Datasets:

harpreetmann

/

imdb_with_label_text

like 0

Jack Black's character, Tim Dingman the "Dreamer" in Envy, finds wealth and success in the idea of a aerosol spray "Vapoorize" that when sprayed on doggie dung, makes the poo disappear into thin air. <br /><br />For a moment I was hoping that Vapoorize was a real product so that I could spray it on this "stinker" of a movie and make it disappear into thin air as well.<br /><br />Although Envy is not the worst movie that I have seen in the past 12 months (that honor goes to The Cat in the Hat), it does get the honor of a close second.<br /><br />Not funny, not sad, not anything. A real "Stinkeroo"!!!!!<br /><br />A 0.2 out of 10!!

negative

"Shadrach" was not my favorite type of movie. I found it overly sentimental and the acting was below par. Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell were good but some of the other actors weren't at all believable. I also did not believe that Paul's parents would go away and leave him with the Dabney family, especially when they had a housekeeper living in the home. Their social classes were too far apart to consider this believable. It seemed the Dabney's lifestyle was too exaggerated. There was a scene in the beginning of the movie that showed Andie MacDowell getting out of a car after having sex with someone. Who was it? Her son? What was the scene supposed to show us? Why was the scene even included? It had nothing to do with the rest of the movie and was in fact never alluded to again. It seemed gratuitous and not fitting into the story at all. There were too many inconsistencies in the movie for me. The story concerning Shadrach was nice but I wasn't convinced that the Dabneys would have been as kind and generous as they were portrayed.

negative

Acidic, unremitting, and beautiful, John Schlesinger's masterpiece is no less effective today than 35 years ago, when American life was even more disorienting. The film probably could not have been made at any other time in history, because so many upheavals were taking place in the late 1960s: final dissolution of the Great American West, the intensification of war in Vietnam, and the clash of social ideals that were bewildering in variety.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' is widely known as the only Academy Award-winning film to garner an 'X' rating, but there is much more behind its fame; it also exceeds the norm as a work of art. While this film (from the novel by James Leo Herlihy) has much to say about the erosion of American life, it transcends '60s politics by looking into the hidden bonds of friendship and dealing with themes familiar to man in all eras. The two main characters, in fact, are standard antiheroes - men who have nothing grand to offer but plenty to vent about our world.<br /><br />The initial focus of 'Midnight Cowboy' is on 28-year-old Joe Buck, a physically imposing Texas native played by Jon Voight. In the opening scenes, we follow Joe's bus trip to New York City, where he plans on using one of his few genuine talents - the ability to pleasure women - and earn his fortune as a hustler. We learn upon his arrival that Joe is laughably naïve in the sex trade. Garbed in cowboy duds and proclaiming himself as 'one hell of a stud,' the young Texan flounders through his early tricks before partnering with Enrico 'Ratso' Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), a sickly con man and petty thief from the Bronx. Ratso, who is short, thin, and with a limp, proves of little monetary help to Joe. They quickly run out of cash and as life grows severe in the winter months, Joe and Ratso shiver in a condemned Manhattan apartment building with hardly a dollar or square meal to their names. It is over this period that a strong friendship develops between them, the two men relying on each other to battle tremendous odds.<br /><br />Throughout the film, Joe hearkens back to earlier years in Texas, including life with his grandmother Sally (Ruth White), who served as guardian; his harried relationship with 'Crazy' Annie (Jennifer Salt), a notorious local girl; and a traumatic event in which Joe and Annie were assaulted by town folk who wanted to break up the love affair. Very much of its time, 'Midnight Cowboy' strings together a wild array of flashbacks, dream sequences, and psychedelic imagery that shed light on the main characters while also distorting their backgrounds. For every moment of understanding we gain from Joe and Ratso, more questions about their lives are generated. Both men are no doubt in tatters; they have no clear sense of direction until Ratso falls into the throes of illness and Joe finally senses a purpose for being alive. This revelation pushes 'Midnight Cowboy' to its conclusion, a rather hopeful one in a very grim story.<br /><br />While Joe and Ratso badly need some luck, the direction of John Schlesinger is clearly outlined and uses the gritty atmosphere of Waldo Salt's screenplay in allowing Voight and Hoffman to thrive. Their interactions look extremely natural and the supporting cast, which features Sylvia Miles, Brenda Vaccaro, and members of the Andy Warhol clique, offers itself as an essential part of the storyline. The flashback sequences involving Voight, Ruth White, and Jennifer Salt are particularly impressive in dealing with the heartbreak of time lost.<br /><br />Any young person wondering about the psychedelic era is advised to watch this film, thanks to the excellent cinematography of Adam Holender ('The Boy Who Could Fly,' 'Smoke') and editing by Hugh Robertson ('Shaft'). The visuals of 'Midnight Cowboy' work with its soundtrack (assembled by John Barry) as a cohesive unit, sometimes foreseeing music videos of the past two decades. The lead song Everybody's Talking is sung by Nilsson, which was actually used as a temporary track during the editing phase. The memorable harmonica theme is played by Jean 'Toots' Thielemans.<br /><br />'Midnight Cowboy' has been released in a two-disc collector's edition by MGM/UA, which contains expanded features and commentary. Also available is a 1998 DVD release (used for this review), which offers dual widescreen and standard format with 5.1 Dolby Digital sound enhancement; three-language subtitles and closed captioning; French 'dubbing'; a theatrical re-release trailer (not the 'original' as advertised); and an eight-page production booklet. Both DVD editions contain a 25th anniversary restored version of the film, showing its original brilliance. Well-deserving of its three Oscars (best picture, Schlesinger, Waldo Salt) and additional nominations (Voight, Hoffman, Sylvia Miles, Hugh Robertson), 'Midnight Cowboy' will be sure to hold its place on the list of immortal classics.<br /><br />*** ½ out of 4

positive

I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something "freakish" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.<br /><br />So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).

negative

Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.

negative

As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, "I came for the science." This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming "The Birds" but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.<br /><br />The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of "B" movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.<br /><br />This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.<br /><br />If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.<br /><br />One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, "wait for Tom" as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.<br /><br />As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, "my goal is to evolve the human species" - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about.

negative

Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.<br /><br />That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.<br /><br />Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.<br /><br />The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.<br /><br />Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.<br /><br />Tom Willett

negative

Across the country and especially in the political landscape, people with any kind of political ambition, should take time out to see this film. The movie is called " City Hall " and with little imagination, its synopsis can take place anywhere in America. It just so happens to open in New York. Here we have the story of a popular politician named Mayor John Pappas (Al Pacino) with enough savvy to run a major metropolitan city with very little effort. His right-hand man is none other than Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun (John Cusack) an equally bright individual who's ambitions are tied to his mentor and both seemed destined for higher office. Everything points in that direction, until a police shooting ignites an investigation spearheaded by Marybeth Cogan (Bridget Fonda) who believes the guilt points towards city hall and the mayor. A six year old boy and a police officer's death are blamed on a career criminal who's questionable freedom leads to an apparent cover-up by political pay-offs and city corruption involving union leaders like Danny Aiello played by Frank Anselmo, corrupt judicial officials like Judge Walter Stern. (Martin Landau) and mafia bosses like Paul Zapatti (Anthony Franciosa) who are deeply involved. Also implicated, are party officials like Larry Schwartz (Richard Schiff) who works for the probation office of New York. But it is the bond between the mayor and his deputy which is taken to task by the accidental shooting. A great vehicle for Cusack and a sure bet nominee to become a classic. ****

positive

This movie is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. From the very first scene, i knew it would be a smash crash. It starts with a seemingly bad girl killing a bunch of nuns in a mission. As it turns out, the people in it were possessed by some random zombies. Well, some years later, some college kids are pulling some pledge prank. Horrible acting goes from pledge to the head jock. Things like the jock yelling at him to do stuff in quite a non-chalonte manner, with pledge over reacting and over-doing the whole "eager to be popular role" What really took the cake with this one is the final battle. Absolutely HORRIBLE special effects with the guns. For example, guns making a noise with no muzzle flash, and vice-versa. this is accompanied by stop-animation zombies (why they move in stop motion is a mystery), cheesy music, and about 40 guns that come out of nowhere.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is crap. Just like so many others you can rent for 50 cents at your nearest low brow movie rental place.

negative

In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.<br /><br />But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.<br /><br />Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...<br /><br />And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.<br /><br />However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.<br /><br />Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.<br /><br />2 out of 10

negative

Saw this late one night on cable. At the time I didn't know that the girl billed as "Shannon Wilsey" was actually porn star Savannah, but she was so beautiful (and got naked so often, thank God) that I actually sat through this brain-rotting drivel. I like cheesy flicks as much as the next guy--more than the next guy, actually--but this was way beyond cheesy and more into rancid. The truly annoying overacting by the mad scientist and the director's, writers' and special effects people's virtually total incompetence detracts from the gratuitous nudity that is the movie's only saving grace. Savannah, before she turned into the plasticized Barbie Doll she became as a porn queen, is really interesting to watch--she's drop-dead gorgeous, bursts into uncontrollable giggling at times, glances off-camera and laughs and just generally seems to be having a really good time, which is more than can be said for the audience. For even though Savannah and her colleagues spend a fair amount of this picture naked, it still can't hide the fact that this is an incredibly stupid, badly made and annoying movie. If you know someone who has it on video, or if it comes on cable some night, check it out, but don't waste your money on a rental.

negative

So many educational films are nothing more than mind-numbing drudgery, saved only by the fact that "MST3K" mocks them ("Why Study Industrial Arts?" comes to mind). "Hemo the Magnificent" is actually quite well done. It's all about blood, the heart, and the circulatory system. I admit that I don't remember everything from it, but it does a good job explaining everything, keeping it serious but entertaining. I guess that you can always count on June Foray (most famously the voice of Rocky the Squirrel, she plays a deer here).<br /><br />Since "Hemo the Magnificent" itself may be hard to find, probably the best place to see it is in "Gremlins": a class is watching it while a gremlin is forming.

positive

This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.<br /><br />This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!<br /><br />This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.

negative

The film was shot at Movie Flats, just off route 395, near Lone Pine, California, north of the road to Whitney Portals. You can still find splashes of cement and iron joists plastered across the rocks where the sets were built. And you'll recognize the area from any Randolph Scott movie.<br /><br />I won't bother with the plot, since I'm sure it's covered elsewhere. The movie stars three athletes -- Fairbanks fils, who must have learned a good deal from his Dad -- Grant, an acrobat in his youth -- and MacLaughlin, a professional boxer from South Africa. Their physical skills are all on display.<br /><br />Not a moment of this movie is to be taken seriously. It's about Thugees, a sect in India, whence our English word "thug." I can't go through all the felicities of this movie but probably ought to point out that the director, George Stevens, was a polymath with a background in Laurel and Hardy movies -- see his choreography of the fight scenes -- and went on to the infinitely long dissolves of Shane and The Diary of Anne Frank. Dynasties rose and fell. Geological epochs came and went, while Liz Taylor and Monty Clift kissed in "A Place in the Sun." Here, in his comic mode, he excels.<br /><br />This is a story of male bonding and it would be easy -- too easy -- to read homoeroticism into it, as many people do with Howard Hawks. Or hatred of women. But it isn't that at all. Sometimes things portrayed on screen don't deserve too much in the way of heuristic attention. Men WILL form bonds by working together in a way that women do not. (Women share secrets.) Read Deborah Tannen, nobody's idea of an anti-feminist. Well, when you think about it, that's what evolution should have produced. For most of human history -- about nine tenths of it -- hominids have been hunters and gatherers, and the men tend to hunt and the women to gather. Hunting is more effective as a team enterprise. Men who were not very good at bonding were Darwinianed out, leaving men who have a lot of team spirit. And Grant, Fairbanks, and MacLaughlin have got it in spades.<br /><br />Sorry to ramble on about evolution but I'm an anthropologist and it is an occupational disease. Did I ever tell you about the horse in Vaitongi, Samoa, that slipped on the cement and fell in the bathtub with me? You've got to watch the hooves.<br /><br />Joan Fontaine is lovely, really. Only got to know her in her later years and wondered why she was in so many movies. I lived in Saratoga, California, where her sister, Olivia DeHavilland, grew up and went to a convent school. Pretty place.<br /><br />If you miss this adventurous lively farraginous chronicle of the British Empahh at its height, you should never forgive yourself. It's so famous that it's parodied in the Peter Sellers movie, "The Party." Yes -- the colonel's got to know.

positive

I watched this movie as a preview of a Matthew Barney art exhibit. It certainly prepared me. I almost skipped the exhibit and, in retrospect, probably should have.<br /><br />Aside from the score being great (Bjork) and the photography rich and colorful, the content was mostly tedious and predictable. Gee, I really needed to see someone wearing pearls to figure out what the pearl-divers were up to. The film was mostly a silly mixture of Japanese cultural references and industrial shots of modern whaling technology being used in a mock-hunt/harvest. The film "peaks" with enough gratuitous shock-art to turn your stomach.<br /><br />What was the point of the movie? While others might argue that it is an anti-whaling piece, one could equally argue that it somehow also justifies whaling. Personally I think it was Barney's attempt at "flashing" the audience with his anal, fecal, self-mutilation, and cannibalistic fetishes.<br /><br />Bottom line: unless you really get off on Barney's sense of art, don't bother seeing this movie. The message is obscure, the pace slow, and the cultural references pretentious. If you're after shock-art, you'll do better at one of the many "Undead" movies or hunting down an old copy of Hustler and taking in a fecal-cartoon.

negative

Undeveloped/unbelievable story line,(by the time I sort of figured out where it was going, I no longer cared) bad casting.(come on... William Macy as a hit man???) bad directing,(have you ever seen Tracey Ullman perform SO badly?)(Was I supposed to care what happened to the unethical incompetent, uncaring John Ritter character?) bad script...( Really, I'm not looking for a formula script but this was really awful) the only Really good thing in it was the kid. Ten lines? It's not OK if your comment is less than ten lines? COme on-- whose rules are those? Why can't I say what I have to say in less than 10 lines??? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Why isn't it OK to have less than 10 lines of comment?

negative

If this could be rated a 0, it would be. From the atrocious wooden acting to the dull, plodding pace, the puerile exploitation angle and the sophomoric pseudolesbian titillation added purely for the sake of the sad viewers, this is a disaster of a film.<br /><br />The plot is predictable, as from the beginning one is absolutely certain of what will happen to all of the characters and how the plot will commence. From a boring, unexceptional beginning to a pathetic and bleak ending, every single presence in this film is wasted, and every meagre scrap of talent dug up for this turkey is squandered.<br /><br />If you want to watch something as relentlessly bleak with plenty of the same childish titillation, watch one of the Ilsa films. At least they're unapologetic and up-front about what they're trying to do. How something this horrendously bad ever managed to be rated above a 5 is a miracle of how people with no taste or discerning standards can sometimes come together for the most dubious of purposes.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not interesting, and above all it's not arousing in any sense of the word. It is, in my opinion, a crime; it is a crime that such a horribly offensive and incompetent piece of trash was ever conceived of and given the resources to come into existence, and even more a tragedy that it is still defended by some woefully misguided viewers.<br /><br />Not even Elvira's cheerful personality and joking ways could soften the blow that this horrifying travesty of film is. Avoid it at all costs.

negative

I haven't yet read the Kurt Vonnegut book this was adapted from, but I am familiar with some of his other work and was interested to see how it would be translated to the screen. Overall, I think this is a very successful adaptation of one of Vonnegut's novels. It concerns the story of an American living in Germany who is recruited as a spy for the US. His job is to ingratiate himself with high ranked Nazi's and send secret messages to the American's via his weekly radio show. But when the war ends he is denounced as a war criminal but escapes to New York, where various odd plot twists await.<br /><br />If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended.

positive

First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.<br /><br />When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.<br /><br />The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.<br /><br />Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.<br /><br />The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.<br /><br />The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.<br /><br />All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.<br /><br />I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review.

negative

Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts – above all – which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.<br /><br />For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes – which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated.

positive

This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".

negative

This film is available from David Shepard and Kino on the Before Hollywood There Was Fort Lee, NJ, although that is a shortened version with just the "behind-the-scenes movie sections. I'm not sure if Blackhawk Films only had a film print of these parts, or they edited out the other scenes. The original Blackhawk version was retitled A Movie Romance. The complete feature does survive, but the preprint for this version had some nitrate decomposition, and a couple of sections looked bad, so that may be why Blackhawk's version was edited.<br /><br />Directed by Maurice Tourneur, the film has Tourneur playing himself, or more likely a caricature of himself. Supposedly, director Emile Chautard and future director Joseph von Sternberg also can be spotted.<br /><br />Country lass Mary (Doris Kenyon) longs for a romantic man to sweep her off her feet. She dreams of a troubadour that will woo her, but is constantly interrupted by the only available local boy, Johnny Applebloom.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a film company from New York (actually New Jersey) is filming a western in the countryside. Mary sees an Indian (in full headdress) and raises an alarm -- spoiling a scene that the movie company is filming. She is immediately attracted to the dashing film star Kenneth Driscoll (Robert Warwick). He encourages her to leave her home and try to become an actress in the big city.<br /><br />When she arrives at the studio, she discovers that everything about the movies is fake. The doors and walls are just flats that are hastily assembled for the set. That lanky walk of the western hero or the happy skip of the heroine are just acting too. The sets are on a big revolving stage, so the angle of the sun can even be manipulated. The black attendant at the studio signs all the movie stars' "autographed" photos. The signs on the wall say "Positively No Smoking", but everybody smokes anyway. Even the titles of the film (which are illustrated nicely) emphasize everything fake about the movie-making life.<br /><br />Movie star Driscoll is just as disenchanted with the ho-hum of everyday film-making. He makes a temporary split from girlfriend Vivian (June Elvidge) to pursue this "exciting" country girl. His plans are dashed when Mary's screen-test is a stinker. We don't get to see the actual film, but only the audience's pained reactions to it.<br /><br />Mary is devastated, but she doesn't want to admit to everyone back home that she was a failure, so she continues to see Driscoll and we she has lunch with him in the studio cafeteria along with other extras dressed as policemen, soldiers, cowboys, etc.<br /><br />Mary decides to stay with Driscoll. At a party with their movie "friends", she agrees to marry him although there is not much love between them. Surprisingly, her mother appears, with a cake especially for Mary's birthday. This causes Mary to re-evaluate her future.<br /><br />This film has all kinds of fascinating scenes of studios, movie sets, dressing rooms, editing rooms, etc. If you've always wondered what went on behind the scenes when a silent film was being made, this movie peeks behind the curtain.

positive

What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br />

negative

how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.<br /><br />rating:0.3

negative

Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart.

negative

I just finished watching this movie. I was very excited since I'm a big fan of Punk Rock, Horror films and Spoofs. I was very surprised at what I saw. I knew it was low budget, but I wasn't expecting it to be taped with a video camera. It opens with a good song and a great, very underrated band, The Horrorpops, reforming their song, Where They Wander, and promptly getting killed in various gruesome ways. It's a great opening. But the problem is the fact that, up until the end, this was really all that the movie was. A live performance, A death. Another live performance, A death. It gets old. And there is a gross(literally) overuse of intestines in the death scenes. Why doesn't the killer use other body parts, like legs, or eyeballs, or brains? Don't get me wrong, this movie has some parts that are awesome. Like the hardcore French band, known simply as BERET, the prospect of a band named Atticus, the scene containing a performance by members of the The Used and Simple Plan playing together, since neither bands had enough members to play their show, and Bowling For Soup's Overweight-and-proud-of-it guitarist getting killed in a truly hilarious manner, that I will save for the future watchers of this movie. But the big problem I have with this movie is the at first comical, but after a while, terrible lack of acting talent in a lot of the "actors". Especially Warped Tour creator, Kevin Lyman. He tries very hard, but I suspect that he didn't want to make the film, but was contractually obligated or something. In addition to that, the sound quality is terrible and there are no subtitles on the DVD. The Movie's resolving plot is very hazy and very random. something about a magic sword and Lloyd Kaufman as the devil. Bottom line, this movie has a lot of good qualities, but not enough to be anywhere near a decent Horror, Music, or Comedy film. Although I have to credit it with turning me onto a few bands that I would never have listened to, otherwise. Such as Tsunami Bomb, and the Phenomonauts(an insane, Psychobilly band). I recommend that you rent this movie, watch the first 10 or 20 minutes, if you like it, watch the next 20 or 30, if you still like it, then watch on. If not, just go to the special features and watch all the music videos and live performances. They rock! Long live Punk Rock and Horror!

negative

Back to the roots with "like it is in heaven" - what are the real values of life? These Swedes carve out a message that appeals to every heart. We've seen it twice now in a cinema packed to the last seat: love pure and joy within the music of a choir that's simple, yet full of power once everyone finds his or her inner tone. <br /><br />From the glitter of fame to the school of of his youth, now empty and ready to be adapted as his new home after collapsing on stage, Daniel wants to start listening and is drawn into the lives of the simple, warm and rough people of the North.<br /><br />He wins the hearts with music and gains the capacity to love and be loved unconditionally.<br /><br />Don't go see it if you've been normed to Hollywood. This stuff contains no extras, just your laughter, your compassion, your tears!

positive

Who me? No, I'm not kidding. That's what it really says on the video case.<br /><br />Plot; short version: Pretty woman stands around smiling. This, for some reason, makes all men kill each other.<br /><br />"Find Ariel...Where's Ariel...Can't Find Ariel..." She's right behind you, you idiot...<br /><br />Most of what can be said about this horrendous little Space Opera has already been said, looks like.<br /><br />A bunch of corny actors playing mostly convicts come in after the first selection of actors is knocked off very quickly. Then they get knocked off in the same way. Every scene is broadcast nearly fifteen minutes in advance. Perhaps it was a drawing of straws to see which actors had the most screen time and bigger pay check. The alien virus/hologram/VR witch/glitch seems physically powerless and doesn't do a thing. Why can't she just stay in the computer instead of doing her "teleporting vampire" routine? (Actually, it would've been more interesting if she had been a vampire, or doing more than just standing around looking at people, which is all she ever does. This is enough to make all the men kill each other. Go figure...)<br /><br />This isn't really a space flick. There are far more shots of the old western trail, 1950's Easy Rider trail, Film noir's night club scene, even a jog on the beach in fantasy-land, none of which has any real depth or even makes any sense. The night club scene is in black and white, of course. Worked with "The Wizard of Oz". Doesn't work so well, here. This is probably a good thing, as those few shots they DO show of space are depressingly silly. You will probably cry during those moments, especially upon seeing that swirling "space ship", which looks about three inches long.<br /><br />Nothing is felt for any of the characters, not because they are convicts or have no personality, but because they are in serious need of acting lessons, except for Billy Dee Williams who really does look depressed and at a loss, probably by being in this work...<br /><br />This is one of those movies that, when viewed with friends, is going to cause some extremely "loud" silences, especially when the nerd throws out his attempt at comic one-liners (including the line about French-kissing a meteor...? Did I hear that right? Perhaps not...)<br /><br />The original virtual reality girls get "killed", which means nothing, as they are not even real to begin with. Well, the other "characters" aren't, either, but that's beside the point. Haha.<br /><br />What's kind of funny is that the scene that graces the video case is some sort of skull-horror-alien looking thing (green filter added on top of that, to give it more of a...uh...green look), which is actually the android after he gets killed and ultimately has nothing to do with anything else afoot.<br /><br />Another odd deal I noticed. Whenever there is an explosion (at least on my cheap DVD copy), everything becomes highly pixelated. I don't mean a LITTLE pixelated, I mean HUGE blocks about 1/16th the size of the screen. Wow.

negative

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

negative

It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............

negative

I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less..

negative

What I think I'll probably like best about the new Star Wars film, "Phantom Menace", is that it will likely blow "Titanic" out of the water, if you'll pardon the pun, when it comes to sheer devastating box office receipts, and thereby knock it out of the number one spot. Every time I hear someone declare "Titanic" is the greatest film they've ever seen, I think to myself, "You don't see a lot of movies, do you?" What a travesty. You could make 50 good films that are a lot better than "Titanic", and for the same price tag.<br /><br />"Well, it won lots of academy awards, lots of people really loved it," as someone might say in its defence. Well, lots of people like the Spice Girls and billions and billions of people eat at McDonald's, but that doesn't mean it's high quality. Yes, millions of Elvis fans CAN be wrong.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit, that part of the problem for me was the mega-hype over the film. I waited a month or so to see it and ultimately, it didn't live up to the expectations set upon it, which simply called more attention to the appallingly stupid love story. It's true, "Phantom Menace" will likely suffer a similar fate. but.<br /><br />James Cameron's "Titanic" is. a) a cheesy action flick thinly disguised as a serious period piece. b) a three-hour epic that has it's finest moments given away in the trailer. c) a sappy love story beyond belief or entertainment. d) something left better to documentarians, which I would've enjoyed much more. e) a film with arrogance that lives up to the level demonstrated with the real ship. f) a robbery of 3 hours that I will never get back, therefore the greatest motivation for a time machine I can think of. When I meet someone who hasn't seen it yet, I say, "I wish I could trade places with you." g) a slap in the face to any genuine victim of hypothermia. How long are we supposed to believe that people can be immersed in freezing cold water and still form intelligible sentences? h) thankfully a film that wasn't recognized for any acting achievements at the Oscars. i) a technological achievement in filmmaking, and little else.<br /><br />The only reason I post this as a anonymous comment is I do NOT welcome the rebuttal of 10,000 thirteen year old Leonardo DiCaprio fans who'll no doubt come to his defense, and I am not really interested in hearing a defense of Titanic's story, acting or length.

negative

An absolute steaming pile of cow dung. It's mind-blowing to me that this film was even made. Hip-Hop and old westerns just don't seem to mix. What target audience were these people thinking of when planning this trainwreck.<br /><br />Not only is the concept and plot a joke, but the acting is atrocious and the fact that some decent actors were even in this nightmare of a film makes their entire careers a laughing stock. The chick from clueless should never be forgiven and she is stripped of any remaining dignity she had. After reading the first ten pages of dialogue she should have been asking which one of her friends was playing this sick joke. After some research, I actually found a list of some other actors who passed on this film: Jada Pinkett-Smith, Denzel Washington, Brandy, Monique, Kim Kardasian, Jenna Jameson, Oprah, and finally Marge Simpson.<br /><br />Simply put, I would rather stare at a blank TV than watch this movie again.

negative

With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.

negative

Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.<br /><br />As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.<br /><br />And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.<br /><br />Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.<br /><br />It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films.

positive

The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.

negative

If you're one of those who recognise with pleasure such arcane titles as 'Book of the Dead', 'Book of Eibon' or 'Necronomicon', then you should feel right at home with Malefique, a film which also features an occult tome, one with the power to change the destinies of all involved. Discovered by four French prisoners sharing a cell, the fearsome object has been placed in the wall there by Danvers, a serial killer incarcerated back in the 1920s; a man obsessed with rejuvenation and the black arts before he abruptly vanished. Finders of the book are Carrère (Gérald Laroche) a company embezzler shopped by his wife, Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) who aspires to be a woman but at the same time body-builds to execute an escape plan, the halfwit Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud) who once ate his baby sister, and the 'librarian' Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), supposedly driven mad by reading, who murdered his wife. Reminding the viewer of Meat Loaf's equally bizarre, bosomy male in Fight Club (1999), Lassalle begins as the dominant member of the quartet, one who is especially protective of the infantile Pâquerette. With the coming of the book however, and the overarching need to decipher its dangerous contents, Marcus assumes greater and greater significance. At first assured of an early bail, meanwhile Carrère takes little more than academic interest in events. Suddenly he too needs an urgent escape option and, as the prisoners experiment, Danvers' book starts to reveal some of its terrifying powers...<br /><br />Staged for the most part within a prison cell, and between four or five characters, Malefique has a claustrophobic air entirely suited to its subject matter (as well as the limited budget of the filmmakers). Only at the start and then at the conclusion do we get to leave the confines of the cell, a necessary opening out which only serves to emphasise the doomed, closed-in nature of proceedings elsewhere. More than anything, this is a film about being trapped, either as a victim of your criminal past or of occult events now unfolding. "I'm going to escape," says Carrère at the start of the film, wishing more than anything to be able to rejoin his wife and son. Whether or not he does it will be at a terrible price, and the great irony of the film is that the ultimate form of an 'escape' may not be one a man might imagine.<br /><br />With all its budget limitations it is greatly to the first-time feature director Eric Vallette's credit that his film succeeds as well as it does. As critics have noticed, it is a film with strong Freudian overtones - Lassalle's distinctive mammaries and adult breast feeding for instance; the picture of a vagina which comes to life and develops an eye; the grown man who dissolves back into a foetus; Danvers' original placenta fetish; the dark cell as a primitive womb from which 'delivery' is awaited, etc. With so many interesting aspects to the script Vallette hardly puts a foot wrong, and he succeeds in creating a genuinely unsettling atmosphere out of what, when one comes down to it, is just a matter of four guys, four bunks, one folding table and a book. There's a genuine, growing, Lovecraftian frisson as the men summon up the unnameable darkness from within its pages, while one or two moments - the aforementioned blinking vagina, or what ultimately happens to Pâquerette - are unsettlingly memorable. The pacing of many of the dark events in Malefique is deliberate, rejecting the rapid cutting of many Hollywood productions: a video culture approach that often subverts the horrified gaze in favour of quick-fix action and gore. Perhaps this is a particularly European manner, as one recalls a similar, measured approach to shocking hallucination taken in such films as Verhoeven's The Fourth Man (1983) - a film that incidentally also shares a particularly nasty image based around a prolapsed eye.<br /><br />Lensed well in 1.85:1, Malefique benefits from excellent performances and, if for this viewer at least, the conclusion was not as explainable as it might have been, the journey to the final shot was worth taking. Coming so soon after the release of the similarly well-received Haute Tension (aka: Switchblade Romance, 2003), this is another reason to be grateful that good horror films are once again emerging from the French industry, this after a time when it seemed the only worthwhile product came from Asia

positive

No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.

negative

I saw 'New York: I Love You' today and loved it! I was really looking forward to seeing this after watching 'Paris je t'aime' and overall I think I liked this one much better... Perhaps I need to watch 'Paris je t'aime' again I don't know... I read few of the reviews here about NY:ILY and yes, the movie is not without its faults. When you're paying tribute to a city like New York - it can get rather overwhelming and nothing seems fair enough to do the city due justice... so without elaborating on any of the film's shortcomings, I'll just write about what I liked.<br /><br />Unlike 'Paris je t'aime' in which each director's short film was properly segmented and titled, NY:ILY isn't and many reviewers over here have found the seamlessness of stories and overlapping of characters here annoying and even confusing. I thought otherwise. I loved how the stories just flowed one after the other and I especially liked the overlapping of characters - it might be gimmicky because it's done so often in films now. But I still liked it because I didn't find it forced. And the idea that we're all connected in the end has a wistful, even whimsical quality to it - which some might find corny but I find beautiful.<br /><br />I liked all the films but the one that touched me the most was the one by Yvan Attal with Robin Wright Penn and Chris Cooper. It was so well-acted and scripted that the reveal in the end - again not unused in the past - brought me to tears and I was crying throughout the segment that followed. I always liked Wright Penn and now I'm also a fan of Chris Cooper. Those precious initial few seconds when he's standing alone outside the restaurant, just before he gets the call - speak volumes about Cooper's ability to convey a character by just being there without saying anything.<br /><br />Most of the stories in this film involve characters who are either meeting each for the first time or have met each other just recently with the exception of 4-5 stories in which the characters have known each other for a long time. It seemed to me (and I might be wrong) that the stories were different but they were all trying to drive home the point, the need even, to just step back and view in a new light the people and the things we've known in our lives for a long time; to see the people and the things around you with the eyes of a stranger and appreciate them just as you did when you met them and saw them for the first time.<br /><br />The other films that I liked were the ones by Shunji Iwai with Orlando Bloom and Christina Ricci, by Natalie Portman with Carlos Acosta and Taylor Geare, by Brett Ratner with Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirlby, by Shekhar Kapur with Julie Christie, Shia LaBeouf and John Hurt and once again the one by Yvan Attal with Ethan Hawke and Emilie Ohana when they're in the café. I really need to see more work by Yvan Attal as I seem to like him a lot! <br /><br />Overall, watch this movie with an open mind. Don't read the reviews before watching it! It might not live up to your expectations of what a movie on and about love in New York should be and I doubt any movie will really live up to that conception. Just watch this movie for some good music, beautiful landscape cinematography, some slice-of-life comfort and a story or two that might just tug at your heartstrings.

positive

Beyond a shadow of a doubt Mysterious Planet is one of the worst movies ever made, yet retains an affection in my heart because the poverty of its special effects and astoundingly awful sound track in the first 15 minutes (and to be honest that's all you need to see) combine to create something that is hilariously side-splitting.<br /><br />The opening scene in 'space' is just about as unfathomable as cinematography gets, as washing-up liquid bottles whiz past your eyes to muffled dialogue. Before you've had time to work out whether it's you who's gone mad, the credits roll and the action struggles to life.<br /><br />And aside from the double-headed plasticine giant snail that terrorises our heroes, you also get the added double bonus of having both the original actors voices AND the dubbed voices at the same time. Pure genius.<br /><br />The sad thing for fans of this kind of fare is that I've only ever seen one copy, so the chances of ever seeing it yourself is highly unlikely. Perhaps I own the only copy in existence.<br /><br />

negative

The Neil Simon's Sunshine Boys starring Walter Matthau and George Burns is a funny comedy on the strange bond to the life and its shortness, but the laughter always bitter taste. Seeing Willy Clark(Matthau) and Al Lewis(Burns) two big theatrical comedy actors now reduced on the imbecility from the hard and unceasing old age you can feel only anger and blue. Willy not ever surrender and continue to look work, while Al is tired for players and he is retired to the country in the house to his daughter. The couple in his old time was truly funny and harmony, but out the scene was a continue squabble and to quarrel, and for eleven years after their broken they not talk between. Now if they would work, they must return together another time for do one of his best old sketch for a comedy story TV show. The meets is explosive and liberating for the old questions…. The Neil Simon's screenplay give a certain corrosive spirit to the story and the melancholy and blue overwhelming the many gags and laughter succeeded to generate a good mix also thanks to a great couple Walter Matthu(Nomination Academy Award as Best Actor) and George Burns(Won the Academy Award as Best Support Actor). The two actors are very believable and real and the their harmony seems almost as they real work together for all that time and that realty they not bear between them. The movie is very touching also for its all consuming reality as the story is narrate and how the report Love-Heat that bind the two actors is totally real part to the strange but at the same time ordinarily comprehensible things to the life. My rate is 7.

positive

This is a poor film by any standard. The story in Match Point had a certain intrigue, and the direction and writing a certain fascination (Woody Allen mixing his own culture with that of the classic English murder and exploring what can be done with it).<br /><br />Scoop, however has none of this. It is poorly written, the two leads are hopelessly wooden and the story itself has no interest at all. The genre that it spoofs requires at least some sort of subplot with witty explanations and tie-ups (why are tarot cards and keys kept under French horns in locked rooms?).<br /><br />Allen's delightful and witty versions of various Hollywood genres (Curse of the Jade Scorpion/Purple Rose of Cairo etc) have given us so much pleasure over the years. Even Hollywood Ending had a great central idea. Sadly his inspiration has deserted him this time.

negative

Yeah. Pretty sure I saw this movie years ago when it was about the Supremes.<br /><br />Another recycled storyline glitzed up Hollywood-style, borrowing scripts from better making-it-in-the-music-industry films.<br /><br />Nothing original here.<br /><br />More make-up, glammier costumes and choreography = more money for the questionably "talented" Beyonce draw.<br /><br />If you like the throwback style, you should appreciate actual groups who struggled (without having digitized voices and a Hollywood empire).<br /><br />Beyonce's involvement makes this hypocritical garbage.

negative

Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a mentally unstable young woman with a troubled past who gets more than she bargained for when she goes to a pool party with a handsome coworker. When her date and his friends jokingly say they belong to a `Murder Club,' Maddy takes it seriously and moves straight up to `Level 3' by bashing in the brains of a woman in a parking garage (for denting her car!). But is Maddy also the one donning a plastic mask and killing off other members of the group or has someone else lost it?<br /><br />The plot of this film (originally titled MAKE 'EM BLEED) is very poorly conceived, full of holes and spirals completely out of control before a ludicrous, out-of-left-field twist ending. Some of the dialogue is downright laughable. I didn't have a problem with Rochon's performance, but the supporting cast was atrocious. However, I managed to sit through this Full Moon release thoroughly entertained. There's plenty of skin and blood and it's the perfect type of flick to sit around with a group of your buddies and pick apart. Horror fans may also enjoy the cameos from Brinke Stevens and Lloyd Kaufman (as Debbie's parents) and Julie Strain (an early victim).<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10

negative

I'll keep this short; thanks to Greg for helping me to put this succinctly: Captivity is about a guy who drugs a girl's drink, imprisons and tortures her, then poses as a captive to have sex with her. That is the single twist and punchline of the film. It's torture as slow motion date rape. And, it's not even a good movie. It's not so bad it's good; it's just bad.<br /><br />It should also be mentioned that among critics, there is a "spoiler code" that they dare not break, even though some were tempted to on this one because it is so vile. Why NO ONE had the cojones to step up and say, "this is garbage, and this is why," is beyond me.<br /><br />Don't give your money to these poop-peddlers.

negative

I might not be a huge admirer of the original "Creepshow", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. <br /><br /># The first story "Old Chief Woodenhead" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. <br /><br />-Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! <br /><br /># Second story "The Raft" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. <br /><br />-Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. <br /><br /># Finally number three concludes with "The Hitchhiker". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.<br /><br />-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat… and repeat the line, "Thanks for the ride lady!" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. <br /><br />In all, the second short story "The Raft" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel.

negative

I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.<br /><br />The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.<br /><br />Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.<br /><br />Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.<br /><br />Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.<br /><br />Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.<br /><br />The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.<br /><br />Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.<br /><br />But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.

negative

Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing.

positive

A powerful adaptation of the best-selling book and the smash Broadway play about the lives of Bessie and Sadie Delany, two "colored" sisters who lived past the age of 100. Wonderfully played in their old age by Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll, respectively, they tell their story in flashbacks to Amy Hill Hearth (played by Amy Madigan), a white New York Times reporter. The flashback and present-day scenes don't have as much inspirational value in them as in the book, but really are powerful. However, certain aspects of the sisters' lives, such as the inter-racial background of their mother and the reasons behind their father's stern personality are not presented clearly. You need to read the book to fully understand these things. Which is just as well, because the book's just as great! Aside from those flaws, it's wonderfully done and performed, especially by Dee and Carroll, and a very powerful and educational movie.

positive

Never see this movie.<br /><br />It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.<br /><br />It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.<br /><br />Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it.

negative

'Capital City' fans rejoice! This first season of this series is now available from Network DVD and I've recently got my copy! Although very much an ensemble piece of key 'maverick' trading floor characters 'CAPITAL CITY' does present us with various moments through both its first and second season when each member of the team plays a significant part in a particular central or peripheral plot line. The cultural mix (English, Irish, American, German, Polish) of Head Trader Wendy Foley's (played by Joanna Phillips-Lane) group of staff is balanced with their own distinctive mannerisms, interests and personalities which helps to make the rather unfamiliar and, to most people, seemingly sterile subject of financial trading reasonably engaging through the engaging performances of the cast. In fact this seemingly dynamic young team of employees is in direct contrast to the rather staid and old-fashioned senior management of Shane Longman as represented by Lee Wolf (Richard Le Parmentier) and James Farrell (Denys Hawthorne). I suspect that such an unconventional way of working as employed by Wendy's team would not have become a reality had it not been for youthful reclusive 'free spirit' Peter Longman inheriting his thirty per cent stock in the company from his father and allowed a more trendy, relaxed modern way of business become a reality. To a certain degree Wendy's (I am led to believe) immediate supervisor Leonard Ansen (John Bowe) follows the establishment in the traditional manner of running the company however his fondness for Wendy rather sees him occupying the 'middle ground' on most occasions. The main interest in the series, I believe, stems from the simmering romantic attraction between Douglas Hodge's Declan and the cool self-assured blonde haired German trader Michelle Hauptmann (played by Trevyn McDowell) which had viewers continually wondering if the situation between these two colleagues would develop beyond the close friendship/fondness that they undoubted have.<br /><br />Looking forward to browsing through this title, and hopefully the second season of thirteen won't be too far away!

positive

I was surprised at how a movie could be both cheesy and excellent at the same time. The Frisbee flying saucer was naff beyond comprehension, especially when landing, yet the specially effects when the Krell attacked were awesome for a film that was made over half a century ago! Living in the middle east I saw shades of Islam creep in when JJ Adams suggested Alta should dress more modestly, and as an engineer, was amazed by the imagination used for the 'futuristic' gadgets, and gizmos dreamed up by the props department. All in all, an entertaining hour and a half, my first time seeing Walter Pidgeon and a chance to see Leslie Neilsen as a 'young' man

positive

Richard Widmark is a tainted character in this movie. He is a professional pickpocket. He's been in prison three times, yet at the beginning of the film, he tries to make it four. Thelma Ritter is a busy body selling information to almost everybody. Jean Peters is amazing as the girl flamed by Widmark.<br /><br />This is a period piece during the McCarthy era where the Red Scare ruled the politics and is worked into this plot quite nicely. What is unusual about this film is that Peters & Ritter are both victims of violent beatings in an era where women were seldom more than sex objects in films. This is what makes this film noir as women often got different roles in this type of film.<br /><br />The film is only 87 minutes long and was obviously made by Fox as the under card for double features in the theater. The sets show it is a limited budget film. The script made J Edgar Hoover mad because patriotism is given short shrift. Hoover wanted it changed.<br /><br />Instead, it became a B under card picture that was a sleeper hit in 1953. The script & acting in it are better than other big features were that year.

positive

This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other "soaring" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and "joking" as is rampant in this film.

negative

I originally saw this film years ago during Cinemax Friday after dark series(back when the cable box was built like a keyboard),and it intrigued me. Even though there is a pointless aspect to the film it is well acted.The performances of Depardieu & Dewaere are very enjoyable.They have a good chemistry together & Miou-Miou makes a pink fur look breathtaking.A movie like this probably wouldn't be made in these politically correct times(at least not in the US), since it seems to sensationalize things like violence,robbery,& casual sex. This movie proves that with a talented cast & also talented directing a good movie is a good movie no matter the subject.It saddened me to find out Patrick Dewaere committed suicide & in the near future I,ll will check him out with Depardieu & Miou-Miou in Get Out Your Hankerchief.

positive

Actress Patty Duke wrote an insightful, funny, rough-hewn book about her career as an actress, her crazy-quilt love-life, and her manic depressive episodes and suicide attempts which almost put her away for good. With this rich material to draw from (and Patty playing herself in the final act), one would think a crack TV-director like Gilbert Cates could bring it all together on film, but "Call Me Anna" is a pale shadow of Duke's autobiography. For those who haven't read the book, the sketchy narrative (leaping forward in time) isn't absorbing, we are never allowed to get our bearings with what's happening, and the production seems stunted by a low budget. The actors are miscast, and the value of having Duke herself finally appear does not pay off--the film's phony reality is so thick at this point that Patty can't bring stability to the scenario. It appears as if the producers were sincere enough (and consciousness-minded) to anxiously steer the film towards Duke's ultimate diagnosis and mental freedom, but they left out many dramatic opportunities in the process.

negative

The biggest reason I had to see this movie was that it stars Susan Swift, an outstanding and all-too-underappreciated actress. Time travel movies usually don't interest me and neither do movies about witchcraft, but this movie was fascinating and creepy. It didn't rely on outrageous special effects and it didn't focus so heavily on the time travel that the viewer gets lost and confused. This was a really creative movie kept simple and focused with great acting by all.

positive

Why is it that a woman cannot be a strong character in a movie without sleeping with the leading man? The campaign manager in this movie dreams of leading Tom Sellick to the White House. It's all she can think about. So, why on earth must she have had an affair with him? It added nothing to the plot and served only to demean successful women. The only value of that tidbit was the cute "we've all slept with your husband" scene. <br /><br />Also, couldn't the people who made this movie have watched the national conventions they were spoofing? Airing between the two major political conventions only served to highlight their total ignorance of the nomination and selection process.

negative

It took 9 years to complete this film. I would think that within those 9 years someone would have said,hey, this film is terrible. I've seen better acting in porn movies. The story is tired and played. Abused child turns into serial killer. How about something new for a change. How about abused child turns into a florist? At least that would have been a new twist. Why is it that everyone with a camera and a movie idea (especially unoriginal movie ideas) thinks that they can be a director? I do admire the fact that they stuck with this film for 9 years to get it completed. That shows tenacity and spirit. With this kind of drive hopefully next time they can focus it on a better script. If you want to see a failed experiment in indie film making from a writer/director from Michigan see Hatred of A Minute. If you want a good movie from a Michigan writer/director stick with Evil Dead.

negative

Erich Rohmer's "L'Anglaise et le duc" makes a perfect companion piece to Peter Watkins' "La Commune (Paris 1871)." Both films -screened at this year's Toronto International Film Festival- ironically illustrate how history is shaped to by the tellers of the tale. Ironic, given the tragic events that were taking place in the U.S. during the festival.<br /><br />Set in Paris during the French Revolution, the movie, based on Grace Elliott's (Lucy Russell) "Memoirs," is a first-hand account of how she survived those heady but dangerous days. She also details her relationship with The Duke of Orleans (played by Jean-Claude Dreyfus), who, in contrast to herself, is a supporter of the Revolution.<br /><br />True to form, you don't know whose side of history Rohmer is going to come down on. One of the earliest of the French "New Wave" filmmakers, Rohmer has often been criticized for being too conservative. After all, in the midst of the rebelling-youth-Viet-Nam days of the late 60s and 70s, he was filming romantic little confections like "Claire's Knee." But don't sell the old boy short, folks, he's always been a student of human nature, not an ideologue, and "L'Anglaise et le duc" continues to bear this out.<br /><br />Rohmer's characters are never the "bad guys" nor the "good guys'; they are first and foremost human beings who are capable of exhibiting a full range of human potentialities -and limitations. That's why his movies are always provocative, and this film is no exception.<br /><br />Now for the technological nuts and bolts.<br /><br />Rohmer, though making his way into his 80s, is still on the cutting-edge of cinematic innovation. The look of "L'Anglaise" is like something you've never seen before. You guessed it, the old guy -like several of the festival's directors this year- has gone digital.<br /><br />All of the movie's exterior scenes look as though they are taking place in their original 1780s Parisian settings. As a matter of fact, you may get so distracted from marveling at the authenticity of the film's look you may have to go back for a second screening to catch the subtleties of the film's psychological -and yes, I'll say it- political insights.<br /><br />Toronto features some of the world's edgiest young filmmakers this year, as well as some of the world's oldest. And the old masters are standing there on cinema's cutting-edges right alongside the young ones.<br /><br />Long live youth. Long live old age. And long live Erich Rohmer.<br /><br />

positive

My kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.<br /><br />This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.

negative

Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes… An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera – the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.<br /><br />Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.

negative

Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprised<br /><br />with this movie. James "I did some things to Farrah Fawcett" Orr <br /><br />co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guy<br /><br />named Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have been<br /><br />incredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball game<br /><br />when he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartender<br /><br />Mike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new life<br /><br />isn't exactly as he hoped it would be.<br /><br />I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have given<br /><br />it mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting and<br /><br />pulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enough<br /><br />funny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it really<br /><br />good. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. Jon<br /><br />Lovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine in<br /><br />their roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It's<br /><br />just a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, I<br /><br />highly recommend you check

positive

This is a big step down after the surprisingly enjoyable original. This sequel isn't nearly as fun as part one, and it instead spends too much time on plot development. Tim Thomerson is still the best thing about this series, but his wisecracking is toned down in this entry. The performances are all adequate, but this time the script lets us down. The action is merely routine and the plot is only mildly interesting, so I need lots of silly laughs in order to stay entertained during a "Trancers" movie. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between, and so, this film is watchable at best.

negative

I am compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me.

negative

The movie was "OK". Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a "cute" movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster.

negative

Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?

negative

Luckily, not knowing anything about this movie I was curious enough to tape it from TV. And then the tape ran out just five minutes before the ending!<br /><br />But I'm glad I managed to get most of it because this is a really great spy movie. There are the usual toy submarines and a bit foggy plots, but also very chilling and even daring moments. Considering the production year 1969, the certain slight lesbian overtones must have raised a few eyebrows. Of course now it doesn't surprise anyone and those scenes in fact seem pretty beautifully done. And it's not just because of the two George's actresses.<br /><br />The gas attack seems to hit every viewer very strongly, no wonder, And it certainly did hit me. Very effective. Also the viewpoints from the both sides of the opponents gives the whole story more deepness along the usual suspense and action. This is not just a heroic war tale of one victorious side, but shows what lies behind the victory in good and bad. Well, being a case of war, mostly bad.<br /><br />For the fans of composer Ennio Morricone this is also a must. His work is always excellent, touching but never over the top. And I think I have to try to catch more movies with Suzy Kendall. Talk about Fräulein! Let's hope they get this on DVD soon, so I can have the entire movie in my collection and more people will become familiar with this very little known gem.

positive

I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.

negative

This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. All of you who regard this movie as absolute sh*t obviusly are not intelligent enough to grasp all of the subtle humor that this movie has to offer. It shows us that real life and "ficticious" action can produce a winning combination. Also, as a romantic comedy, it has one of the most clever ways for two people to find each other. Name me another movie where you can see all of that as well as Donald Sutherland singing a song like "They're Going to Find Your Anus On A Mountain On Mars."

positive

This isn't the best Bigfoot ever made, but by the recent standards of Nature gone awry movies, mostly showing on the Sci-Fi channel, this is quality stuff. It has some action, some humor, decent F/X and Bigfoot. CG is used, but so are some practical F/X, which I like.<br /><br />Overall this movie is worth a watch if you are a fan of B horror/sci-fi and need a fix. It's better than the movie Sasquatch and not a sequel to it, so don't be fooled.<br /><br />The acting is better than you may expect to find in a movie like this and the directing is more than adequate. Expect a bit of a lul as the characters are "developed", but know that things will pick up. If you are watching a DVD you may want to skip a chapter or two.

positive

This film is awful. The CGI is the very cheap gray blob CGI. The crocodile looks like a large gray smudge. The worst is that no effort at all is given to making it walk or look like it is alive. It is mostly a photo-shopped CGI that is placed into scenes and you almost expect to see the hand that is moving the CGI smudge across the screen. This is one of the worst examples of CGI effects that I have ever witnessed, and I have seen lots of the very bad Sci-Fi Channel movies.<br /><br />Aside from the terrible lack of special effects, the cast is composed of the typical low-cost actors who probably work as Waiters/Waitresses at local diners while they wait for their Big Breaks. Perhaps the most ridiculous scene in this movie is when one of the bad guys is attempting to sexually assault Kate and the giant crocodile jumps straight up out of the water to the second floor of the Villains Headquarters and through the balcony and pulls the bad guy off Kate and instead of crashing straight down through the building (and crushing Kate) the Croc just flies backwards at the same angle into the water. No laws of Physics can apply to this movie or the special effects. At least there is honor among crocodiles.

negative

Full marks for Pacino's rendering of the speech over the dead kid's coffin; Shakespeare's Mark Antony would be put to shame!!<br /><br />Was it Paul Schrader or was it Ken Lipper who should be complimented on the remarkable dialogues? They are rich and intelligent and well worth your time if you like movies with good scripts. I found the story narrative developing quite well right up to the voice-over postscript.<br /><br />There is little else to talk about in this film; even John Cusack has done better roles than this one. Interestingly, the film is very male oriented--the women are mere appendages.

positive

Plot = Melissa is a new girl in town, she's fifteen years old and her birthday is coming up in one week. Since Melissa is beautiful, every boy in town wants to hook up with her, but the few that manage to catch her interest mysteriously die.<br /><br />To be honest the real reason I wanted to watch this film is because Dana Kimmel of Friday The 13th pt 3 was in it which isn't a proper reason why to rush out and see a movie. When I started watching it I realized that "Sweet Sixteen" isn't a very good slasher, it's really dull and boring and just doesn't go anywhere. After over an hour, only three murders have occurred and the story hasn't really developed in any possible way.<br /><br />The movie is nicely shot with quite nice photography and good directing but just as with many other slasher flicks from the 80s, the movie suffers from being too dark at times. The acting is actually pretty good though and Melissa's character is easy to sympathize with, even though she's a complete slut.<br /><br />The story line isn't completely rubbish but it's just way too dull to keep you interested, the only things that kept me interested was Melissa she was stunning and Dana Kimmel whose really sweet and cute in this movie.<br /><br />All in all pretty dull slasher flick that doesn't go anywhere I'd definitely wouldn't recommend it to Slasher fans.

negative

OK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.<br /><br />It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.<br /><br />The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P)

negative

_Les Acteurs_ is the absurd story of Jean-Pierre Marielle desperately waiting for a cup of hot water, the story of a conspiracy against actors, the story of aging actors whose careers are slowly less active than they used to be, but a stunning tribute to French actors and their cinema.<br /><br />Supported by a solid reflection about cinema and acting (the fourth wall, the hidden cameras, to play or not to play), the story of this film in which most of those famous actors play their own role (not to be mixed up with living their life in front of the camera - the film is not voyeur) is quite vague, and follows the actors in series of episodes which make the film quite amusing. As André Dussolier quits the film and leaves Josiane Balasko to play his part (great actress, she's hilariously serious especially when, in Dussolier's role, she bitches about herself), as actors run in each other on the street, asking for autographs, as fights and gossip happen, we recognize pastiche of other scenes in which each (or others) have played.<br /><br />Actually, for whoever does not know the actors (most of them being at least in their 50s) or does not know French Cinema, this movie has less interest, since most of the references will be missed, but it will still offer a good track of reflection on aging, on acting, on public life...

positive

<br /><br />Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.<br /><br />To quote Buffy Summers, "If the apocalypse comes...beep me."<br /><br />Going back to sleep now.

negative

Young and attractive Japanese people are getting on the wrong side of some curse again, this time it involves mobile phones. Various people die until the disgruntled spirit behind it all is unearthed, so essentially if you've seen more than 2 recent Japanese horror films you can plot this film in the dark with your hands tied.<br /><br />The main attraction here is the fact that Takashi Miike is behind the camera. So far I've been more impressed with his low key works like City of Lost Souls, however as One Missed Call plodded along I was yearning for his more renowned envelope pushing of Dead or Alive or the overly pseudo-Cronenberg style of Audition. Despite a lot of his films being essentially empty, at least they do have merits such as these, or at least something to keep your attention like Tadanobu Asano prancing about in shiny suits impersonating Johnny Depp. There's none of that in One Missed Call; there's just very little of credit: the acting is bland and average, there is very little (nothing, in all honesty) in the way of scares or suspense, and in places it's just downright boring.<br /><br />However, there are moments where Miike's glacier-like sense of humour seeps through the bland commercialism; most notably with the instance of the TV show intent on filming the demise of one of the cursed subjects, and the TV programmer more concerned about his ratings than the girls' life. But aside from this there is nothing to suggest it is Miike behind the camera; most notably his usual visual flair has vanished without a trace (and that includes his famous gore), although it's more likely he just didn't have any enthusiasm for the project, and I can understand why. One Missed Call isn't offensively bad. It's just frustratingly average.<br /><br />Miike obviously loves directing. With his huge yearly output it's obvious he isn't going to be 100% concerned about all his projects. But even with this in mind, One Missed Call felt like he was just paying the bills.

negative

Overall I found this movie quite amusing and fun to watch, with plenty of laugh out loud moments. <br /><br />But, this movie is not for everyone. That is why I created this quick question-ere, if you answer yes to any of the following questions than I recommend watching this flick<br /><br />(1)Do you enjoy crude sexual humor? (2)Do you enjoy alcohol related humor? (2)Do you enjoy amazingly hot girls? (3)Do you enjoy viewing boobs? (4)Do you enjoy viewing multiple boobs? (5)Did I mention all the nice boobies in this film?<br /><br />If you noticed the spoiler alert, that is referring the mass amount of nudity you can expect in the movie, I myself have no idea what the plot was about. Not that it matters.

positive

Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet.

positive

Bizarre take on the Cinderella tale. Terribly poor script, but Kathleen Turner turns in a pretty decent evil step-mother performance.<br /><br />Visually stunning in some parts, but that's about it. The period costumes range from the Elizabethan era to the 1990s. Fast forward until you see something interesting and save yourself the full 90 minutes of drivel.<br /><br />If you're really in the mood for a Cinderella story - I suggest "Ever After: A Cinderella Story" or "The Glass Slipper".

negative

I would have rated the series a perfect 10 for outstanding and consistently high quality story and character development had it not been for the last episode of Season 10! <br /><br />The final episode of the 10th season "Unending", where (it would certainly appear that) the Asgard have been killed-off in a very rushed, unconvincing and very unceremonious fashion, left me in disbelief! <br /><br />From the extremely rushed end of the series, it's obvious that many of the story arcs were originally scheduled to occur over at least one more season. My guess would be that they rapidly accelerated these stories to position the Stargate SG-1 franchise for the two upcoming direct-to-DVD moves!<br /><br />Unless the Asgard return in a future SG-1 movie (with a very good explanation of the "apparent" extinction), I think that the fans have been cheated with a poor clean-up of loose-ends!<br /><br />Poor end to an otherwise brilliant sci-fi series.

positive

Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say "The Emperor has no clothes." When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved "Morse" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new "Inspector Lewis" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.<br /><br />And as for his "sidekick" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.<br /><br />As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say that they should have left "Morse" rest in peace.

negative

It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.<br /><br />Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an "esperanto" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.<br /><br />The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.<br /><br />The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.<br /><br />It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.<br /><br />With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction.

positive

Is this the "worse" Star Trek TOS episode? Maybe, at least it gets my vote as being in the bottom 5. I mean, this episode makes absolutely no freaking sense. Seeing something that makes you go mad? Give me a break. This episode also has a different feel to it, the music is heightened, almost forced to enhance a feeling of distress, to the point that it sucks. Give me some Klingons, Gorns, Tholians, Romulans, higher beings like Triskelion's or anything but Medusin's, these are very boring aliens to make an episode around. McCoy gets to utter his famous phrase "He's Dead, Jim". Spock puts on the protective goggles when transporting the ambassador away but Kirk does not. They go through that freaking "barrier" now for the third time that I can remember, boring. At least season three's next episodes would be "Spectre Of The Gun", and "Day of The Dove" and others to follow, making Trek a decent show to watch in syndication where it would pick people like me up as avid fans. Personal observations, Trek loved to use the color purple, its kind of a pinkish purple, like when they are in the corridor outside the compartment, the gangway that is normally grey is now purple. We never had a purple bridge but its interesting to see, I noticed it in several episodes, it was done by a light filter and it works very well but in this episode, in the ships corridor is pretty lame.

negative

I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time.

positive

This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God. <br /><br />Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best. <br /><br />The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.

negative

WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!

negative

While i was the video store i was browsing through the one dollar rentals and came upon this little gem. I don't know what it was about it but i just had a gut instic about it and wow was i ever right.<br /><br />The story centers around two girls who have just survived a school shooting. One of the girls is Alicia a teenage reble who is the only witness for the full attack and another is Deanna another survivor who survived a bullet to the head by some miracle. Thrown together by fate, they slowly begin a painful and beautiful display of healing and moving on.<br /><br />I just hate it when amazing movies fall through the cracks. Because wow what a performance by Busy Phillips and Erkia Christensen not to mention the rest of the cast! My only complaint is that the DVD was sorely lacking in special features. Oh and some of the jump cuts in the movie were kind of jarring. But all in all a excellent movie.

positive

There are so many goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:<br /><br />BOGART's character: 1. His name – Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.<br /><br />CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.<br /><br />If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)<br /><br />In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.<br /><br />On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah…..

negative

I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers. It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption. It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense. We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes. The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way. All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola. "Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential".

negative

Women have never looked so attractive and pathetic as in Salazar's film Piedras. Although editor's cut here and there might help the film, it is exciting and enjoyable with an intense mark from Pedro Almodovar's latest films. 5 different women are coping with their male partners and families. Beginning with several different stories bound to meet as the plot goes on, Salazar portraits his women characters in the same neurotic and border-line behaviour familiar to Almodovar. A kleptomaniac high society lady with a fattish to smaller shoes, a burlesque house madam taking care of her disabled daughter, a drug addict dancer obsessed with her former boyfriend and a taxi-driver taking care of her late husband's disturbed kids, all roaming the streets of Madrid in well designed scenes. Using some of Almodovar's familiar actresses, the director succeeds in it's first film to give depth to all the characters sharing the film, and to create genuine sympathy with each of them. The women controls the plot line, and the men are bound to be left with each other, eventually... Surprisingly good for a first film, and worth the time in any standard. It is noticeable that Salazar hesitated in some needed guidelines to the actresses, but an impressible act is shown anyway on the screen, especially by Monica Cervera, which played in his former short film.<br /><br />A must to all Almodovar's fans, and enjoyable to all.

positive

I found this movie really funny because you have a youthful black comedian (Chris Rock) who dies and is sent back to earth in a mid-50's white mans body. He doesn't realize that his behavior should change and continues to act as he had before. He listens to rap music, sings along, and plays the stereotypical part of an urban black man. The real humor in this movie was watching the trouble that this behavior gets him into with the black community.

positive

Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George "Gabby" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.<br /><br />Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a "dual role". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched. <br /><br />*** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm

negative

Cashing in on the "demons-meets-clergy" trend of the late '60s/early '70s that most prominently included the triptych of "Rosemary's Baby," "The Exorcist," and "The Omen," "The Sentinel" is an addition that's just as good (albeit the most overlooked of the lot). In a way, it combines the best elements of those films and tosses in a dash of Polanski's "The Tenant" (which came out the same year) for good measure. A New York model unable to commit to her lawyer boyfriend takes up residence in a moss-coated townhouse that initially seems like the perfect locale; she meets a wily old coot of a neighbor (the brilliant Burgess Meredith), plus the other off-center tenants. Kept awake by loud noises above her apartment, she soon discovers that a mute priest and herself are the only residents in the otherwise deserted building. From there, director Michael Winner ("Death Wish") kicks this supernatural thriller into gear, and there is a devilish glee to the hallucinogenic tortures he inflicts on his heroine. Aided by a brilliant ensemble cast, a subtle storyline, and excellent makeup FX by Dick Smith ("The Exorcist"), "The Sentinel" is a genuinely creepy horror flick.

positive

With the exception of the sound none of the above are really criticisms for this type of no budget, (truly) independent horror film. Make up effects and gore are very good and the lead actor was effective, the lead actress although attractive needs some coaching as she was particularly poor.<br /><br />The major problem with Frightworld is it's length, at 108 minutes its half an hour too long to be effective as a slasher movie, plot wise only about ten minute of the first fifty are relevant.<br /><br />In places it is visually engaging and sometimes the lack of lighting works in the films favour. However when this is combined with the poor sound as is the case with most of the film large sections are difficult to watch.<br /><br />This could certainly be an entertaining if unoriginal "serial killer back from the dead" movie with some judicious and ruthless editing, in its current form it plays like an unfinished rough cut.

negative

This was actually my favorite series of Scooby Doo when I was younger. I thought each episode had more of an edge to it and the villains had a lot of creative thought put into them (and even very scary and believable as well). Some of the best episodes were "I Left My Neck In San Francisco", "Twenty Thousand Screams Under The Sea", "The Ghoul, The Bat And The Ugly" and "When You Wish Upon A Star Creature". If you have never seen these episodes please do. This series was a bit of a mixed bag though as there were other episodes which didn't seem to have the same kind of edge to them such as "Rocky Mountain YIIII!" and "The Ransom Of Scooby Chief". As like the series before it, it was very well put together, interesting storyline and brilliantly drawn. As everyone says though, it would have been so much better without Scrappy Doo. The character was tiresome and distracting to the story that was being told.

positive

Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.<br /><br />Robi Chernitsky

negative

I didn't at all think of it this way, but my friend said the first thing he thought when he heard the title "Midnight Cowboy" was a gay porno. At that point, all I had known of it was the reference made to it in that "Seinfeld" episode with Jerry trying to get Kramer to Florida on that bus and Kramer's all sick and with a nosebleed.<br /><br />The movie was great, and surprisingly upbeat and not all pissy pretentious pessimistic like some movies I can't even remember because they're all crap.<br /><br />The plot basically consisted of a naive young cowboy Joe Buck going to New York trying to be a hustler (a male prostitute, basically), thinking it'll be easy pickings, only to hit the brick wall hard when a woman ends up hustling HIM, charging him for their sexual encounter.<br /><br />Then he meets Enrico Salvatore Rizzo, called "Ratso" by everyone and the cute gay guys who make fun of him all the time. You think of him as a scoundrel, but a lovable one (like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian) and surprisingly he and Joe become friends, and the movie is so sweet and heartwarming watching them being friendlier and such and such. Rizzo reveals himself to actually be a sad, pitiable man who's very sick, and very depressed and self-conscious, hates being called "Ratso" and wants to go to Florida, where he thinks life will be much better and all his problems resolved, and he'll learn to be a cook and be famous there.<br /><br />It's heartwarming watching Joe do all that he does to get them both down to Florida, along with many hilarious moments (like Ratso trying to steal food at that hippie party, and getting caught by the woman who says "Gee, well, you know, it's free. You don't have to steal it." and he says "Well if it's free then I ain't stealin' it", and that classic moment completely unscripted and unscheduled where Hoffman almost gets hit by that Taxi, and screams "Hey, I'm walkin' here! I'm walkin' here!"), and the acting is so believable, you'd never believe Joe Buck would grow up to be the distinguished and respected actor Jon Voight, and Ratso Rizzo would grow up to be the legendary and beloved Dustin Hoffman. It's not the first time they've worked together in lead roles, but the chemistry is so thick and intense.<br /><br />Then there's the sad part that I believe is quite an overstatement to call it "depressing". Ratso Rizzo is falling apart all throughout the movie, can barely walk, barely eat, coughs a lot, is sick, and reaches a head-point on the bus on its way to Florida. He's hurting badly, and only miles away from Miami, he finally dies on the bus. The bus driver reassures everyone that nothing's wrong, and continues on. Sad, but not in the kind of way that'd make you go home and cry and mope around miserably as though you've just lost your dog of 13 years.<br /><br />All in all, great movie. And the soundtrack pretty much consists just of "Everybody's Talking'" played all throughout the movie at appropriate times. An odd move, but a great one, as the song is good and fits in with the tone of the movie perfectly. Go see it, it's great, go buy it

positive

The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.

positive