Datasets:

harpreetmann

/

imdb_with_label_text

like 0

The Haunting, if you have seen the original, you know a great ghost story, it's perfection on film. It's a haunting tale of 4 people who go into a haunted house and with the simple trick of sound and movements, it terrified people. It still remains effective to this day if you appreciate film. So when The Haunting was remade in 1999, a lot of people pretty much had the same reaction "WHAT? WHY? WHAT THE…" But in my opinion if a remake is respectful enough and just wants to reinvent the story for the newer generation, I'm pretty cool with it. This is definitely not the case, this is just a disrespectful boring shame that will waste your time and I guarantee will deliver no scares… pfft! PG-13, what where they thinking? Not much apparently.<br /><br />When her mother dies and her sister evicts her, Nell receives a phone call, telling her about an ad for an insomnia study run by Doctor David Marrow at Hill House, a secluded manor. Upon arrival, Nell meets Mr. and Mrs. Dudley, a strange pair of caretakers who do not stay on the property after dark. Shortly thereafter, two other participants in the study arrive, wild Theo and "bad sleeper" Luke Sanderson along with Doctor Marrow. Unknown to the participants, Doctor Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and the nearest town is several miles away. Doctor Marrow revels the story of Hill House. The house was built by Hugh Crain, Crain built the house for his wife, hoping to fill it with a large family full of children, however all of Crain's children died during birth. Crain's wife killed herself before the house was finished, and Crain became a recluse. The first night, Theo and Nell begin to experience strange phenomenon within the house, including odd noises and inexplicable temperature changes. Nell is confronted after the main hallway is vandalized with the words "Welcome Home, Eleanor", and becomes extremely distraught, setting out to prove that the house is haunted by the souls of those victimized by Crain's cruelty. She learns that Crain built his fortune by exploiting kidnapped children for slave labor and murdering them when they were of no more use to him. He then burned the bodies in the house's fireplace to hide any evidence. She also learns that Crain had a second wife named Carolyn, of whom Nell is descended. Everyone thinks she's crazy while Nell is convinced this is where she belongs.<br /><br />Seriously, I suggest you stay away from this film, it's really stupid and pointless. Not to mention the actress the played Nell, Lili Taylor completely annoyed me, her performance, her look, just everything about her, don't get me started on things I would do just to not see her in film again. Catherine Zeta Jones just didn't fit in her role as well and Liam Neeson, a wonderful actor wasted talent once again. The effects are way over the top and too computerized, I just can't believe that they would trash a wonderful classic with this crud. Believe me, if you are going to be afraid of something, be afraid of seeing how you can turn a great ghost story into an annoying piece of overblown stupid…. Oh, this film is already hurting me, just don't see it, it's bad.<br /><br />1/10

negative

I finally sat down and saw this film the whole way through, and I must say, I was very impressed. Michelle Rodriguez is probably one of my new favorite actresses---it's not only the fact that she *can* act, but that she chooses the roles best suited to her that are more meaningful and important than what would first seem. I've read a few comments expressing their relief that this was not some awful feminist thing as they thought beforehand, but I certainly disagree. Diana is a feminist. She follows her dreams and believes in herself contrary to what practically everyone around her thinks (with the exception of her caring brother Tiny and her trainer and manager, Hector, who proves to be more a father figure than her real parent), which is what the word "Feminism" is all about. It's good to see films like this showcasing the true side of feminism--that they're not a bunch of manhating losers--but that they have dreams and can do anything. Diana is true to herself while still falling prey to love, and she and Adrian have a more realistic, complicated relationship rather than just something that magically works out. Girlfight is a true taste of reality and it put some faith back into my perception of people. Thanks, Michelle.<br /><br />8/10 - A very important movie that's relatable to not just young women, but everyone wanting to go far in their lives.

positive

honestly, i don't know what's funnier, this horrific remake, or the comments on this board. Masterpiece's review had me in tears, that's so funny. Anyway, this movie is the among the worst movies ever, and certainly the bottom of the barrel for sequels. The "Omen" name on the title made me stop and watch it this morning on HBO, but it's a slap in the face to the other three, especially the original. There are so many classically bad moments, but my favorite is the guy catching fire from the juggler at the psychic fair!! good times ! This movie is to the Omen series what "Scary Movie" is to the entire genre. Avoid unless you're looking for a good laugh.

negative

My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it.

negative

This is such a great movie "Call Me Anna" because it shows how a person has suffered for so long without knowing what was wrong with her. For Patty Duke to come out in the publics eye and tell her story is an inspiration to those who suffer from this disease. I have a lot of respect for her as a person. The only thing I don't like is I can't get it on tape, I've tried looking for it but with no success. Any one know how to get it?

positive

Trawling through the Sci Fi weeklies section of the local Video Rentals store I was losing hope of finding any good movies I hadn't yet seen. Renting Cypher was like a punt on a possibly very lame horse. My son is so jaded with current "B" Science Fiction that he hasn't bothered seeing this yet.<br /><br />It must be noted I didn't see anything about Cypher when it was released in Australia. It must have been very quiet or I just missed it.<br /><br />Well this WAS a really pleasant surprise! This is also no B movie. It's not a "blockbuster" of the epic variety and doesn't try to be - more a quiet movie that needs to be seen several times for it's plot to be fully savoured.<br /><br />The special effects are powerfully presented when they are used - my only complaint is the super helo is a leetle obviously CGI at first view, but they get it right at it's 2nd appearance, & that aside everything else is top notch. In any case the affects are secondary.<br /><br />I won't give anything away about the plot. The plot structure has a Russian Doll aspect a little reminiscent of Basic Instinct (though with very different content).<br /><br />Just I will say that Choosing Jeremy Northam for the lead was a master stroke. The actor was born in Cambridge ENGLAND, and his accent for this film hits the ear as a sort of extremely forced New England dialect, it's a tad off key. See the final twist of the plot and you'll see why that is such a brilliant choice! And Lucy Liu is also just right with her "will she kiss me - will she shoot me" edge.<br /><br />I rarely watch movies several times within days - this is one of them.

positive

If you weren't there, then unfortunately this movie will be beyond compassion for you. Which as I say is a shame because although some of the acting is amateurish, it is meant to be for realism. Let's face it--in real life, we don't say things in an exacting or perfect way, even when we mean to. In this sense, it works. This, however, does not apply to our "known" actors in this film, notably Jodie Foster (born a natural). The fact that the other 3 girls are not accomplished only adds to the story--Jodie plays the glue that struggles to keep their friendship close, even with the obvious feeling of fatality. Meaning that no matter how close friends are, eventually there are some people that just fade away, no matter how you try.<br /><br />And therein is the core of the movie. It's not about partying, it's not about sexuality, but about these 4 girls and their final time as still young girls before they have to go the world alone.<br /><br />If you have ever had a friendship like that in your life, you will feel this movie--it will mean a lot to you, no matter what era it is set in, or what era you grew up in. We all knew these girls in school, or at the very least knew of them. We all knew the frustrated virgin, half wanting to hold onto childhood and half wanting desperately to grow up and thinking that will do it for her. We all knew the boy-crazy one, the fashion plate whose vanity hides her fear of the world, her fear of acceptance. We all knew the party girl, the one they whispered about, with tales of not only her sad home life but of her notorious exploits. And we all knew the "mother figure", the one a little more real, a little more grounded, a little more sad because she knew what would happen. Maybe you were one of those girls. Maybe, like me, you had been each one at one time or another...<br /><br />This film really captures that fragile time in life when want, needs, pressures, womanhood, childhood, the world and loneliness are all embodied in each female's head, each factor on the precipice. Which aspect do you hang on to? What do you toss over the edge, no matter how you may want to hold on? And how painful is goodbye to everything you've known? That's what this movie is--steps into womanhood while clinging onto childhood, and how damn tough it is to keep walking. If you were there, you know...and love this film, as I do. Aching and tenderly done. A fine piece of captured femininity.

positive

The plot of 7EVENTY 5IVE involves college kids who play a cruel phone game that unexpectedly (to them, if not to fans of horror) gets them in over their heads. The STORY of 7EVENTY 5IVE, on the other hand, is that of a horror film that had a wee little bit of promise, sadly outweighed by really bad writing.<br /><br />What could have been a fun, if somewhat silly, old-fashioned slasher tale is derailed early on by its filmmakers' misguided belief that the audience would enjoy watching a bunch of loud, whiny rich kids bitching at each other for most of the film's running time. With the exception of a police detective played by Rutger Hauer, (in a minor role that is designed mainly to add the movie's only star power) every character on screen is a different breed of young A-hole.<br /><br />Male and female, black and white, straight and gay, an entire ensemble of shallow and shrill college kids carries the bulk of the film's narrative. Worse, since the tale deals with a PARTY game gone awry, most of the time the scenes are completely filled with these little b*****ds. Because of this, there are few breaks for the viewer, who must put up with the angry sniping of the thinly-drawn protagonists. Even though at least some of these people are supposedly friends, invariably all characters interact in a very hostile manner, long before any genuine conflict has actually arisen. This leads to the worst possible result in a slasher film: The audience, intended to care about the leads, instead not only cheers on the anonymous killer, but wishes that he had arrived to start picking off the vacuous brats far earlier.<br /><br />The real shame of this poor characterization is that otherwise 7EVENTY 5IVE actually DID have some potential. Visually it's fine. First-time directors Brian Hooks and Deon Taylor know how to build a suspenseful mood. They also manage to deliver on some competent, if sparse, moments of classic 80s-style gore. Surprisingly, the production's cast is also fairly able. It isn't that the actors aren't capable of expressing realistic human emotion; it is simply that the screenplay (co-written by newcomer Vashon Nutt and director Hooks, who fared much better behind the camera than with a keyboard) is short of such moments.<br /><br />7EVENTY 5IVE can hardly be recommended, as its familiar premise and few thrills can't outweigh the bad taste left behind by a story driven by a gaggle of unpleasant characters. In this tepid whodunnit, the real mystery is why anyone should care about a group of young folk who can't even manage to like each other.

negative

Ruth Gordon is one of the more sympathetic killers that Columbo has ever had to deal with. And, the plot is ingenious all the way around. This is one of the best Columbo episodes ever. Mariette Hartley and G. D. Spradlin are excellent in their supporting roles. And Peter Falk delivers a little something extra in his scenes with Gordon.

positive

I liked it... just that... i liked it, not like the animated series... i love it!!!. The fact that this make less appealing is that we all try to compare and not to appreciate, but this cartoon was awesome, but it really didn't like it that much. There's too much people talking about Bruce being so cold, but if this is around 5 years later, anybody in a crime-fighting gang would get this angry and darker attitude, so to me it isn't a flaw. Batgirl was awesome she really fit there, as there isn't more Dick Grayson as a robin, batman needed a good teammate, not like the new robin, he is just a child and you cant rely that much on a child. But heres what didn't work: The new artwork... it isn't horrible but... to me it does'nt work in a series like batman. This is a dark character, with a maniac killer like the joker, so you cant put this kind of artwork in this cartoon, The joker isn't a bad design but i still like the past joker (but to me the BEST joker ever was the one who appeared in batman beyond:return of the joker) , so this joker isn't near as good. The good thing about the joker is that it still mark Hamil voice. My favorite character: Harley Quinn (im in love for her) They put an awesome episode for her: Mad love (to me the best episode of this series). Here we finally know how she turned Harley Quinn, and how the joker twisted her mind, and it feel that atmosphere that you feel in the animated series, darker, no happy ending, brutal fight with the joker (but too short), this is how it was to be ALL the series. BUT in general i didn't like how she made Harley in this series... in almost every episode they put funny but in a ridiculous way, she get punched, she say nonsenses, she make flaws... c'mon she is funny in a way you can laugh with her, not from her... and here they put ridiculous (like i said the only episode where i don't think that its in mad love and beware of the creeper) So in general its a good series, it has it upsides and downs, the drawn could be better ( MY GOOD!!! KILL THAT CATWOMAN!!!!) nice sound effects, nice music, nice voices and nice episodes: my favorites, Mad love, Jokers millions, Old Wounds, Sins of the father, and Cold comfort. If you enjoyed Batman:TAS you can watch this but don't spec too much, in the other hand if you didn't watched TAS, watch this first and then watch TAS in that way you're really gonna love TAS :D

positive

OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.<br /><br />Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.<br /><br />Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.<br /><br />Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.<br /><br />FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.<br /><br />Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.<br /><br />Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.<br /><br />Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun… even the mush had good dialogue.<br /><br />Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.<br /><br />Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.<br /><br />Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds!

positive

In War, Inc we find the logical extension of the current outsourcing of all war-related activities we are currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you are familiar with the antics of Halliburton, Kellogg, Brown & Root and Blackwater overseas you are already halfway home to fully appreciating the satire of Cusack's latest piece. Cusack plays a corporate hit-man named Brand Hauser who finds himself in Turiquistan organizing a trade show in the newly liberated country as his cover while waiting to get access to his latest target. While there he finds himself intrigued by the anti-establishment reporter played by Marisa Tomei and pursued by the over-sexualized pop star played by Hilary Duff. We are introduced to Hauser's past, which includes a tragedy that has haunted him ever since and the corporate assistant named Marsha Dillon who actually is running the entire operation for him (and played hilariously by Joan Cusack). While some moments are played suitably over the top, they aren't always the moments you expect and the little touches often catch you by surprise. All the principals turn in solid performances. Duff's accent comes and goes but otherwise she does a very nice job and goes a long way to dispel her Disney image. Tomei is funny but understated while the Cusack's own nearly every scene they are in. To be fair, they are given good material. The writers turn in a good script with enough twists and turns and visual gags to keep you giggling throughout all the way to the predictable conclusion. In fact, the predictability of the end is the only thing that keeps me from rating it higher as the story twists and turns it's way to the expected conclusion.<br /><br />If you like your comedy broad and physical, there is probably not enough here to keep you interested the entire movie. On the other hand, if you like sly comedy and broad satire, this is for you.

positive

While the 'special effects' and technical attributes of this movie may in fact be laughable to some, I have never been able to erase the images this movie etched on my young and impressionable mind when I first saw it at around 8 years of age. The story of this girl's survival and of the trials she endured have stayed with me all these years, and I have thought back on more than one occasion about how the girl made it out of situations far beyond anything I have seen.<br /><br />The fact that this is a true story, and the fact that I was only a child when I first saw this may be the reason behind my high rating of this movie. Each time this movie aired on television in the 70s and 80s I would be riveted to the television, drinking in each scene with an interest I cannot explain. I suppose watching this for the first time as an adult (and with a jaded view of the world) it may not be as enjoyable to some. I actually went out of my way to obtain a copy so I could show this movie to my son.<br /><br />This, like many other movies, is not for everyone. If you are impressed by remarkable human survival stories, are partial to Peru/Macchu Picchu and/or the Amazon, then I believe you might enjoy this movie as much as I have been enjoying it for the past 30 years.

positive

I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.<br /><br />Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.<br /><br />They should mutilate the guy who made this

negative

Marjorie (a splendid and riveting performance by Farrah Fawcett) narrowly avoids being assaulted in her car by vicious serial rapist Joe (superbly played with frightening conviction and intensity by James Russo). However, Joe steals her wallet and finds out where Marjorie lives. He pays her a visit one fateful day. After subjecting Marjorie to plenty of degradation and psychological abuse, Marjorie manages to turn the tables on Joe and locks him in the fireplace. What is Marjorie going to do with Joe? Director Robert M. Young and screenwriter William Mastrosimone concoct a harsh, gritty and often disturbing morality tale that astutely nails the stark brutality and painful debasement of rape while also showing how any person when pushed to extremes is capable of shocking acts of violence and inhumanity. Joe perceives women strictly as objects while Marjorie only sees Joe as an "animal." However, this movie to its admirable credit refuses to make Joe out to be simply a vile one-dimensional creep; instead he's a terrifyingly real and ultimately pitiable human monster with a wife and kid (Joe's climactic confession in particular is genuinely poignant). Fawcett and Russo are both outstanding in the leads; they receive fine support from Diana Scarwid as the passive Terry, Alfre Woodard as the sensible Patricia, and Sandy Martin as sympathetic policewoman Officer Sudow. Both Curtis Clark's agile cinematography and J.A.C. Redford's shivery, skin-crawling score greatly enhance the considerable claustrophobic tension. A real powerhouse.

positive

Every movie critic and metal head hated this movie but I enjoyed it. I saw this as a child on TV somewhere and was amazed by the scene where Sammi comes on stage and plays Trick or Treat by Fastway.<br /><br />The movie itself was typical 80's, guy gets pushed around by bullies and enlists supernatural help to beat up the bullies but goes to far and has to be destroyed.<br /><br />Matt from Melrose Place picks on Skippy from Family Ties so Skippy gets a record of Tony Fields from Gene Simmons to comfort him and all hell breaks lose, the highlight being where Tony sings (lip-synchs) and dances to a metal song before the shyt hits the fan.<br /><br />There were a lot of errors and stuff but the music and the overall imagery was enough to keep my fists pumping 8 out of 10

positive

I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.<br /><br />The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. <br /><br />They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")

negative

This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.<br /><br />Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! <br /><br />Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! <br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish!

negative

...cause they're both pretty lousy. I think the best part of the movie is the horrendously imperial picture of Faye Dunaway at the top of the stairs. She looks like she could very easily step out of that picture, rip someone to bloody pieces, and calmly re-enter the portrait looking as if nothing had happened. Now, you know a movie's in trouble when part of the set furnishings manages to attract your attention.<br /><br />I admit, I paid $30 for the DVD just so I could see Faye Dunaway in a contemporary horror movie. I know what you're thinking--30 bucks right down into a gaping black hole. And you would be absolutely correct. This movie sucks. There, it's right out in the open. I was expecting some actual scares, and I waited and waited and waited. None came. The raven (probably a crow in makeup) didn't scare me, seeing small pieces of internal organs didn't scare me, and even Faye didn't scare me. I'm not that brave, I know, so it must be the movie itself that is the trouble. What's more, Jennifer wasn't scared either. Her internal organs were literally falling apart and she seemed more peeved than anything. Her life was rapidly coming to a close and she's worried about attaining more money. Honey, you can't take money where you're going!!! "I need money," she continually says, completely ignoring the fact that her lungs have collapsed and ceased to function.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I spent the whole blasted movie wondering what was up with the grandmother (Faye). I was suspicious at first, Faye playing a grandmother and all, and I was still suspicious at the end. There is another relative living in the house that Jennifer and Mary Ellen the Grandmother-From-Hell are forced to share temporarily, and I'm guessing she is of the same generation as said grandmother. Here's the weird part--the relative looks like she's just endured her eight hundredth birthday party. Mary Ellen looks like she's just gotten a face-lift from a renowned surgeon. Face-lifts can't work miracles, but I think Faye's appearance is important to the rice-paper plot. SPOILER!!! It seems that the family is plagued by an illness that affects bad acting...sorry, my little joke. Seriously though, there's all illness that causes their organs to fail and ultimately disintegrate. Yuck, huh? Interestingly enough, Mary Ellen is still alive and all her organs are intact. How did she avoid the Family Curse? Something's up with her, obviously.<br /><br />Another reason for mourning the loss of my thirty dollars--this movie features one of my all-time movie pet peeves. I refer to the double ending. This movie ends twice. I absolutely hate it when that happens, and in this movie it feels like the director shot the ending, didn't like it, and forget to remove it during editing. I guess it's supposed to be scary, but it is only if you're a film editor.<br /><br />There is one perk to this debacle, though, and it's one of the reasons I bought the DVD. The "filmmaker" commentary features Faye Dunaway, and I wanted to see how she acted when she didn't have lines to recite. Guess what--the movie sucked so bad I wasn't able to sit through it again. Drat.

negative

Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.<br /><br />Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.<br /><br />Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.<br /><br />The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.<br /><br />Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.<br /><br />My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter.

negative

Imagine the plight of Richard, a painter, whose real passion is flying. When we first meet him, he is seen atop a building in London wearing his home made wings. He has ripped his canvases and other works, at the height of his despair, and fashions a flying device for his jump. When he falls into the protective police contraption, he doesn't suffer a scratch, but it lands him in front of a judge who orders him to do community service. Richard, whose relationship with Anne apparently ended badly, decides to relocate to a rural area where he finds a place in the country with a large barn he plans to use to construct his own plane.<br /><br />Richard ends up trying to help Jane Harchard reluctantly. She is a young woman suffering from A.L.S., or Lou Gehrig's disease and is confined to a motorized wheel chair. Jane is extremely intelligent, but has a dark side and a salty vocabulary. She uses a hand held device to speak sometimes, as her speech is not clear. What Jane loves to do is to lose her virginity, at any cost. Jane and Richard clash as they meet, but a mutual tolerance soon makes them comfortable with one another.<br /><br />Jane, who watches porn on her computer, has a notion for finding someone like Richard Gere in "American Gigolo", who will, for a fee, have sex with her. When Richard takes her to London, they find the right man for the job. His fee is exorbitant, but they agree. Since they have no money, Richard decides to rob a big bank. Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan when Jane realizes that she can't go through with what she had wanted. At the end, Richard takes Jane for a ride in his crudely built plane for the thrill of her life, something that brings them closer, as they find an affinity with one another.<br /><br />Peter Greengrass directed this quirky film which presents an unusual situation. Jane is clearly not the romantic heroine in mainstream films, and yet, she has such a sweet aura about her that is hard not to feel for her and what she is trying to accomplish. Mr. Greengrass shows an affinity Richar Hawkins' material he wrote for the film. The movie doesn't try to be cute or give a rosy picture of a young woman afflicted with an incurable disease.<br /><br />Helena Bonham Carter is the main reason for watching the film. She makes a wonderful Jane. On the other hand, Kenneth Branagh doesn't seem too well suited for this type of comedy. Somehow, he has problems of his own in the way he interprets Richard. Gemma Jones has some good moments as Anne, Richard's former love.<br /><br />"The Theory of Flight" shows a good director. No doubt Peter Greengrass will go to bigger and better things.

positive

How can you sum up just exactly how feelgood and right and touching this film is?? For several weeks this DVD leaped off the shelf at me every time I went in the store - having seen Steve Carrell in a couple of films previously, I didn't want to smear my thought process of him - so I resisted and resisted, until finally I grabbed it up with a 'What the hell!' attitude! And how surprised was I! I just wish I had purchased it earlier. Having watched it three times in two days I am still smiling at how the portrayal of a widower struggling with three daughters, yearning for that which is missing since the passing of his beloved wife, who thus meets an intriguing woman, charming her in such a profound and interesting (dare I say bookish?) way, throws a whole different light onto life that makes him realize she is what he has been searching for.<br /><br />The snag of that woman being his brothers girl complicates matters - which portray Dan comically shy and with a heartfelt chagrin, seeing his "someone special" bringing such fun and enjoyment into the family home as well as his brothers life. You just really begin to feel for him.<br /><br />Then when the blind date occurs with Ruthie Draper - that is the turning point in Marie's estimation of Dan!! The look she gives him when he repeats her comment, about not liking Ruthie - sheer Green-Eyed Monster! Triggering an absolutely hilarious scene as the two couples compete on the dance floor! This sequence is one of the most well-crafted as Dan starts to loosen up with regard to Marie.<br /><br />Other gut-wrenching scenes - Dan returns from the Book and Tackle Shop, confronted by his brothers, begins to describe what has just occurred....when Dan's face drops it brings a sharp intake of breath!!<br /><br />His youngest daughter Lilly making the present celebrating their love for Suzanne, his late wife, brings a little heartfelt warmth and a little gulp as Dan realizes just what he has lost in life.<br /><br />When Dan plays guitar and sings at the Talent Show....his voice cracking slightly as he reprises the song....absolute gem! <br /><br />The acceptance of what occurs late in the film by his daughters...they all three love their father and want to see him happy, will not let him deny his love for Marie; the desperateness of Dan not to fail his daughters because he is their rock, their stronghold...and tell him so much more than that with just a few words.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I will leave it for now - maybe return and add more comments here in the near future....but I will end by saying....<br /><br />....if you want to watch a film that is just so damn good, with twists of comedy to lighten up the drama, that never feels forced or crass, that comes over as a genuine portrayal of a man discovering new life - not just with a woman but also with his extended family, then look no further.<br /><br />DAN IN REAL LIFE - 9 out of 10 for such a well-rendered cinematic experience with a score by Sondre Lerche, that intimately takes you there throughout whilst never being intrusive, with fine performances by the ensemble cast. I cannot wait to re-watch this again!!

positive

David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.<br /><br />The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.<br /><br />First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.<br /><br />Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.<br /><br />Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.<br /><br />Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying.

negative

My nose is bent slightly out of shape as I write this. I had sent a previous comment on this film some weeks ago that has not yet appeared, so I assume it was rejected, even though it met all the usual guidelines.<br /><br />I found this film interesting for the first thirty minutes, particularly the performance of Jordi Mollà, a veteran actor who has appeared in such major productions as "Blow" and "The Alamo." Leonor Watling is also quite good. Unfortunately, everything sinks eventually under the weight of a truly awful, melodramatic script. There is also an abundance of gratuitous nudity that does nothing to advance the narrative or lend even an impressionistic nuance to what is otherwise a beautifully filmed piece of art.<br /><br />An actual day trip to the beach at Valencia would be much less arduous than having to encounter these fictional characters again anywhere, anytime.

negative

Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid "plot," really pathetic "acting," and so-so "special effects." <br /><br />Some thirty-something year old "post-teens" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!<br /><br />The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image. <br /><br />This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to "act" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain!

negative

When I first saw this movie, it was titled TERROR ON A TRAIN and was the back half of a double feature. Glenn Ford, an armament expert is called on to defuse a hidden bomb on a train loaded with high explosives. The tension is slow and steady; and this black & white film runs only about an hour and twelve minutes. All these years later on TV; the tension and drama has lost most of its impact. This is still a good movie as far as early 50s standards go.<br /><br />Along with Ford are Anne Vernon and Maurice Denham. The villain/saboteur is played by Victor Maddern.

negative

Right at this moment I am watching this movie for the second time (on television) and for the second time I fell into it when it was running for an hour already (I think I saw 2 minutes more this time) This movie is really impressing, the way Goldsworthy looks at nature, changes nature in a way that you yourself would never think of, really is amazing. This whole movie gives you a warm feeling, seeing him play with the world around him with such love. Or only seeing his hands, covered in dirt and with broken fingernails, it just touches you.

positive

I thought that I was never going to find a horror movie as bad as "The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but this film compete with it.<br /><br />I´m not a person that get asleep when watching a movie, but I did it 15 minutes after the Trance started. I woke up, and started to watching it agian. Why did I deserve that? All the movie was a torture, I have to use fast forward to watch it complete.<br /><br />I can´t stand why one of my favourites actors of all time (MR. WALKEN) could done this thing. I have to think that he made the director a favor, or he was really in the need of money, because film after film he is doing, he is ruining himself; and so fast...<br /><br />What about the movie? it´s not scary, stupid plot, characters are awful (but I really liked the one played by Jared Harris), effects are very poor, lack of deaths & blood, etc; in three words, it has anything. And I mean it. Can´t stand how a director can make a film like this.<br /><br />Anyway, When I got more disappointed was when I saw in the video cover, that the film was presented by "Stephen King", I think he could never present this crap, no? (I rented it in Argentina). I not recommend it in a million years.<br /><br />I rate this movie with a 2 out of 10. (As I say in my "Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" review, there will be always a worse movies, thats why it don´t deserves a 1 out of 10)

negative

This 1974 Naschy outing is directed by Leon Klimovsky, and a cursory glance at the publicity photos and packaging might lead you to believe that this medieval romp lies somewhere between "Inquisition" and "Sadomania". Sadly not.<br /><br />This is a strictly PG affair with tame torture sequences, no nudity and little edge at all. Naschy (of whom I am a fan) struts his stuff as Gilles de Lancre, "antiguo Mariscal de la nacion". Sadly he is more pantomime villain than anything else. One gets the feeling with this film that we have seen him (and it) done all before. Strictly therefore for Naschy completest only.

negative

I was pretty surprised with this flick. Even though their budjet was obviously lacking still you have to be impressed that this movie took 7 years to make and still turned out good. The acting was pretty impressive and the story really captivated me. My only complaint would be that the ending really was a little too abrupt for my taste. But hey if your audience is left wanting more then this movie has succeeded.<br /><br />I would really recommend anyone in Hollywood to look up Antonella Ríos who is an excellent Spanish talent (something hard to find now days with all the bad novela over acting). Antonella Ríos truly is a star on the rise.

positive

I have watched this movie three times. The last time, I kept skipping around confusing scenes to find resolution for the plot. Perhaps the plot is not intended to hang together logically. Or perhaps these rough spots are in the plot because Ann's recall of distant events is rather faulty.<br /><br />Take the young Ann Grant (Claire Danes). Here is a young woman who has attended an unnamed college with the scions of a rich family. She must have had help to afford this very expensive education, but never seems to have any family ties at all. She never seems to have any relatives she can turn to when the consequences of one of her disastrous decisions take effect.<br /><br />Ann shares an evening of passion with her great love Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson). Then, when Harris comforts Lila after the tragic death of her brother Buddy, Ann suddenly finds him repulsive and is disgusted with her own behavior. I must have missed something significant here. Ann's behavior seems totally inexplicable. Ann abandons her relationship with Harris and eventually marries one of the groomsmen at Lila's wedding. Despite Ann's rejection of Harris, she continues to hold deep feelings for him on her deathbed.<br /><br />It was obvious from his behavior that Harris was deeply smitten with Ann and would have gladly married her. A scene showing their chance meeting years after Lila's wedding showed that Harris still had deep feelings for Ann.<br /><br />The film showed a pattern for Ann's romantic relationships. She always had a falling out with her men and she rejected them. This pattern held with Harris and two husbands. In contrast, Lila married a man she did not love and she remained with her husband until he died. Perhaps Lila was able to build a relationship because she refused to let her marriage fail.<br /><br />Then came the too convenient reappearance of Lila Ross at Ann's bedside. Apparently Ann's nurse was able to extract enough information from Ann's last few lucid moments to identify and contact Lila. None of this communication appeared on the film.<br /><br />I kept wondering about the house Ann was living in during her final days. How did she afford to buy such a house on the meager earnings of her singing career? Ann always seemed one step ahead of financial disaster while raising her two daughters.<br /><br />On another level, I enjoyed the film's setting and music immensely. The seaside mansion was just so heartbreakingly beautiful. Claire Danes was luminous as the young Ann Grant. She is really quite a talented singer. I much prefer her natural brunette to the bottle blonde look she had in the film extras. If only those pesky CGI fireflies would go away, I could raise the movie a whole point in my vote!

positive

I've bought certain films on disc even though the second rate presentation wasn't an option. A certain company I won't identify here has put out several pan and scan dvds ("Clean and Sober", "Star 80", and this one, to name just three!) of films I don't think anyone wants to see in this compromised format. Some discs give the viewer a choice of 16x9 or full screen and others are just in their theatrical release 1.66:1 ratio.<br /><br />That off my chest, I'll say "Deathtrap" was a spooky and oddly enough, amusing picture. My only complaints are the tinny score (what IS that f____g instrument that is usually dragged out for films set in 18th century France?) and Dyan Cannon screaming at regular intervals. Couldn't her character have been an asthmatic who grabbed for an inhaler when she was stressed? Minor complaints, both. The benefits of discs include being able to fast forward to get beyond those things which you don't like.<br /><br />I never saw a staged version of "Deathtrap", so having these folks in the roles sets a great impression of their careers at the time. Before Broadway tickets cost an arm and a leg, the theatre was more affordable to average people. Now, anyone paying less than a king's ransom to get live entertainment probably isn't going to a hit show on the great hyped way.<br /><br />Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve were both large, virile specimens in the early 80s and that's integral to how we'll react to their profession and overall image here. They're definitely not bookish men who can't fight or will back down from an obstacle. The two are equally great as their criminal stubbornness becomes their ultimate "deathtrap".

positive

For such films like `Anchors Aweigh', few have been bestowed with as many Academy Award accolades in a warm up for happy hour. Either 1945 was a beleaguered year for good film or they were still suffering advance shock by Billy Wilder's `The Lost Weekend' that they wrote anything starting with A on the ballot for best picture to please the still musical picture faithful public. Since Gene Kelly was nominated for this performance instead of his role in `Singin' in the Rain', then there had to be something wrong with the behind the scenes rigging systems at MGM. Of course, the studio is on its best behaviour during this much lauded tour of the great studios and of Hollywood itself, handy for those stuck on the other side of the world.<br /><br />Yet a sailor suit musical with the brilliant talents of Gene and Frank Sinatra is certainly an enjoyable farce, despite the need for more people to yawn at the previews for the musical so today's audiences wouldn't be slapped with an unnecessary runtime. There have been many longer pieces before and since, but in this case all of the charming Kathryn Grayson's scenes could have been eliminated. Until the viewing of `Kiss Me Kate' it may have been necessary non-opera enthusiasts to watch any of her films with remote control in hand. <br /><br />If there was a need to practice picking up women for 1949's `On the Town', then perhaps the shore leave lucky sailors did not have to promise an audition with Jose Iturbi and strike up the piano for a whole hearted `Susie' rendition. Few are lucky to get a screen test at the golden studios of MGM. Then few are even luckier to be attended to. There are no regrets to be had about the successful screen tests of Susan Abbot or Kathryn Grayson, but it makes the continual non-opera enthusiast hope for the eventual pink slip to be handed out to both. <br /><br />But for all, the star talents are good shape and an above average score thrown in with a slight, but fun great navy story intertwined with young ambitious navy boys good for late bursts of wartime morale, makes `Anchors' at least doesn't question picking the wrong MGM film. The direction holds up as the cast carries the story in lovely colour cinematography. Whenever anyone bursts into music or song, the film makes for a joyous occasion.<br /><br />The natural highlight of the film is Gene Kelly's cartoon adventures in a fantasyland, climaxing in a brilliant dance with Jerry the mouse. This is a well-deserved masterpiece number of Kelly's career, and it's nice to know he thought of it before Fred Astaire started taking to dancing on walls and ceilings.<br /><br />It's not exactly sitting down to a triple flavour, rainbow sprinkled, chocolate wafer, cream and cherry and banana split sundae, but it is a square solid lump of sugar that somehow eventually melts in your mouth and despite the guilt, is still a pleasant feeling.<br /><br />Rating: 7/10

positive

I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.

negative

Henri Verneuil's film may be not so famous as Parallax View, 3 Days of the Condor or JFK but it is certainly not worse and sometimes even better than these classic representatives of the genre. Action takes place in fictional western state where fictional president has been killed. After several years of investigation, special government commission decides that president was killed by a lone gunman. But one man - prosecutor Volney, played by Yves Montand - thinks there's something more to be investigated and so the film starts. This movie doesn't deal with some exact theories, but it embraces the whole structure of relationship between government and society in today's world. Such film could be made only in the 1970-ies but it will never lose it's actuality. Furthermore, it's even a bit frightful how precise are it's oracles. 10 out of 10.

positive

I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch. <br /><br />On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the "core" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine. <br /><br />The plot, as I said above, is your classic "underdog-makes-good" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, "Mystery Men" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.<br /><br />It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical ("Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?"), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.<br /><br />(7/10)

positive

For some reason, various young couples hiking through the Italian Alps split up to see who can reach their campsite designation first. James (Gregory Lee Kenyon) enters a cave, finds a skeleton of an ancient demonic gladiator and becomes possessed by the spirit of "Tyranus" when he puts on a helmet belonging to the corpse. He then spends the rest of the film running around in the woods hunting down his friends and hacking off their limbs to add to some stew to bring the undead "Demonicus" back to life. This shot-on-digital Full Moon release is stupid, senseless, has terrible acting and sound and the (Los) Angeles National Forest is a poor substitute for Italy. However, it's pretty high on the unintentional laugh scale thanks mainly to the overwrought lead performance. Whether bug-eyed running around in cheap-looking armor brandishing a sword or spouting neurotic Latin gibberish about demons and resurrection, Kenyon's ridiculous facial expressions and awkward line delivery must be seen to be believed. Oh well, at least he's not boring like most of the rest of the cast.

negative

The dehumanising effect of war is a much-studied subject in the movies; as is the equally dehumanising, but potentially life-saving, dehumanising effect of military training. Joel Schumacher's 'Tigerland' follows the standard template, we see men treated like dirt but emerging as soldiers, with a degree of mutual respect for their commanding officers, and judgement is reserved on whether such an extreme process can be considered justified; as is judgement of the merits of the war for which they are being trained (typically, as here, Vietnam). But 'Tigerland' has an interesting take, by centring its account on a cocky dissident named Bozz (played outstandingly well by Colin Farrell), who understands that all power governs ultimately by consent, and the lack of awareness among the powerless of their own complicity. Around this character, a taught, gripping plot has been constructed, and it's also a plus that the action never leaves America (whereas Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket', to name just one other film of a similar type, lost focus once the action shifted to Asia). Although this is not a film of staggering originality, it's supremely well done and captivating viewing throughout: the best film from this director that I've seen, and among the very best of its genre.

positive

I can't believe it, IMDb really does have every TV show known to man! I have not seen this show in over 20 years. I only remember two episodes, and I barely remember those. I remember that Tony may not been on from the start, because one of the episodes I remember is the one in which everybody trying to get Tony to join, but he rejects them, but typically at the end of the show he becomes a member of Power House, with everybody cheering.<br /><br />The other one I remember is the one where Lolo for some reason pretends to be dead,(complete with funeral and mourners). I don't remember why he plays dead, or how the show ends.<br /><br />This is one of those shows that I convinced myself that I must have dreamed up since no one else had ever heard of it.

negative

Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable "whipping". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, "Whipped" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think "The Man Show" is Emmy material.

negative

Prof. Janos Rukh (Boris Karloff) discovers Radium X--a powerful force to be used for atomic power. Unfortunately Rukh has been contaminated by the Radium and starts to glow in the dark--and his touch causes instant death. Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi) develops an antidote--but Rukh starts to go mad due to the Radium AND the antidote and sets out to kill all he believed wronged him.<br /><br />The plot is silly and the "effects" that make Karloff glow in the dark are laughable, but this is still a fun little chiller. It moves quickly, has some great atmosphere (notice Rukh's "house" and the movie starts on a dark and rainy night) and Karloff and Lugosi (as always) give great performances. There is also good acting by Franic Drake (as Rukh's wife) and Violet Kemble Cooper (as his mother). So it's OK but just a notch below all the other Karloff/Lugosi movies. The plot is just too far-fetched for me to swallow. Still I did like this. I give it a 7.

positive

This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)<br /><br />I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.

negative

Steely, powerful gangster supreme Frankie Diomede (the always terrific Lee Van Cleef in fine rugged form) has himself arrested and sent to prison so he can rub out a traitorous partner sans detection. Fawning goofball small-time hood and wiseguy wannabe Tony Breda (an amiable portrayal by Tony Lo Bianco) gets busted as well. Frank and Tony form an unlikely friendship behind bars. Tony helps Frank break out of the joint and assists him on his quest to exact revenge on a rival group of mobsters lead by the ruthless Louis Annunziata (smoothly played by Jean Rochefort). Director Michele Lupo, working from an absorbing script by Sergio Donati and Luciano Vincenzoni, relates the neat story at a constant brisk pace, sustains a suitably gritty, but occasionally lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the rousing action set pieces with considerable rip-snorting brio (a rough'n'tumble jailhouse shower brawl and a protracted mondo destructo car chase rate as the definite thrilling highlights). Van Cleef and Lo Bianco display a nice, loose and engaging on-screen chemistry; the relationship between their characters is alternately funny and touching. The ravishing Edwige Fenech alas isn't given much to do as Tony's whiny girlfriend Orchidea, but at least gets to bare her insanely gorgeous and voluptuous body in a much-appreciated gratuitous nude shower scene. Riz Ortolani's groovy, pulsating, syncopated funk/jazz score certainly hits the soulfully swingin' spot. The polished cinematography by Joe D'Amato and Aldo Tonti is likewise impressive. A really nifty and entertaining little winner.

positive

Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film

negative

I am a Jane Eyre lover and a purist, and this version includes almost all of the important details of the book, and the characters are portrayed as I imagined them. Jane Eyre is a complex story of great richness and can't be delivered properly in a feature-length format, so it needs a TV mini-series. Timothy Dalton's Rochester is probably the best ever. There has been a lot of discussion about how attractive he is and his age. In the book, Jane (the narrator) describes him as "about 35" and not young, but not yet middle aged. I think Timothy Dalton was about 38 when he made this, so that is about right. Also, we only have Jane's opinion of whether Rochester is handsome. She only just met him and he asks her bluntly what she thinks. As an inexperienced and humble girl, I can't imagine her saying she did think him handsome. The actor playing Rochester needs to show us the character of the man, and this is fulfilled to perfection. I love the relationship between the two leads, which is the crucial thing about this story, and the humour of their encounters. Other versions have blown it, but this gets it right. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens (aged 37 years) is in progress on BBC1 and is very good indeed, so I will decide whether that is my favourite when it is completed.<br /><br />On viewing this series again, after watching the 2006 version, I have decided that this version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark is the best! Charlotte Bronte's dialogue is preserved and this is essential to the power of the story. Modernisation just doesn't work - it's a Victorian story and having archaic poetic speech suits the characters. This version has an excellent cast - Zelah Clark is tiny and the difference in height between her and Rochester is important; Timothy Dalton has real presence and is an amazing actor. There are no extra scenes to divert from the plot and the screenplay includes all the essential scenes, but leaves out unnecessary details, making it to the point and gripping. I recommend it to all true Jane Eyre fans.

positive

My family and I screened Underdog the night before. And as bad as Underdog is ( my four year old loved it), Hot Rod makes it look like Oscar worthy material. The only thing that could have saved this movie, was if Evel himself had come out of retirement to slap Samberg in the face for making this movie. I will admit however, that the soundtrack was good. I wasn't sure if the movie was set in the 80's, but with the majority of the music coming from Europe? Who knows. If I were you, I would take a pass. And just stay at home and watch the test pattern on your local TV station. Or if you are dead set on watching this, people under the influence might enjoy it.

negative

Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.

positive

Utter dreck. I got to the 16 minute/27 second point, and gave up. I'd have given it a negative number review if that were possible (although 'pissible' is a more fitting word...). Unlike the sizzle you could see and practically feel between MacMurray and Stanwyck in the original, the chemistry between dumb ol' Dicky Crenna and whats-her-face here is just non-existent. The anklet becomes an unattractive chunky bracelet? There's no ciggy-lighting-by-fingertip? And I thought I'd be SICK when they have a mortified-looking (and rightly so, believe you me) Lee J. Cobb as Keyes practically burping/upchucking his way through the explanation of his "Little Man" to Mr. Garloupis. No offence to the non-sighted, but it looks as though a posse of blind men ran amuck with the set design of both the Dietrichson and Neff houses. The same goes for those horrid plaid pants that Phyllis wears. And crikey, how much $$ does Neff make, that he lives overlooking a huge marina? This, folks, again, all takes place in the first 16 and a half minutes. If you can get through more of it, you have a much stronger constitution than me, or you are a masochist. But please, take some Alka-Seltzer first, or you WILL develop a "little man" of your own that may never go away. Proceed with caution, obviously.

negative

I lived in Tokyo for 7 months. Knowing the reality of long train commutes, bike rides from the train station, soup stands, and other typical scenes depicted so well, certainly added to my own appreciation for this film which I really, really liked. There are aspects of Japanese life in this film painted with vivid colors but you don't have to speak Japanese to enjoy this movie. Director Suo's tricks were subtle for the most part; I found his highlighting the character called Tamako Tamura with a soft filter, making her sublime, a tiny bit contrived but most of the directors tricks were so gentle that I was fully pulled in and just danced with his characters. Or cried. Or laughed aloud. Wonderful. A+.

positive

Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.

negative

This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.<br /><br />If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.<br /><br />What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?

negative

The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.

negative

You don't need to read this review.<br /><br />An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.<br /><br />Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.<br /><br />The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.<br /><br />I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. <br /><br />This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.<br /><br />The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.<br /><br />Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.<br /><br />It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.<br /><br />Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.<br /><br />Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.<br /><br />Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.<br /><br />The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.<br /><br />It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.<br /><br />This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.<br /><br />The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.<br /><br />A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.<br /><br />Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.<br /><br />Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.<br /><br />This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.

positive

If you are used to seeing Gabriel Byrne in serious roles such as Tom in Millers Crossing or Keaton in The Usual Suspects I recommend you take a look at this film. Even if you are not a fan of Gabriel Byrne in particular, all the actors in this film give really great performances. If you've got about eleven bucks (that is close to nine quid) I say order it online, or rent it from you favorite movie rental place. Guaranteed to make you laugh, whether or not you normally like gangster type movies. Mad Dog Time/Trigger Happy is one of those movies you never forget, and find yourself watching over and over. You will talk about it so much your friends will be begging to borrow it.

positive

I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.

negative

A stunning film of high quality.<br /><br />Apparently based on true events which, as told, has the clear ring of truth about it, this movie is highly emotional and deeply moving.<br /><br />An abused and neglected child often becomes wayward in adulthood, as one of life's failures, be it as a gangster, drug addict or burden on society.<br /><br />Antwone Fisher as a young adult in the navy, is troubled. He is on the brink of being a loser. He is counselled in therapy by a psychiatrist and it is that relationship which takes center stage in the play.<br /><br />In flash-backs and therapy the source and remedies to Antwones angst are revealed.<br /><br />Outstanding performances from the whole cast. The story is in effect a family tragedy with emotional and physical torment. All the actors give full blooded performances with conviction and realism.<br /><br />One message from the movie is the importance of raising children decently.<br /><br />The real Antwone deserves success. To have endured wickedness as a child but to rise above that, shows a magnificent character.<br /><br />And to all those out there who have endured such torment but to have survived and succeeded: you are all winners. 10 out of 10.

positive

As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!

positive

I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan. <br /><br />First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics.

positive

This is the best Emma in existence in my opinion. Having seen the other version (1996) which is also good, and read the book, I think I can safely say with confidence that this is the true interpretation and is the most faithful to Jane Austen's masterpiece. The 1996 movie with G. Paltrow is good too, it's just that it's almost like a different story altogether. It's very light and fluffy, you don't see the darker edges of the characters and if you just want a pleasant movie, that one would do fine but the intricacies of some of the plot points, such as the Churchill/Fairfax entanglement is so much glossed over as to be virtually non-existent. But if you want the characters fleshed out a bit, more real and multidimensional, the 1996 TV version is the superior. Emma is a remarkable person, but she is flawed. Kate Beckinsale is masterful at showing the little quirks of the character. You see her look casually disgusted at some of the more simple conversation of Harriet Smith, yet she shows no remorse for having ruined Harriet's proposal until that action has the effect of ruining her own marital happiness at the ending. You see her narcissism and it mirrors Frank Churchill's in that they would do harm to others to achieve their own aims. For Emma, it was playing matchmaker and having a new friend to while away the time with after having suffered the loss of her governess to marriage. For Frank Churchill, it is securing the promise of the woman he loves while treating her and others abominably to keep the secret. In the book, she realizes all of this in a crushing awakening to all the blunders she has made. Both Kate Beckinsale and Gyneth Paltrow are convincing in their remorse but Paltrow's is more childlike and stagnant while Beckinsale's awakening is rather real and serious and you see the transition from child-like, selfish behavior to kind and thoughtful adult. Both versions are very good but I prefer this one.

positive

"A Mouse in the House" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.<br /><br />This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».<br /><br />If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the "rear" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too.

positive

I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.<br /><br />My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!

negative

This move reminded my of Tales from the Crypt Keeper. It has the same sort of idea of people get what they deserve. I think that's always the them in a Crypt story. The same goes for the bad acting. Very bad acting. I enjoyed the movie knowing that most people didn't like it and I wasn't expecting much. Whenever I watch a stephen King movie I don't expect much because all his movies are awful compared to the genius of his novels. I have read The Shining and Carrie and they were great books. I love how Carrie played out like it was a true story and the whole book is a bunch of reports and theories and such. It was so good. But I noticed that both of the novels were nothing like the movies. The endings were very different then the movie versions. I assume from those two novels that all of his novels are changed greatly and the endings are always cheesy. I ending of Thinner is the worst. So Cheesy. I want to read the book to find out the real ending. I suggest everyone who intends to read stephen King's novels to watch his movies before hand so that you may compare. And that way you will be greatly satisfied in the book. I intend on doing so with all his novels that were made into movies. I'm sure if they were made into movies they were real good books... and the screenplay went terribly wrong.

negative

If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.

negative

<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10

negative

The plot was dull, the girls were sickening and the supposed Italian male lead had clearly never heard an Italian accent.Someone said the boys were cute in this film but it just seemed to be filled with mediocre people. There were literally no redeeming features about this film.<br /><br />I think this is a graveyard for actors that will never work again, with the unfortunate exception of the Olsen twins who seem to fascinate people for no discernible reason.<br /><br />I hope the Olsen twins find something out of the limelight to keep them away from the entertainment business. They have no place in it.

negative

I saw this show about 3-4 years ago. It was dam Funny! When i first time i saw it was playing on ETV(Estonian Television) And i started to like it. Too bad that that show is on bad time for me. Hyde is like a cool guy who likes to sing Frank Sinatra! And he comes on stupid ideas. He got these glasses which h are brown. I like it . And there's FeZ. The group Pervert. We all know what he does when his alone..... He wants to get laid badly. He even had it with his boss in one episode.His from India. And there is Michael , The stupidest guy on whole group , probably stupidest in town and his a cop! He is so stupid that i remember follows: Hyde says: Did u called cops ? - No Michael comes in and says. Does anyone know how to turn off siren? He is a town playboy. Then comes Jackie , who is former girlfriend of Michael and then she's Hyde's girlfriend. Then is Eric Who's son of grumpy war veteran and son of Kitty the housewife. His one big pussy. But he loves Donna , his girlfriend with who they plan for they're marriage. Donna is one hot girl. Hmm what i forget? ah Hyde lives in a basement .

positive

I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest.

positive

I'm still new to the Krimi genre and the only one I've seen prior to seeing this one was the earlier and somewhat disappointing 'The Dead Eyes of London', which didn't exactly inspire a great hope for the rest of the genre in me. If I'd seen this one first, however, the feeling would have been different as while The College Girl Murders is a bizarre and rather wacky attempt at a crime flick; it's great fun to watch and it's really hard to hate a film that throws so many weird and wonderful ideas into the script and manages to pull it off with style. The film begins in a lab where a crazy scientist has invented a new and highly toxic poison that kills its victim and makes it look like they died from a heart attack. This poison is used by a mysterious criminal mastermind who breaks common criminals out of jail to carry out his murders using this poison (and then has them put back in jail). As the title suggests, it's a nearby college full of girls that provides most of the victims. There's also a mysterious monk dressed in a red robe who marauds around breaking necks with a bullwhip.<br /><br />Of course, with a plot like that; this is not exactly a serious affair and the director clearly knows that as there is a very tongue-in-cheek vibe to the film, which does bode well with the plot. The fact that there are so many different sides to the plot does unfortunately mean that everything does not run smoothly; although this isn't a big problem as things are kept ticking over nicely throughout the film and there's always enough going on to keep the audience interested. The atmosphere is superb and the colour scheme on display is great too look at. Of course, the film is based on an Edgar Wallace novel and clearly the man has a great imagination; the locations used are also superb and while a killer's lair decked out with a host of wild and exotic animals might not serve any relevance to the plot, it does help to give the film that extra 'something'. You cant expect a conclusion that fully makes sense after all the stuff that goes on in this film; but the reason for the murders sort of makes sense and is a satisfying way for the film to climax. Overall, College Girl Murders is an excellent little mystery flick and one that comes highly recommended!

positive

This isn't another searing look at the Holocaust but rather an intimate story about the events that took place on a small street in Berlin and some of the people that were involved. This film starts in the present time in New York City where Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) is in mourning over the death of her husband and family members have all gathered to her side. Ruth's daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader) slowly learns that her mother was raised by an Aryan woman named Lena Fischer (Doris Schade) and so she travels to Germany and locates the 90 year old who tells her about the events on Rosenstrasse.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Lena talks about Berlin in 1943 where the Gestapo would hold all the Jewish spouses in a building on Rosenstrasse Street even though they are supposed to have immunity for being married to Aryans and for nine days a group of women would wait outside and shout for their release. Eight year old Ruth (Svea Lohde) awaits for her mother to come out and has nowhere to go but she meets 33 year old Lena (Katja Riemann) who takes her in. Lena's husband Fabian (Martin Feifel) is also inside and eventually she tries to socialize with Nazi Officers to get them to do something.<br /><br />This film is directed by Margarethe von Trotta who is making her first feature film in almost 10 years after working in television and while this is clearly not one of her more provocative efforts she remains one of the most revered directors in Europe. This is not one of those Nazi films where we view horrible acts of inhumanity to Jews although we do see some severe treatment being issued out but instead this is more of a retelling of a small event that meant life and death to the people involved. This film isn't trying to shock anyone or open the door to debates on the circumstances but what it simply wants to do is just shed a light on a small but true life event that occurred during an historical period. Part of the films strength comes from its actors and there are some good performances that shine through especially by Riemann and young Lohde and it's always good to see Schrader (Aimee & Jaguar) in a pivotal role. This isn't a great film or something that's going to change your perspective on WWII but considering that innocent lives were put to death because of the events that took place I think that reason alone is important enough to retell this true story.

positive

I went to see this movie simply to see what all the hype is about, and I was as disappointed as surprised about how it got 6(?) Oscars and 7.9 rating on IMDb as of today.<br /><br />Kathryn Bigelow should be the luckiest director ever to win the best picture and best direction Oscar for this sort of a really really bad movie and I wonder why? Did the totally unrealistic 'cowboy' bomb disposal-man storyline mean anything to somebody that I failed see? Why did I keep getting the mental image that this movie was a remake of some old bad Western movie about a cowboy doing 'brave deeds' in the Wild Wild West infected with 'evil' Red Indians; but just that it was set in a different background this time? Was it given the Oscars because the director being ex of James Cameron, and made it a nice underdog (gossipy) story for day time TV shows to munch on? Or was it some sort of Emperor's Clothes syndrome - where most people realized it was junk but just couldn't say so because others didn't seem to be saying it out aloud?<br /><br />And finally what was with that sniper scene where they showed the shell casing dropping in high-resolution-super-slow-mo as if to convey a 'deep message' or something? Something in the lines of 'EOD guys make good snipers all of a sudden and they will get the filthy terrorists all the time'? Was it just me who felt like there were so many bits and pieces here and there in the movie squeezed in for no apparent reason? And you can get the Oscars for editing and directing for that??<br /><br />If you haven't seen this yet, don't waste your money on tickets. Wait till they run it on TV in a few years. You are not going to miss much.

negative

Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.<br /><br />"The Fear: Resurrection" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween" ("Fear 2: One Night of Halloween")

negative

Like TALK RADIO, THE BOOTH is actually kinda predictable (TALK RADIO because we know the truth of what happened going in, THE BOOTH because of- let's face it- the genre and the basic set-up). That's not necessarily a bad thing, in this case. It means, in essence, that the filmmakers don't punk out in the end the way they might've in, say, an American version of this story. THE BOOTH moves inexorably toward its (foregone) conclusion, but is so beautifully crafted on every level that one can enjoy the ride the way one might a familiar cruise along a well-travelled stretch of (very scenic) road. It reminds me of Harlan Ellison's spooky short story, FLOP SWEAT. The claustrophobia is, at times, almost palpable. Worth a nice long look.

positive

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

negative

Rated R for Strong Language,Violent Content and Some Nudity. Quebec Rating:13+ Canadian Home Video Rating:14A<br /><br />Fear Of A Black Hat is one of the funniest, most original comedies I have ever seen.Its basically a gangsta rap version of the film This Is Spinal Tap.Its a shame not many people have heard of this gem of a film.If you manage to find this film anywhere don't hesitate to buy it even if you don't like rap music.There are not too many comedy films that I give a perfect 10/10 to.The only ones I can think of at the moment are this film,Clerks,The World According To Garp,The 40 Year Old Virgin and Chasing Amy.This film is a hilarious stereotype of the gangsta rap culture.The movie is about a woman named Nina Blackburn who is making a documentary about the fictional rap group N.W.H(N****z with hats).They are basically the stereotype of a rap group making many controversial rap songs about killing and being a gangsta.Fear Of A Black Hat is an excellent comedic film and I recommend it even if you are not a fan of the gangsta rap scene.Its a shame this film is not in the Top 250.<br /><br />Runtime:88min <br /><br />10/10

positive

I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.<br /><br />Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.<br /><br />Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.

negative

This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<

negative

I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: "I'll have the Cola Grande!" It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty!

negative

The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.

negative

There is a certain genius behind this movie. I was laughing throughout. The scene in the phone sex office, discussing how love heals the doppelganger was a nice attempt at this genius/humor. Execution is poor, but you can see the writer's message and they do have some talent. The doppelganger split at the end was like... "ok, wasn't quite expecting that but let's see what the movie has to say". Certainly ridiculous, but a sweet idea and actually very coherent to the story in a strange way.<br /><br />Is the point of a movie to be logical or is it to be entertaining or communicate on an emotional level? i'm easily bored by many movies, but this one kept my interest throughout.<br /><br />I think the story may have some auto-biographical roots, but that's just a guess. Horribly bad, but good. I'm looking for other movies this person may have done (with more experience).

positive

This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her "picture" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then.

negative

Christopher Lloyd is funny and really believable as "Al the head angel". This movie is much better than the first, but it has great special effects that the first did not have as well as a much better plot and writing.<br /><br />OK - it was written for kids, but adults have as much fun as the kids do. Tony Danza does a very realistic job in his role - but this is NOT a Taxi reunion.<br /><br />Danny Glover is actually good and even seems to be very human in his emotions as well as showing some real acting talent for a change, a pleasant change.<br /><br />Watch at least once - it is worth the effort to catch it.

positive

I love Eddie Izzard. I think this is awesome, and the other television specials should be looked at as well. He has a good book "Dress To Kill" out to buy as well, which I think people should read. I loved that this program won an Emmy, and anyone who likes history will probably get a laugh from Eddie. Enjoy :)

positive

I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).<br /><br />I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.<br /><br />This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).

negative

Good movie, very 70s, you can not expect much from a film like this,, Sirpa Lane is an actress of erotic films, a nice body but nothing exceptional savant to a pornographic actress from the body disappears, but the '70s were characterized a small breasts and a simple eroticism. Not demand a lot from these films are light years away from the movies today, the world has changed incredibly. The plot is simple and the actors not extraordinary. And the brunette actress has a single body, has one breast slightly bigger. Be satisfied. Papaya also is not great but at least these films have a certain charm ... Download them again but then again who knows what you pretend not to them.

positive

An excellent movie. Superb acting by Mary Alice, Phillip M. Thomas, and a young Irene Cara. Tony King was very realistic in his role of Satin. This movie was one of the last predominately "all black" movies of the 70's and unlike the "blaxploitation" movies of that era, this movie actually had a plot, and was very well done. The movie soundtrack, sung by Aretha Franklin, was popular on the R&B charts at the time.

positive

My favorite "Imperialism" movie and one of the best action-adventure flicks of all time. Grant, McLaglen and Fairbanks dominate the screen with daring-do and wise cracks to please all but the most "PC" of film goers. Memorable scenes abound -- the 3 sergeants and their 20 sepoys fighting off hundreds of Thugs; MacChesney & Cutter giving Bobby Coote the spiked punch ("save some for the elephant"); Cutter to MacChesney -- "I'm an expedition"; Din breaking Cutter out of jail, with a fork ("what do you think I'm trying to break out of? A bleedin' pudding?!) And the incredible temple scene with Cutter singing and then annoucing, bold as brass -- "All right, you're all under arrest!"<br /><br />I could go on, but suffice it to say I try to catch this film whenever it is on. For armchair adventurers and generals, it's hard to imagine a better 2 hours.

positive

Worry not, Disney fans--this special edition DVD of the beloved Cinderella won't turn into a pumpkin at the strike of midnight. One of the most enduring animated films of all time, the Disney-fide adaptation of the gory Brothers Grimm fairy tale became a classic in its own right, thanks to some memorable tunes (including "A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes," "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo," and the title song) and some endearingly cute comic relief. The famous slipper (click for larger image) We all know the story--the wicked stepmother and stepsisters simply won't have it, this uppity Cinderella thinking she's going to a ball designed to find the handsome prince an appropriate sweetheart, but perseverance, animal buddies, and a well-timed entrance by a fairy godmother make sure things turn out all right. There are a few striking sequences of pure animation--for example, Cinderella is reflected in bubbles drifting through the air--and the design is rich and evocative throughout. It's a simple story padded here agreeably with comic business, particularly Cinderella's rodent pals (dressed up conspicuously like the dwarf sidekicks of another famous Disney heroine) and their misadventures with a wretched cat named Lucifer. There's also much harrumphing and exposition spouting by the King and the Grand Duke. It's a much simpler and more graceful work than the more frenetically paced animated films of today, which makes it simultaneously quaint and highly gratifying.

positive

The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual, – you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," –but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work – a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.

negative

Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.<br /><br />It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credential<br /><br />Do yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.<br /><br />The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.

negative

This show is freaking hilarious! the jokes are original, god and i Love Eric and Kelso! yeah i know what they say, after the 8th season it's not funny anymore because Eric and Kelso are no longer in the show, and Randy is a real dumbass. Randy is, comparing to Eric and Kelso. <br /><br />you cant take the funniest characters and switch em with "I'm a cool guy" kind of guy (Randy). it isn't his fault anyway, but the writers are trying to keep the 8th season funny, it's still is, not as much as the earlier seasons, but its alright.<br /><br />the 360's are awesome, the circle, Red is a real kind of mental-abusing dad :) and kitty is always half-high half-pie. Hyde tries to be cool all the time, he has his moments too. the least favrioutes characters are Jackie and Donna. they're cool, but not without Kelso and Eric.<br /><br />great show. Dumbass!

positive

...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.<br /><br />All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.<br /><br />If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!!

positive

Wonderful film that mixes documentary and fiction in a way that makes the spectator question: what is the extent of truth in documentary films or is there such a thing as an objective documentary.

positive

Watching this Movie? l thought to myself, what a lot of garbage. These girls must have rocks for brains for even agreeing to be part of it. Waste of time watching it, faint heavens l only hired it. The acting was below standard and story was unbearable. Anyone contemplating watching this film, please save your money. The film has no credit at all. l am a real film buff and this is worse than "Attack of the Green Tomatoes".<br /><br />l only hope that this piece of trash didn't cost too much to make. Money would have been better spent on the homeless people of the world. l only hope there isn't a sequel in the pipeline.

negative

Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.<br /><br />The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie.

negative

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

negative

I have waited a long time for someone to film a faithful version of H.G. Wells' classic novel, "War Of The Worlds". Timothy Hines has finally done it! I just couldn't believe how good it was! From the acting, to the costuming, the out-of-this world special effects, I just can't say enough!It was wonderful! Dramatic, intense, full of first-rate performances by a top-notch cast! It's got to be seen to be believed. I sure didn't. And I've read all those negative comments by the others, and can't believe what they were saying. We must've been watching a different movie, huh? And those real bad comments by that vepsaian guy, guy whoever he is, well, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.<br /><br />Keep up the good work, mr. Hines.

positive

If you like film, don't miss this one. If you prefer action, or horror, or romance, then you'll wonder what's happening. Everyone here is stuck in a gangster film. And what happens is transcendental murder.<br /><br />There are few similar films. No doubt it will see limited release, and be hard to find. But the search will be worth it. If you want to study a mileu as a potential symbol, then this is indeed a film to study.<br /><br />You can't watch it once. If you do you'll never see what's happening. Dark City is better. Joe Vrs. The Volcano is more fun. But Mad Dog Time could convert the gangsta crowd to symbolism. . .or at least to think twice before shooting again.

positive

Animal Farm (1954) was a very good read about the dangers of totalitarianism. How good ideals can be changed and distorted by those who are ignorant or rule with an iron fist and an empty head. Sadly this movie does not portray either of these. What we're shown is a propaganda piece with a lot of finger waving and pointing. The animation and the direction were good considering the budget and the time period but the very essence of George Orwell's novel is sorely missing.<br /><br />If you're one of those who want to see how not to adapt a novel or are just interested in seeing an adaptation of this brilliant novelette then by all means watch. I just found this one to be somewhat mediocre. Just one man's opinion however.<br /><br />The remake is a notch below but not by much.

negative

No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!

negative

Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution – his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier – talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.<br /><br />Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life – living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army – swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.<br /><br />Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast – Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy – that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.

negative