<br /><br />You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.<br /><br />But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..<br /><br />Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.<br /><br />Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.

negative

This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee.

negative

Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.<br /><br />Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.<br /><br />Talk about false advertisement at it worst.<br /><br />After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.<br /><br />The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care. <br /><br />Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.<br /><br />I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.<br /><br />Don't see this movie : my rule. <br /><br />And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.

negative

Lots of singing and dancing in this one, especially by Gene Kelly. Two sailors go on liberty to see if they can find love and romance. They meet up with a woman who is trying to break into show business. Musical lovers only.

positive

Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)<br /><br />The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director Avati<br /><br />Let the world know

negative

For a film that got little publicity, and few people have heard about, this was pretty good. It's another one of these modern-day British crime films that are quirky ("Snatch," "Sexy Beast," etc.). It's not wild like "Snatch" but it's interesting and it has some rough characters.<br /><br />It also has a corny and somewhat predictable ending but early in the show - not late - has some neat twists to make it very interesting for the first-time viewer. Basically, it's about a low-key British male who sends away for a Russian "mail order bride" who winds up, with the aid of two Russian male friends, providing a couple of big surprises.<br /><br />Ben Chapin and Nicole Kidman co-star, and are very good as are Vincent Cassel and Matthieu Kassovitz as Kidman's Russian cohorts. This is a different kind of film and well-acted. Kidman once again proves she's far more than just a beautiful face.

positive

I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.

negative

Coming immediately on the heels of Match Point (2005), a fine if somewhat self-repetitive piece of "serious Woody," Scoop gives new hope to Allen's small but die-hard band of followers (among whom I number myself) that the master has once again found his form. A string of disappointing efforts, culminating in the dreary Melinda and Melinda (2004) and the embarrassing Anything Else (2003) raised serious doubts that another first rate Woody comedy, with or without his own participation as an actor, was in the cards. Happily, the cards turn out to be a Tarot deck that serves as Scoop's clever Maguffin and proffers an optimistic reading for the future of Woody Allen comedy.<br /><br />Even more encouraging, Woody's self-casting - sadly one of the weakest elements of his films in recent years - is here an inspired bit of self-parody as well as a humble recognition at last that he can no longer play romantic leads with women young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters. In Scoop, Allen astutely assigns himself the role of Sid Waterman, an aging magician with cheap tricks and tired stage-patter who, much like Woody himself, has brought his act to London, where audiences - if not more receptive - are at least more polite. Like Chaplin's Calvero in Limelight (1952), Sid Waterman affords Allen the opportunity to don the slightly distorted mask of an artist whose art has declined and whose audience is no longer large or appreciative. Moreover, because they seem in character, Allen's ticks and prolonged stammers are less distracting here than they have been in some time. <br /><br />Waterman's character also functions neatly in the plot. His fake magic body-dissolving box becomes the ironically plausible location for visitations from Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), a notorious journalistic muckraker and recent cardiac arrest victim. Introduced on a River Styx ferryboat-to-Hades, Strombel repeatedly jumps ship because he just can't rest in eternity without communicating one last "scoop" about the identity of the notorious "Tarot killer." Unfortunately, his initial return from the dead leads him to Waterman's magic show and the only conduit for his hot lead turns out to be a journalism undergraduate, Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who has been called up from the audience as a comic butt for the magician's climactic trick. Sondra enthusiastically seizes the journalistic opportunity and drags the reluctant Waterman into the investigation to play the role of her millionaire father. As demonstrated in Lost in Translation, Johansson has a talent for comedy, and the querulous by-play between her and Allen is very amusing - and all the more so for never threatening to become a prelude to romance.<br /><br />Scoop's serial killer plot, involving grisly murders of prostitutes and an aristocratic chief suspect, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman), is the no doubt predictable result of Allen's lengthy sabbatical exposure to London's ubiquitous Jack the Ripper landmarks and lore. Yet other facets of Scoop (as of Match Point) also derive from Woody's late life encounter with English culture. Its class structure, manners, idiom, dress, architecture, and, yes, peculiar driving habits give Woody fresh new material for wry observation of human behavior as well as sharp social satire. When, for instance, Sondra is trying to ingratiate herself with Peter Lyman at a ritzy private club, Waterman observes "from his point of view we're scum." A good deal of humor is also generated by the contretemps of stiffly reserved British social manners encountering Waterman's insistent Borscht-belt Jewish plebeianism. And, then, of course, there is Waterman's hilarious exit in a Smart Car he can't remember to drive on the left side of the road.<br /><br />As usual, Allen's humor in Scoop includes heavy doses of in-jokes, taking the form of sly allusions to film and literary sources as well as, increasingly, references to his own filmography. In addition to the pervasive Jack the Ripper references, for instance, the film's soundtrack is dominated by an arrangement of Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King," compulsively whistled by Hans Beckert in M, the first masterpiece of the serial killer genre. The post-funeral gathering of journalists who discuss the exploits of newly departed Joe Strombel clearly mimics the opening of Broadway Danny Rose (1984). References to Deconstructing Harry (1997) include the use of Death as a character (along with his peculiar voice and costume), the use of Mandelbaum as a character name, and the mention of Adair University (Harry's "alma mater" and where Sondra is now a student). Moreover, the systematic use of Greek mythology in the underworld river cruise to Hades recalls the use of Greek gods and a Chorus in Mighty Aphrodite (1995).<br /><br />As to quotable gags, Allen's scripts rely less on one-liners than they did earlier in his career, but Scoop does provides at least a couple of memorable ones. To a question about his religion, Waterman answers: "I was born in the Hebrew persuasion, but later I converted to narcissism." And Sondra snaps off this put-down of Waterman's wannabe crime-detecting: "If we put our heads together you'll hear a hollow noise." All in all, Scoop is by far Woody Allen's most satisfying comedy in a decade.

positive

I have passed several times on watching this since I figured it was some dumb, sappy, dated romantic comedy. Well, it is a romantic comedy, and maybe a little dated. However, it is not overly sentimental, touching as it does on themes of office politics, adultery, and loneliness. You think you know exactly where things are headed, but there is an element of unpredictability that keeps your interest, and not everything turns out quite as you had expected. But, there is enough wit and charm to touch the most inveterate cynic. If you meet someone who doesn't like this movie, seriously consider how well you want to know them.

positive

Gundam Wing is an amazing show from start to finish, every single episode is a joy to watch. The story is typical Gundam fare, in the future Earth's populations grows to the extent where we create space colonies in order to expand. The story though is set in an entirely different reality than any other Gundam show. It is the year After Colony 195 and the corrupt Earth government, known as the Earth Sphere Alliance, is violently taking over the free colonies. To combat the Alliance control and the even greater threat that is to come (an evil militaristic organization hiding within the Alliance known as OZ, which later takes control of Earth and the colonies), select members of the colonies send 5 super powerful mechs to Earth to try and save the colonies from the threat that is to soon come. These mechs, known as Gundams, fight OZ and try to regain peace in the colonies as OZ takes the front-stage, completely eliminating the Alliance and taking control of Earth and its colonies.<br /><br />Gundam Wing as I previously stated, is probably the most enjoyable Gundam series to watch in my opinion. A large part of this reason is the difference between this series and any other Gundam series before it, but also the stories are far more deep and intricate than majority of the other Gundam series. Gundam Wing has more depth and emotion to it than any other Gundam show I have ever seen thus far. This particular series seemed to focus more on character and the relationships amongst those characters than epic space battle. Now don't get me wrong, this show still has many epic battles within it, and the show still maintains the epic atmosphere that other Gundam series have, but it achieves this by having the story follow an ensemble cast of 6 or 7 characters as opposed to following just 1.<br /><br />No matter how you look at it this is truly one of the most unique and enjoyable Gundam series out there, and I strongly recommend it to any fan of anime, or sci-fi in general. The show sports some amazing animation and superb action, but the depth and intricacy of the story is what keeps you coming back for more. The characters are so well drawn out by the end of the show that you end up loving each and every one of them. This show is definitely one that shouldn't be missed.<br /><br />A perfect 10/10!

positive

Invasion of the Star Creatures would definitely be in the "so bad it's good" category if the film wasn't quite so sexist or racist. That it is such just makes it plain bad.<br /><br />It has the same kind of hardline stereotypical sexism that you saw in Queen of Outer Space, and the kind of racist stereotypes (in this instance, Native Americans) that you would normally find in thirties & forties b-westerns. In terms of being non-funny, the same walking-through-the-cave gag is repeated well over ten times during the course of this fairly short movie. Ray does do one good impression of Jimmy Cagney (but can't make it work for two impressions of Cagney in a row, nor handle a Peter Lorre when he tries it). There really aren't any production values to speak of, as the "Star Creatures" make the Ro-Man from Robot Monster or Tor Johnson in Plan 9 from Outer Space look like creations of Industrial Light and Magic.<br /><br />This film was definitely one of a vanguard of what you would have to call early independent cinema...not artsy enough for those theaters and not good enough for anything but the last feature of an all-night drive-in.<br /><br />

negative

A film as bad as this should be withdrawn from all stores world wide. So full of boring, dull, unimaginative characters, and with a lead character with such an annoying attitude and dry voice constantly giving a thoughtless voice over for every action and feeling, this film holds the record for the most challenging film I have ever watched. As I had payed money to own it, I felt a duty to see it through, and how I regret it. My head hurt throughout because of the terribly dull characters and their pointless, plot less lives. A bunch of kids who have zero knowledge about anything, are all frigid and worst of all, have terrible dialogue throughout, just mulling around as the main character tries to get a date with the girl. Boring, so much so my friend was shaking with hatred and I was red with embarrassment that I'd thrown away £6. The DVD was on eBay the following day, and I didn't make much of my money back. Avoid like the plague.

negative

As I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.<br /><br />I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.<br /><br />Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.<br /><br />How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film???

negative

I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.<br /><br />Bluto

negative

Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.

negative

If the Lion King was a Disney version of Hamlet, then the Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata is a Disney version of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are Dead. Just like Tom Stoppard's beguiling film, we get to view the action from the point of view of two of the minor characters from the original: Timon, the meerkat with a penchant for breaking into song at the drop of a hat, and Pumbaa, the warthog with flatulence issues. By following their story - rather than Simba's - we get to see why all the animals bowed down as Simba was presented from Pride Rock. We find out what made Timon and Pumbaa decide to follow Simba back to Pride Rock to oust Scar. And we find out how they dealt with the hyena's once and for all. Nathan Lane as Timon gets most of the best jokes, but he is ably supported by Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa. It is also good to hear Matthew Broderick and Whoopi Goldberg reprising their roles. Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller lend their distinctive voices to two new characters: Timon's mother and uncle. The only downside is the constant stop-start-rewind-fast-forward device which doesn't always help to progress the story. Having said that, there is a brilliant zoom near the beginning of the movie. With more laughs than any other third-in-a-Disney-series movie, Hakuna Matata is worth watching - if only for the hot tub scene which is still funny despite being a little bit predictable.

positive