diff --git "a/raw/train_1.csv" "b/raw/train_1.csv" --- "a/raw/train_1.csv" +++ "b/raw/train_1.csv" @@ -1496,1503 +1496,3 @@ With movies like this you know you are going to get the usual jokes concerning g "Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was ""Marion""?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.

That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. ""A Man Betrayed"", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.

This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.

That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made ""A Man Betrayed"" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10",0 "This movie is truly one of the worst pieces of garbage ever. It really is surprising that something so completely terrible could be made. But, if you can stand the mind-numbing plot, character development, and direction, you may get a kick out of the soundtrack which is so appalling that it is funny. The movie begins terribly and quickly becomes unwatchable. Someone should give anyone involved with this movie some sort of consolation because their career was probably ruined because of involvement in this movie. If you do end up seeing this movie or have seen it already (I feel your pain) then these words have come too late. For anyone else, Stay away at all costs or realize that the movie is so bad that it will waste 2 hours of your life. Then at least you can clean up or something while viewing it.",0 "This is the kind of movie you regret you put in your VCR. It is some weird bad rip off version of Stephen kings movie ""Misery (1990)"". I cannot understand how this movie got a 5.2 score, because it has no story what so ever, and when the movie finally ended, I was relieved.

This movie should have been released as a short-movie instead.. to much time is spent on the same thing. And as in every bad movie, everything happens just at the end of the movie in a 10-15 minutes time span...

So, before you decide to watch this movie, be sure to put some new batteries in your remote control, because you are going to do whole lot of fast-forwarding... don't worry, you wont miss anything important.",0 -"I knew it wasn't gunna work out between me and D-wars from the moment we met. First its title was lazy. D war. Like writing out Dragon was too much for them. Also... you really can't be that blatant with your title unless your Blue Monkey. Blue Monkey can do whatever the hell it wants.

The second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story's insane progression. Here's the film, dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks, flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. Old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. That Bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he's a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in LA is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. Shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he's a 500 year old Asian.

fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. Why? Continue on dear reader if you have the Balls.

so Sarah, the reincarnated lover, has her own flashbacks. I have the benefit of having an Asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with Asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. Its a Korean legend and she's reincarnated from a Korean princess but everything is in Chinese. Later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt, she calls the police cause it looks like she's having a heart attack. See, in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she's locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she's crazy. I have a new phobia now, and its that if i'm ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i'm crazy.

I have another point of contention with my harsh mistress, Dwar. There is a scene when Patrick Dempsey Jr (Dreamy Reporter) is in a café' with sassy black friend. In the scenes prior Miffed Near divinity Bauraki has killed an elephant, slithered through a suburb and killed one of Sarah's friends. See, people were afraid to come out after 9-11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. Business as usual, no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. If i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win.

After being given a satisfying dragon on Helicopter battle my cruel lover Dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. Bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under LA i guess. They don't really say but Dreamy Reporter and Sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up, yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle/make love whatever. And i'm not kidding good snake out of nowhere. Maybe you think i'm blowing it out of proportion, i'm not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly... there! Few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god, sets Baurki on fire, Sarah turns into a ghost and goes with Dragon-god, dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits... thank god

Now our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. There was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. I'll call him Tuskan Shredder. He could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. He could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn't helpful. He could go in your dreams when that wouldn't do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. He was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. I like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises.

The actors for the most part were great... if great somehow meant terrible. Jason Behr, whom i thought was awesome in Roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that's pretentious, spacey and Patrick Dempsey""ish"".

The one thing i love about this filthy prostitute Dwars is its lead actor, Bauraki. That Giant snake acted his heart out. I'd dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi-god of evil then John Barrymore was at playing Richard the III or Hamlet. There was emotion in every scene, stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. When he ate an elephant i felt like no one past, present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. He was more then an actor, he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. Yes damn it, my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. I've got the balls to admit that, do you?

Here's to hoping Bauraki get's more work and isn't type cast, that Jason Behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare, and that i never have to watch Blue Monkey again.

So, D-War its over. I want my CDs back and let's just be friends",0 -"As far as the Muppet line goes, however, this is not the best, nor the second best. This was marketed towards the kiddies, but has some dark, and emotionally upsetting adult moments, to which parents may not wish to expose their children. One of which showcases Miss Piggy going ""postal"" in a jealous rage, which lasts basically throughout the duration of this work.

Beyond that, however, the story is progressive, and highly entertaining. One scene in which Joan Rivers and Miss PIggy go berserk in a department store is simply hilarious! And there are other parts of this work which contain the same level of levity and fun.

I like this very much, and enjoy it still today.

It rates a 7.6/10 from...

the Fiend :.",1 -"Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.

Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless.

Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action.

The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion.",0 -"The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.

I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.

It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.

Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.

I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a ""Michael Caine phase"" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible.

As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its ""memorable quotes"" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).

It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.

Repeat viewings are a must.

And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.

I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: ""I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever.""",1 -"Beautiful to watch, but what would be the first thing you would do the moment YOU discovered Atlantis? Explore it! Here was a golden opportunity to take viewers someplace special. Instead, Disney reverted to the same old formula story telling.",1 -"The word in the summary sums it up d'oh ;) Five girls get lost trying to find their way home, when they stop at a store to get directions they hit a parked car breaking one headlight on it, they flea the scene in fair of getting in trouble but suddenly they see one headlight coming up behind them (ooooh).

From there out everything is screaming, crying and violence when they try to get away from this crazy person who lost it because of a headlight ;), well the screaming and crying pretty much stays through the entire movie (very annoying) The movie is shot, with a cheap camera trying to make it seem ""real"" or ""shocking"" I guess, it's just embarrassing and useless though. In lack of anything better to compare it with, ""Blair witch style"".

The screaming and crying for pretty much the entire movie with crappy sound was over the top annoying, you literally get a headache :)

I'm sorry but this was not scary, only an annoying painful piece of crap movie.",0 -"I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.

Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.

I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity.",0 -"It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song.",1 -"I've seen this movie countes times now and still can't get sick of it. It's like a frickin' drug. I know a lot of people don't like it but there's something about it that just draws me in. Every single performance is spectacular, but Aaliyah is the one who steals the show. She not only played the role of Akasha she became it. Her body movement and beauty was captured exceptionally well. It's also nice to see that a black girl was chosen for the role of an Egyptian Queen (No, I'm not predjudice against white people, I am one). True it's not known what color the ancient Egyptians really were but this was a nice change. Stuart Townsend completely made me forget about Tom Cruise's portrayel of Lestat and Marguerite was striking once again. All in all it was a good time at the movies. For those who haven't seen it, be sure to watch it with an open mind and not take it too seriously. I mean, it's a movie about a vampire who becomes a rock star. Take it as that.",1 -"Katharine Hepburn as a mountain woman who mixes prayer with positive thinking--and is thought by the local folk to be a witch. Kate works overly-hard trying to convince us she's a backwoods hick (named Trigger Hicks!), but you can see she doesn't even believe in this unintentionally comical scenario. Constantly-smiling Robert Young plays a foreman working on the construction of a mountain dam who becomes Trigger's first crush...but alas, he's married! No amount of white magic can resuscitate this formula, based on a play and brought to the screen by R.K.O. with too broad a hillbilly flourish. It is ungodly, and just about unwatchable. *1/2 from ****",0 -This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away.

Norway is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!!,1 -"First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.

The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.

Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.

The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.

Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.",0 -"If you take the Huxtable parents and blend them with the Kyle parents you get a perfect blend of over the top and under the edge parenting that you can wish for your own family child-rearing skills. The best part about each show is that the parents do not come off as pompous self-righteous upper class know it alls but at the same time they are not the stereotypical under-educated parents who are constantly being bamboozled and disrespected by their children. My kids are 20, 16 and 6; just about the same ages as the Kyle kids and I see so much of their situations mirroring my own experiences with my family. The silliness that they indulge in only goes to show that when you have love in your family you do not have to take yourself too seriously to keep your household together and have fun with your kids.",1 -If there is a movie to be called perfect then this is it. So bad it wasn't intended to be that way. But superb anyway... Go find it somewhere. Whatever you do... Do not miss it!!!,1 -"There were times when this movie seemed to get a whole lot more complicated than it needed to be, but I guess that's part of it's charm. Detective Philo Vance's powers of observation seem greater than all the Oriental sleuths of the era combined when it comes down to that final evaluation of how the murders were committed. The dropping of the dagger into the Chinese vase was the kicker for me; I mean, couldn't somebody have just dropped it?

Vance (William Powell) had a line early in the film about Archer Coe's 'psychological impossibility' to kill himself - I had to think about that for a while. I was left wondering if there's some scientific basis in fact for that concept to be true, not having studied psychology myself. Seems logical, but then there's always the case that doesn't fit the rules.

You know, I got a kick out of the agitated coroner (Etienne Girardot), who reminded me of Star Trek's Dr. McCoy the couple of times he stated ""I'm a doctor, not a magician"" and ""I'm a doctor, not a detective"". I can picture DeForrest Kelley watching the film and saying to himself - 'I'll have to use that sometime'.

Once the killer's identity is revealed, it doesn't seem like such a big surprise, but up till then it's really anybody's guess. But Archer and Brisbane Coe aside, the film didn't answer the central question posed by the title, and the murder I was really interested in - who killed Sir Thomas MacDonald's dog Ghillie?",1 -"Like most sports movies which have come out in the past, this movie is similar in respects, that it is based on fact. What sets this movie apart is that its about a rugby team, a sport that not too many Americans are familiar with. Set that aside, this movie is very rewarding piece of film noir. It reminds me of ""We Are Marshall"" , but with a smaller budget and an independent movie feel. Its a fine effort by director Ryan Little to bring us a story about a rebellious teen played by Sean Farris (Never Back Down), as Rick Penning that finds himself in an odd place, both on and off the field. Despite a few plot lines holes, this film has heart, rewarding each of its viewers with good characters that we can identify with. Also good performances by supporting actors Gary Cole as coach Larry Gelwix & Neal McDonough as coach Penning(Ricks dad). I felt myself go through a lot of different emotions watching movie, in the end I was left with a feeling of faith in mankind & a hope for the future for my children, especially if there are coaches out there like Gelwix.",1 -"I realized a couple of days ago that the makers of this film put a play on words into its title. This movie is not primarily about the act of ""riding giants,"" but mostly about the people who are the giants of the sport, RIDING giants, to change the emphasis.

In my teens I lived a block from the Wedge, one of the hardest-breaking and best bodysurfing spots in the world. I've been out in 15-to-18 foot surf, and have ridden and been hammered by 10 and 12-foot waves on many occasions. That experience is why I am in complete awe of the surfers in this film. The idea that Jeff Clark, to all appearances a normal mortal, could get away with riding Maverick's BY HIMSELF for over a decade is beyond my grasp. The first safety rule of any water sport is ""Never surf/dive/swim by yourself."" He went where sane people would not, and lived to tell about it. I wouldn't go out there if the water were 75 degrees and the sharks all left.

In the world of warm water: the first shot of the waves at Jaws always makes the skin tingle over my entire body. These are not just scary waves, these are uncontrolled-bowel-evacuation waves. When we see Laird Hamilton not only surviving 40-to-60 foot waves (I can hardly type those numbers), but actually working the faces like a fun day at Rincon, I'm blown away. There is a dedication and focus in big-wave riders which is comparable to that of anyone in the world.

This a great film. I gave it a 9 instead of a 10 only because it neglects to mention that there are great big-wave riders in the world outside the Hamilton/Kalama crew, and I think they deserved mention. Splice in Ken Bradshaw at outside Log Cabins and a 10 it is!",1 -"There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in the role of Tony le Stéphanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone!",1 -"Great battle finale and nice sets help keep this often-slow movie enjoyable. At times it had me checking my watch, although there were enough memorable moments to make the film stand out in my mind days after watching it. The ending should surprise even those familiar with the Nibelungen story line.",1 -"I typically don't like reality shows, particularly the ones that are profiting off of ""American Idol""'s success. But this one I can live with.

Comedians from all around the world perform a brief routine for celebrity talent scouts, and if they like them, those guys will be sent to perform a routine for an actual audience. Then ten or twelve comics are selected to live in a house together and do ""Survivor"" style competitions using comedic tactics. Then one will be determined as ""Last Comic Standing."" I do like stand up comedy, so this is the one reality show must keen to my interests. There are usually some pretty funny comics selected through. It started the careers of such talents as Alonzo Bodden, Ralphie May, and Josh Blue.

My negative criticisms is the fact that there is the possibility that a lot of these comics were selected for their contribution to reality show drama. At first they lived together in a house like ""Big Brother,"" but now they've done away with that, thank God.

And there are a lot of comedians I felt, were only chosen not because they're funny, but because of race, ethnicity, attitude, sex, etc. when other comics clearly should've beaten them out. But overall, it's a well-made reality show, which are two terms up until now I thought were an oxymoron.",1 -"The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).",0 -"I really love this movie, saw it again last week after 3 years or so. This movie is perfect, great acting, great story, great directing/camera-work/music. It is a gift to show it to someone you love. too bad jaco van dormael did not make more movies after this one. Top 5 work. Really!!

Today, it's 3 years and 3 days later then the comment above. it was never posted because it was not more than 10 lines. Anyway, i saw ""le huitieme jour"" again yesterday. This is with no doubt in my movie top 3. together with ""Cinema Paradiso"" which is also a masterpiece. The soundtrack is also really good. I am really curious about ""jaco von dormael's"" new movie. I hope it will complete my movie top 3. If you see this movie, rent it. Or even better. buy it. Because you will want to see it again.",1 -"This film is like ""The Breakfast Club"" meets ""Mad City."" It's got one plot twist after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like movies that ""go all the way"" with regards to violence, then don't watch the last twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not faint of heart. Highly recommended.",1 -"George Lopez is a funny man even without the sitcom. The first episodes I saw of this too often made jokes at the expense of his mom. As I have watched this more, there has been more & more variety. No one on the cast is really safe from his wit now.

It seems to me as this season has progressed that George is getting more comfortable with the family sitcom Dad role. At first he wasn't, but he is getting More & more into a groove. This makes both him & the shows progressively funnier. They had added a couple of characters for George to play off this year too. His wife's dad is getting more & more involved in the plot.

His mom is still there, but not as central as past seasons. I think it is prudent to say with George's sense of comic timing, & ABC's lack of good sitcoms, George Lopez has a good chance of being here on ABC long after George W. Bush.",1 -"This movie was just heckled by MST3K and with good reason. First and foremost because it is a ""cop"" movie starring Joe Don Baker, who we all know is about as good a cop actor as Michael Jackson is a country western singer.

All the typical cop movie plot devices rear their ugly heads, bar fights, children hostages in shoot outs, bad acting, lame police chiefs, bad acting, revenge/justice, endless goons , and of course, bad acting. Don't watch this without an MST3K filter folks.",0 -"This movie explores the difficulties that strain hopes, dreams, love and friendship, and incorporates humour beautifully. Along with a stunning cast and brilliant filming, the sound track enhances and amplifies the atmosphere and mood of this work of art. All actors and actresses give an extremely good performance, surpassing expectation in every way. Parminder Nagra is brought on to the big screen for the first time in this film, and she is exceptional, capturing the vividness and vitality that this movie is all about. Keira Knightly also works well with her co-stars, and this is her best work so far.

All in all, this is brilliant film, and one that everyone should make the effort to see at least once.",1 -"How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.

But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The ""new"" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector ""Joe Johnston"" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new ""Punk"" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague",0 -"William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is about a Jewish moneylender and his bond to extract a pound of flesh from the wealthy merchant Antonio, the forfeiter of a debt. The Jewish moneylender, of course, is Shylock and he is given such a towering performance by Al Pacino that even outstanding actors like Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynne Collins fade into the background. The film is set in 16th century Venice and director Michael Radford relies on setting, mood, and realism to tell its story, rejecting lavish period costumes or a modern setting with rock music to appeal to a wider audience.

Radford slices the play's three-hour length to a manageable two hours and eight minutes and also provides some historical background. In the opening narration, he tells us how Jews came to England, were subject to increasing persecution, and eventually expelled from England. They were forbidden to own property, could make profits only by lending money at interest, and were forced to live in a Venetian ""geto"", a forerunner of darker events to come. In the film, the merchant Antonio (Jeremy Irons) spits upon Shylock in public, yet feels no shame in going to the usurer to borrow 3000 ducats to help his friend and suggested lover Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) to properly court Portia (Lynne Collins), a wealthy heiress. Though Shylock has been insulted by Antonio, he agrees to loan the money without interest for three months on the condition that forfeiture of the bond grants him the right to exact a pound of flesh from Antonio's heart.

The play is primarily a drama of hatred and revenge, but like many of Shakespeare's works there are touches of broad comedy as well. Here the comedy involves three pairs of lovers: Bassanio and Portia, Gratiano, Bassanio's friend, and Nerissa, and Lorenzo, another friend of Bassanio, and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. Portia has offered herself to the person who can pick the right treasure from one of three boxes, made of gold, silver, and lead. The Prince of Morocco chooses the one of gold, the Prince of Aragon the one of silver and both are disappointed. Bassanio, however, loves her for herself and opens the leaden casket to find the portrait within. Radford's adaptation conveys a remarkable feeling for time and place. Portia's residence at Belmont suggests one of those splendid summer homes complete with immaculate gardens and art treasures hanging in every room and contrasts well with the grungy look of Shylock's city with its dank alleyways.

When it becomes clear that Antonio cannot repay the debt, Bassanio returns to Venice, leaving Portia behind. When he arrives, the loan is in default and Shylock is demanding his pound of flesh. Even when Bassanio, backed by Portia's wealth, offers many times the amount in repayment, Shylock is intent on revenge not only for the loss of the money but for a lifetime of outsider status. The duke, who sits in judgment, will not intervene as Portia enters in the guise as a lawyer to defend Antonio. It is here that the film reaches its dramatic heights as all parties come to court to achieve a final resolution.

The Merchant of Venice is not only about an unpaid debt but also about the estrangement of Jews from Christian society and their desire for belonging. It has been one of Shakespeare's most controversial plays and analysts have debated for a long time whether it is an anti-Semitic play or simply a play about anti-Semitism that reflects the prevalent view of Christian society in Elizabethan England. Although Shylock is definitely a caricature, he is an ambiguous figure and there are many indications that Shakespeare views his flaws as human failings, not Jewish ones. The Duke recognizes that he is simply a man who has failed to adhere to the compassionate language of the Torah.

In the monologue, ""I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? …If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"", Shylock shows a universal humanity, expressing the equality of all men. Though we are horrified at the sentence he wishes to carry out, we can feel his pain accumulated over the years. Pacino's performance brings new vigor to the text and his often over-the-top persona is replaced with a gentler, more understated demeanor that brings understanding to his cause.. During a Toronto International Film Festival interview last September, Radford said about Pacino, ""…when you work with a brilliant actor, you have a great machine. It's a bit like driving a powerful car. You have to dare to do it."" He has dared and we are all the beneficiaries.",1 -"This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies.

Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.

Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be.",1 -"Fabulous, fantastic, probably Disney's best musical adventure. I have loved this film for over 35 years because it is so imaginative, clever and fun. Even despite the silly ""flying bed"" scenes, the other scenes and dialog are magical and funny. Could they have picked anyone better than Angela Lansbury to play Eglantine? I cannot think of anyone more suited to the role. Remaking this classic would be as stupid as remaking Mary Poppins.

David Tomlinson, though he had few quality movie roles, absolutely shines in this adventure. He was a comic genius who is often forgotten nowadays. Blustering, prim and proper Englishman -- nobody could really do slapstick and pull it off as gracefully as he does. It would be tragic to remake this film because Tomlinson has been deceased for a few years and nobody could step into his shoes and do his character justice.

The dancing nightgowns and armor have a magical aura about them that other movies with witches just don't capture. I particularly enjoy the parts where the Germans invade Eglantine's house and she must defend it in any way she can.

Bobbing along, bobbing along on the bottom of the beautiful briny, sea. Richard and Robert Sherman outdid themselves on the musical numbers. All of them are fantastic and worth remembering, Portobello Road being one of my favorites.

A great film that still holds up today!!",1 -"If you've ever seen Open Water , this is the same kind of gritty, edgy, indie style of film. i liked the action, suspense. the slow building of it all,, i just hope they don't do to this one what they did to Open Water, with that sequel.. but anyways,, the one thing i didn't like was the annoying younger sister,, i was rooting for the croc the whole time.. film starts out pretty much like it should,, kids packing up for a trip,, they hire a guide who mysteriously left 5 mins. before they got there,, so i guess his assistant takes the two sisters,, and the boyfriend out on the water , now mind you this is the second day of their adventure,, curiously enough the first day they spent at guess ,, hmm a crocodile farm.. so they are out there and all is good for a little while,, then bang,, crocodile time... very intense,, you know something in this movie you don't see the crocodile, a whole heck of a lot,, but when you do,, gosh it is very scary,, i love the croc's snout and eyes,, and the shroud of fog that seems to enshroud the croc every time he raises his head above the water,, very very creepy, but good,, overall this is a great film,, if you can get past the annoying little sister.",1 -"I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming ""Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc"". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.

And yes... ""Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR"" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative ""Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette"" and the downright tacky ""Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape"", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.",0 -"A chilling and gory tale of a couple inheriting a 150 room Italian castle while still grieving the loss of their young son. The couples marriage seems to be on the rocks due to the car accident that took the life of their son and left their daughter blind. Upon taking inventory of the castle for a future sale a hideous, tortured and misshapen creature breaks lose from the bowels of the 12th century castle. Pretty gory with great horror atmosphere and some sexual overtones. Starring Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Jessica Dollarhide and Elisabeth Kaza .",0 -"I had few problems with this film, and I have heard a lot of criticisms saying it is overlong and overrated. True, it is over three hours long, but I was amazed that it goes by so quickly. I don't think it is overrated at all, I think the IMDb rating is perfectly decent. The film looks sumptuous, with gorgeous costumes and excellent effects, and the direction from James Cameron rarely slips from focus. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Jack, and Kate Winslet is lovely as Rose. David Warner, a great actor, steals every scene he's in. The story is very rich in detail, and is hot on character development, obvious with the love story which is very moving when it needs to be, though in the first bit of the movie it is a little slow. The last hour is extremely riveting, and I will confess that I was on the edge of my seat, when the Titanic sank. I will also say that the last five minutes were very moving. The music score by James Horner was lovely, though I never was a huge fan of the song My Heart will Go On. The 1996 miniseries was good, but suffered from undeveloped scenarios and some historical inaccuracies. Overall, I give Titanic an 8.5/10. Bethany Cox.",1 -"There isn't a whole lot going on in this story -- just two men employing very different ways of handling memories of Vietnam. But what it lacks in premise, it more than makes up for in acting and realism. It's a quiet film about the bonds of friendship and shared experience. We even get romance (not gratuitous -- just another very real piece of this story). It's well worth seeing.",1 -"Now, I have seen a lot of movies in my day, but out of every single one there have been a very select few that have been really good to me. And I'm a 19 year old man which is impressed by this movie directed towards a younger audience. This is a very underrated gem for those who watch foreign movies. Almost all the acting is believable, the graphics are decent (for which you won't even be caring about as you watch the movie. Trust me, bitching about the graphics would be a stupid thing to do), the story is well written and it's a movie that everyone can enjoy not just the kids.

Here's basically what this movie made me to. It one, made me laugh...a lot, two, made me feel for the characters like you're suppose to, and three, it's a very uplifting story. By the end of this movie you will feel good. Sure, what anime out there hasn't featured some young kid turning into a great warrior and whatever to defeat some great evil. It's a formula that is used a lot. But, in this case it is forgivable because even though they use puppets for some characters and some average graphics you'd see 5 years ago, the appearance of it is not to be judged. It's very touching, the ending is original, and it keeps you into the movie like it is suppose to. If you however try comparing this to other movies like ""The Never-ending Story"" or whatever it will diverse your opinion. Watch it as it is and you will enjoy it.

It has been a good long while since I've been impressed like this. The only other movie where I have gotten this feeling is when I saw TMNT way back when it came out. There is something about this movie I felt about TMNT that really made me love it. So don't over-analyze or take this movie too seriously, just enjoy it.",1 -"This film is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).

It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.

1 out of 10. Still better than ""Starship Troopers"" however.",0 -"> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle.",0 -"The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.

The acting redefines the term ""terrible overacting"" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine ""bad"".

***spoilers***

The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel ""Lurch"" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.

The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).

Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.",0 -"STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.

In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.

A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.

What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? *",0 -"I'm having as much fun reading the user comments as I did watching the movie! It seems that this is the classic either ""Love it"" or ""Hate it"" movie. And I have to say that I not only am on the ""Love it"" side, I'm going on a limb to say it this my FAVORITE movie, EVER! Thank heavens I found it in the first place. Almost IMPOSSIBLE to find, I was lucky about ten years ago to record it off a late night UHF channel. Of course my liking of Sellers may make me a bit biased, but I can't see how anyone with a cornball, dry sense of humor (like me), can not be in love with this flick. The plot is great (but perhaps as a previous poster said, maybe the reason why it's not a widely known movie ... upset the medical field?) the acting is great (I can see why some may say the acting was horrible ... but that's what made this movie so great ... it's total tacky-ness) and the humor is gut busting. I'm proud to say I have watched this film no less than about 20 times and have pretty much every line memorized. This film is genius!!",1 -"I really can't see why people seem to dislike this film. I found it very entertaining (of course the fact that it stars the gorgeous Laura Fraser is a bonus!) When I first heard about it, I thought it would be along the lines of a role-reversed ""Weird Science"" and, to an extent, this is true, however there is a twist which I really didn't see coming. Having seen the trailer on the DVD (which I hadn't seen before watching the film) I saw that the ""twist"" is actually shown in the trailer! Very strange.

As the film progresses the ""Weird Science"" comparison fits less and less, and I think this is the better of the two films. Certainly there are some scenes which don't work wonderfully, but these are made up for by the enthusiasm of the young cast.

In summary, I'd suggest that this is a fine example of a Sci-fi chick flick, and I don't think I've seen many of them!",1 -"As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand.",1 -"Looked forward to viewing this film and seeing these great actors perform. However, I was sadly disappointed in the script and the entire plot of the story. David Duchovny,(Dr. Eugene Sands),""Connie & Carla"",'04, was the doctor in the story who uses drugs and losses his license to practice medicine. Dr. Sands was visiting a night club and was able to use his medical experience to help a wounded customer and was assisted by Angelina Jolie,(Claire),""Taking Lives"",'04, who immediately becomes attracted to Dr. David Sands. Timothy Hutton,(Raymond Blossom),""Kinsey"",'04, plays the Big Shot Gangster and a man with all kinds of money and connections. Timothy Hutton seems to over act in most of the scenes and goes completely out of his mind trying to keep his gang members from being killed. Gary Dourdan,(Yates),""CSI-Vegas TV Series"", plays a great supporting role and portrays a real COOL DUDE who is a so-called body guard for Raymond Blossom. Angelina Jolie looks beautiful and sexy with her ruby red lips which draws a great deal of attention from all the men. This film is not the greatest, but it does entertain.",0 -"This movie feels like a film project. As though the filmmakers picked out a cross section of society with no experience and got to work. Characters are kind of uninvolved and naive though. Despite this amateurish feel, the movie is effective. It's like a cross-section of life with neighborhood kids trying to realize or nurture their honest sexual feelings. Being raised by a grand-parent, of course from that generation there is shame associated with sexuality. This provides for some predictable but well done conflict. Probably most enjoyable was the way the main character grew a little bit in his Romantic relationship realizing a greater depth to sexual feelings. A good watch but nothing stirring....",1 -"All my friends and various other coworkers think this show is soooo great. First I hate this show!!!!!!! I think I might be the only female alive!!! I only watched it because my best friend adores it and fancies herself to be the Charlotte character!

First the whole plot (If you can call it that) is about four women Superslut Samantha (Kim Cattrall)who most likely has every STD available and mossy,brown and green genitals considering she is tri sexual( she'll try anything).

Samantha is not like most 40 something women even in NY, but than the show would not have some kind of entertainment since Samantha (along with some good NY scenery) is the only reason to watch and those are not reason enough.

Charlotte (Kristen Davis) is a well dressed upper class NY idiot who still believes the Pince Charming myth! However sweet and pretty she is do not let that fool you, she spreads quite often.

Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) now this woman is stereotypical angry, butch feminist. I think in one episode she is thought to be a lesbian, but apparently is not...What a shame she's almost interesting.

Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) the most annoying character. I swear I thought I was watching Twisted Sister front man Dee Snider's more manly looking, cross dressing, sissy boy, brother! This is a girl looking for can't live without you love....Heard of a puppy?

This show is stupid and I love making fun of it because I hear about how it is some kind of new awakening for women. That is just sad if your looking to watch slutty, pathetic, addictive people in way too expensive clothes drinking cosmopolitans and sounding like an annoying 15 yr old on cocaine than there is a show for you............just use protection.",0 -"This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying ""Ahh, I get it!"" I muttered something along the lines of ""Okay...whatever."" In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!

The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the ""steamy"" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.

And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.

My recommendation: don't bother!",0 -"I would like to vent my displeasure at NBC Canceling Las Vegas. The show had been Top Notch for the past 5years. Tom Sellecks addition was great. He really brought a nice fresh addition to the show. What does NBC have now? Lame reality and night time game shows. I mean come on Keep the Old and Tired Law and Order? Not even putting Jack McCoy as DA can keep the show interesting. Gee let's keep quality program like Deal or No Deal or ED? ER should be put out to pasture to. NBC is worse now than it was in Pre Seinfeld Cheers days. With cable and internet, NBC cannot afford to fall flat on its face.PLEASE BRING BACK VEGAS! i remember when Homicide Life on the Street ended the way it did. At least they had a two hour series final. Hey CBS are you listening? Please pick up Vegas it is a great show.",1 -"Geesh, I never, ever, ever thought I'd write the above four words. But, actually, she's the highpoint of this little flick.

As the movie was packaged when I rented it, it supposedly is a comedy about a girl who is kidnapped but doesn't have her medication, which keeps her stable. It sounded like a cute concept. For years, all we ever saw of Spelling was as Donna Martin in 90210 and an endless parade of dull, lifeless TV movies. It sounded like a chance for her to stretch a little, and considering that with her TV success and her rich daddy, she couldn't have any financial reason to do this movie, I figured she took the part because this must be a low-budget jewel.

Wrong.

Instead, Spelling's part is small, and the bit about the mentally unbalanced kidnap victim is just one of several storylines. When she's not on the screen, the movie crawls so badly, I could've sworn it was longer than the 85 minutes that were listed on the tape. This would've worked so much better if Spelling's storyline had dominated, and it had been changed into a romantic comedy with her and Phil, the least irritating kidnapper.",0 -"one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb ""cammeo""...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather ""pure"" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name ""some"". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.",1 -"According to John Ford's lyrically shot, fictional biopic of Abraham Lincoln's life his greatest faults may have been an obtuseness with woman and an ability to dance in ""the worst way."" Ford's camera has only praising views to reveal of Mr. Lincoln's early life. But for what the film lacks in character complexities it makes up for in beauty and depth of vision. Uncharacteristically beautiful compositions of early film, what could have been a series of gorgeous still frames, Ford has a unique eye for telling a story. The film sings of the life of a hopeful young man. Henry Fonda plays the contemplative and spontaneously clever Lincoln to a tee, one of his best roles.

The film concerns two young men, brothers, on trial for a murder that both claim to have committed. In classic angry mob style, the town decides to take justice into their own hands and lynch the pair of them, until honest Abe steps into the fray. He charms them with his humor, telling them not to rob him of his first big case, and that they are as good as lynched with him as the boys lawyer. What follows seems to become the outline for all courtroom- murder-dramas thereafter, as Abe cunningly interrogates witnesses to the delight and humor of the judge, jury and town before he stumbles upon the missing links.

The film plays out like many John Ford movies do: a tablespoon of Americana, a dash of moderate predictability, a hint of sarcasm that you aren't sure if you put in the recipe or if Ford did it himself. Despite the overtly 'Hollywood' feel of the film, and overly patriotic banter alluding to Lincoln's future presidency, the film is entirely enjoyable and enjoyably well constructed, if you can take your drama with a grain of salt.",1 -"A few bratty kids unwittingly unleash an evil that has lain dormant for the past twenty years and have to reap the ill fortune that comes with that.The Campbell Brothers' film before this ""Midnight Skater"" was fun & their picture after ""the Red Skulls"" was all right. So why is ""Demon Summer"" so mind-numbingly bad? I really don't know, it IS better then their ""Splatter Rampage Wrestling"" but not be much as the basement level of acting is cringe-worthy and when a 'horror' film is as talky as this one is, that's not a good thing. The story's been done to death in many other better films, so why waste your time on this one?

My Grade: D-",0 -"I have recently seen this movie due to Jake's recent success with Brokeback Mountain. I figured I would see the movies that I missed. I had no expectations going into the film so was astounded that I had missed this movie at all. It's a gripping father and son tale, and it is also an underdog story. I even shed a tear at the finale of this wonderful tale. This movie appeals to all ages. The only reason I give it a 9 out of 10 is that it slows down a little in the middle, but it comes back strong in the end. The acting was great, the story was magnificent, and the cinematography was captivating given the setting of the film. GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Rent it, buy it, watch it, LOVE IT! I know I did!",1 -"Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in ""Toy Soldiers"". He plays the highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan ""Snuffy"" Bradberry. During a regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into their own hands.",1 -"I've tried to watch this film 3 or 4 times, but I just can't get past the fact that everything about it is just awful. I'm sure it was a courageous move by somebody to cast Jack Palance as the protagonist, but there is not one single fiber of my being that believes that he could act at all, much less act against type.

Yes, I understand that Clifford Odets was a brilliant author, but it's not evident here. This odd and forced mish-mash of 50's hipster dialog seems to obfuscate any genuine meaning, which explains why none of the actors, even the good ones (Steiger, Ida Lupino, Shelly Winters, Everett Sloane) seems to know how to deliver their lines - it's as though they don't understand the meaning of what they are saying. And in the meantime, Wendell Corey and Palance stage a terrific contest to see who can be more stone-faced.

The direction is amateurish and completely overwrought. The physical interaction between the characters is as stilted as the dialog.

And can we discuss that hideous set? It's so busy, ugly and contrived that it adds to the robotic, disconnected quality of the characters, the dialog and the portrayals.

This film seems to suck the energy right out of me. It looks like everybody took an overdose of Valium each morning when they arrived on the set. It takes a pretty lousy movie to make Rod Steiger and Shelly Winters look bad, but this one succeeds.

I can see that it might have been effective as a play on or off Broadway, where intellectuals and beats could have congratulated themselves for appreciating the power of the plot and the artsy flourishes of the pseudo-hip dialog.",0 -"I just spent the last half an hour reading through the other reviews and I don't know if I want to laugh or cry. There's no way that ADJL is like Harry Potter, Danny Phantom, Fairly OddParents, other then a secret magical world, which has been close to overdone. Also, no way is ADJL anime. Anime is very much a drawing style(and some will say more, such as plot and Japanese origin), either way ADJL is not anime so stop saying it is and if you're looking for something that is like anime, look else where, like Teen Titans and Avatar.

ADJL is typical. It's just like all the other Disney shows. An arrogant main character kid who thinks he knows everything and doesn't bother to listen to people who're older than him and continues to make the same mistakes. Best friend sidekicks. Repeative plot with a hint of a twist. And sibling rivalry. Can't they once make a character that has brains and isn't full of himself? Can't they have kids respect their elders? Can't they think of something different with the plot? Can't they have the siblings get along and not hate each other? ADJL is just too generic, because you also have bad guys that get defeated and come back again, and are also complete idiots, that have no background for their hate. C'mon, you'll think that someone who's at least 30 will be able to out-wit a 13 year old.

Watching ADJL is like watching nearly anything else on TV these day, same thing over and over again. Nothing special, just new designs characters and one small idea that has been used again and again.",0 -"After the debacle of the first Sleepaway Camp, who thought that a franchise could be born. SC II is superior in aspect. More inspired killings and just whole lot more fun. While that might not be saying much (compared to the first movie), Sleepaway Camp II is worth the rental.

Pros: Entertaining, doesn't take itself too seriously like SC I. Inspired Killings. Cons: Crappy acting and mullets abound.

Bottom Line: 5/10

",0 -"WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS deserves to be a better known film directed by Otto Preminger, the man who gave the world LAURA. And this time, he's got the same co-stars: DANA ANDREWS and GENE TIERNEY. It must be said that Tierney here is under-used in what amounts to more of a supporting role while the spotlight goes to Andrews.

He plays a tough, hardened cop used to dealing with a bunch of thugs in too vigorous a way until one night he accidentally kills a man in the process of arresting him. When suspicion falls on a cab driver (TOM TULLY), he goes along with the investigation into the murder but starts to feel guilt because he's in love with the cabbie's daughter (GENE TIERNEY). Tierney, by the way, looks a little too elegant for the girl she's playing here and doesn't seem to fit into the squalid background elements of the story.

The story takes a grim turn as the investigation goes deeper and it's discovered that the murdered man had a silver plate in his head from his service as a war hero. By the end, it turns into a morality tale with Andrews developing a conscience over his crime.

It's fascinating as film noir with capable performances from a strong supporting cast. A good entry in the field of noir, forcefully directed by Preminger and nicely played by Andrews and Tierney, despite the slight miscasting of her character.",1 -"Eglimata (= Crimes) is a story about little crimes everyday people commit that in a crazy scenario could lead to the absolute disaster.One of the smartest Greek series ever!Actors like Ketty Konstadinou and Maria Kavogianni showed a whole new dimension of themselves and talent and gave us moments of incredible 'guilty' laughing.Every viewer seemed to recognise the bad side of their self in one of the characters or at least a side of their self they wish they had. Actors of every age that played bigger and smaller parts gained an equally big space in Greek audience's heart.My personal favourites (apart the first two i mentioned)are Vassilis Haralambopoulos, Athinodoros Prousalis and Stavros Nikolaidis but so many amazing actors passed by some episodes from time to time. Whoever around the world understands Greek should find a way to watch this series,even though it's been more than 5 years that it was on TV.In Greece they keep repeating the series (ANT1) in every chance there is like summertime or early afternoon zones.We'll never forget Eglimata or any of the casting crew!",1 -"2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way!

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based:

1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.)

2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)",0 -"My friends and I rented this for ""Bad Movie Night"" with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest.",0 -"Even 15 years after the end of the Vietnam war ""Jacknife"" came not too late or was even superfluous. It's one of the few that try to deal with the second sad side of the war: The time after. Different from movies like ""Taxi driver"" or ""Rambo"" which use to present their main characters as broken heroes in a bad after war environment this movie allows the audience to face a different view on the Vietnam vets. Their development is shown very precisely before and especially after the war. The problems are obvious but in all this tragic there is always the feeling of some hope on the basis of love and friendship. ""Jacknife"" might be the quietest Vietnam movie ever but after almost 15 years this is really plausible and therefor justified. Moreover, it can make us believe that the war has not finished, yet; at least for some of us.

The three main characters are amazing. De Niro has done one of his best jobs but Ed Harris is the star of this movie. Possibly,this was his best performance ever.",1 -"I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.

And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!

The whole ""all this has happened before and will happen again"" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.

1 out of 10.",0 -"The fine cast cannot uplift this routine tale of a secretary murdered by her married paramour. In fact there are more questions than answers in this one-sided tale of romance and murder; and since we are only provided with the prosecution's side, none of these questions will be answered. This is the type of fare that appeals to the ""He Woman, Man Hater"" clubs of America. As presented, it is the tale of an innocent woman who just happens to be ""caught up"" in a romance with a married, high-profile attorney. Is it possible that IF, she had not been two timing her boy friend and having an affair with a married man, the whole nasty murderous, sordid incident could have been avoided? When you watch this, don't worry about going to the 'fridge, you won't miss anything.",0 -"In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some *spoilers* so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!

I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good.

Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic.

This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. *Another spoiler warning!* In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either.

But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up.

Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend.

In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason?

To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies?

The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.",0 -"I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing ""contestant"" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is ""doing good"", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?",0 -"Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it.",1 -"To this day, there isn't a movie I've seen more times than The Chipmunk Adventure, nor has any movie brought me more happiness. This is by no means the greatest film or even the greatest animated film, but to an 8 year old girl in 1988 it was the coolest, funniest, most exciting film ever! I'm still equally as impressed today with the musical numbers, each one a standout song with wonderfully dramatic lyrics in the epic tradition of 80's pop (think Pat Benetar on helium, only catchier).

Controversy has stirred over the blatantly suggestive tone of the Chipette's song ""Gettin' Lucky With You"", which to me seemed much more innocent at the time. However, looking at it as a rational adult, I can totally understand the concern; you've got three young girls in skimpy harem outfits passionately proclaiming ""getting lucky is what it's all about"". The Chipettes' were definitely sexualized tenfold for this movie.

But this controversial issue doesn't even come close to overshadowing the Chipmunks' otherwise fabulous feature length animated adventure, I encourage parents and childless adults alike to check out this movie. Especially if you were a child of the eighties/early nineties like me. :-)",1 -"I grew up watching, and loving this cartoon every year. I didn't think they would be able to take a half hour (20 min!) cartoon and make it a movie. They did it. With FLYING COLOURS! Fabulous, funny, heart warming, effective movie!",1 -"In my eyes this is almost the perfect example of Hollywood ego, only beaten by the new king kong movie. Superman is the original super hero and deserves to be treated with respect even though he wears tights. Brandon Routh was the worst superman I've ever seen, from the start of the movie u just wanna shove a chunk of kryptonite down his throat. He looks just silly wearing the costume. But enough about him, Kate Bosworth was a bad choise for lois lane, she is supposed to be a hard ass reporter, but in this movie she looks more like a schoolgirl. The plot was weak and predictable (WOW, He is actually supermans son, who would have ever thought....) and the acting was horrible. This movie has one good thing going for it, and it's name is Kevin Spacey. His portrayal of Lex Luthor was brilliant but even he could not save this movie. What this movie needed was the cast of ""lois and clark"" (except Kevin Spacey of course) and a different story. I watched this movie after watching ""the hills have eyes"" and I was chocked to learn that there existed worse movies then that.",0 -"1) Bad acting.

2) For a bunch of castaways on an alien planet, it sure looked like home, especially with the houses and roads you can glimpse in the background.

3) Terrible plot with stupid caracters making idiotic decisions and blithely losing precious survival equipment and clothing left, right and center.

4) Cool 70's scifi jumpsuits (possibly the only good thing about this movie)

5) Interesting ship at the beginning (this crew must have been watching Space 1999 a lot). Too bad it blows up so early. The escape ship also got sunk too fast. *sigh*

6) Anthropologists might find some aspects of the movie interesting in terms of primate group behavior.",0 -"American-made final entry in the ""Blood Island"" series of Filipino horror films concerns Abdul Amir (Reed Hadley), ruler of a fictional country. He dies of cancer, yet it's figured out how to bring him back: put his brain into a donor body. The mad doctor in charge (Kent Taylor) puts it in a highly unlikely body: the facially scarred giant manservant named Gor (John Bloom). A doctor friend of the ruler tries to remedy matters and put an end to the mad doctors' plans.

Film-making partners Samuel M. Sherman (producer) and Al Adamson (director) corral several actors they've worked with before, including Taylor, Adamsons' sexy wife Regina Carrol, Angelo Rossitto, Zandor Vorkov, and Vicki Volante. They tried to go for the feel of the previous ""Blood Island"" entries but one can tell this was made stateside. While not necessarily a ""good"" film, it's got a bunch of amusing elements to add up to an entertainingly trashy whole. A malevolent dwarf (Rossitto), gory operations, a rather unconvincing makeup job on Bloom, the political intrigue subplot, caverns full of cobwebs, etc. The narrative is actually pretty coherent, with plot twists thrown in here and there. I think it could have been trimmed a bit; some scenes drag. But it's got its fun moments and an ending people might not expect.

For this kind of thing, the acting isn't too bad. Both Taylor and Rossitto are fun; the latter seems to be having quite a good time in his role. Volante is appealing enough, and Williams is O.K. in the heroic role. In any event, it's nice to see all of these familiar faces in one of these films.

Absolutely nothing special, but as a trashy B ""horror"" (I use the word loosely, none of this is exactly scary) film, it certainly amuses.

7/10",1 -"This version of ""The Lost Horizon"" is actually not a bad film at all. I think the problem is people like to pick on musicals, especially those made in the 70s. I saw the film upon its original release in 1973 (I was ten) and really enjoyed it, the music especially. (Burt Bacharach has always been a favorite.) The story is fun, the acting is good, and technically it's excellent. Sure, there are one or two rather silly dance numbers, but hey, you can't win 'em all. I have this film on video and watch it every so often...and I enjoy it each and every time!",1 -"My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.

I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper ""mask mode"".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; ""I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in."" My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.

This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.",0 -"If you like the standard Sly flicks that involve over the top action, unbelievable stunts (unbelievable is not intended to be complimentary here), and retarded dialogue; you will love this steaming pile of mountain goat dung. I had high hopes based on the trailer. I thought that Stalone was going to be forced in his ""has-been"" days to yield to smarter people and make an action film that would place a credible hero in a credible situation where the story, setting, and (believable) action would prevail. I crave action that is at least close enough to reality that you can imagine the fear and excitement that would come from such an event. My limited knowledge of hypothermia and its effects rendered at least one scene laughably ridiculous. Judge Dredd is only better because you know going into the theater that you are going to see a comic book made into a movie. The character, setting and everything else are beyond comparison to anything we might encounter ourselves. Cliffhanger on the other hand turns a mountain climbing guide into Rambo before you can say ""yo, Adrian!""",0 -"Director Samuel Fuller concocts a brilliant visual set-up: cocky pickpocket unwittingly lifts some microfilm from a woman's purse; it turns out she's a courier for the Communists, and now she and the grifter are being watched by the police. The Film Noir Formula is all its glory--before the ingredients became clichés--including waterfront locales, floozies, saxophones on the soundtrack, and one hell of a climactic fistfight. Performances by Richard Widmark and Jean Peters are right on target, and the smart, sharp script is quite colorful. Fabulous Thelma Ritter received an Oscar nomination for knockout supporting role as a ""professional stoolie"". Exciting, atmospheric, tough as nails. *** from ****",1 -"When I bought this film, I expected to get a fun, 1970's exploitation film. Instead, I got this bore fest by amateur auteur Andy Milligan. Ah, Andy Milligan. With his tight editing, breakneck pacing , and wonderfully well known actors, you'd almost think you're watching...one of his home movies! Seriously, I couldn't even stay awake the first time I tried to watch it. The scenes of boring people dragged on an on, and whenever someone got killed, the film would slow down. Sometimes it would speed up too, making the characters voices sound like chipmunks, which was probably the best thing about this film. The script actually seemed a bit better than the film, and seems more well suited to be in a soap opera than in a grainy 70's sleeping pill where the actors constantly stumble over it's lines. The cover said ""Their prime cuts were curiously erotic...but thoroughly brutal!"" Trust me, there is nothing ""erotic"" about this film. Oh, we do get to see characters that resemble extra lumpy cottage cheese making out, but that's about it. And as far as ""brutal"", well, the viewer is brutalized the most with this here film. And another thing...",0 -"I may not have the longest of attention-spans, but this is the second movie I have refused to see all the way through, and I even bought it on DVD because of its ""classic"" status.

At first, I thought that the director was playing a big joke, so I kept waiting for a resolution, something to laugh at, something to keep my interest, but this resolution never came. Rather, the writing was laughably amateurish, the movie dragged on and felt disjointed, like someone cut a TV series to feature-length. The Academy must have been on drugs when they nominated this movie for no less than eight Oscars.

Once again, I repeat myself. This is the second movie I have refused to watch all the way through. The first was ""Exterminator"". I hope this gives you an indication of how bad it really is. 1/10",0 -"This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......",0 -"Ten years after the first movie, James Belushi, one of the most gifted, and over looked light comedic actors of the last twenty years, returns as Detective Dooley for this movie.

If you are expecting more of the same from the first movie, you will be disappointed, but this is still a good movie. Realizing that all the Dog vs. Man battle of wills scenarios had probably been used up in the first movie, this one turns slightly more psychological in its approach as it concentrates on a criminal with a fixation with Dooley's recently deceased wife after she rejected his book, and blames Dooley for her death.

The script may not be the best, but the movie allows both Belushi and Christine Tucci to show their good acting ability, while still retaining enough of the light humour of the first movie to make it work, and the chemistry between the two stars is there for all to see.

An easy, light going movie, which, while maybe not worth a purchase unless you are a true fan of either the first movie or Belushi, definately worth a watch when it comes on TV.

",1 -"Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.

The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what ""characters"" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.

The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, ""you aren't going to shoot me"" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.

The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.

Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW!

In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.",0 -"I watched this years ago on television when I was sick (I don't know, I tend to be more complacent with my TV viewing when I'm sick; too much effort to use the remote control, I guess).

From what I can recall, every aspect of the movie--casting, acting, writing, directing, etc.--was ill-advised at best. I could have forgiven the historical inaccuracies if this film had created a sense of what it was like to work on Trinity; but it didn't. There were attempts to humanize the scientists, but they were insufficient and never transcended caricature.

I didn't know very much about the people involved in the Manhattan Project at the time, but the portrayals in the movie were so cartoonish that I became interested in learning about the real personalities. And I did. So I guess this horrible film has done a very small amount of good, after all.

This is not an in-depth review, but FMLB neither deserves nor requires one. You might enjoy it if you're a fan of bad movies.",0 -"This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope.",0 -"Recently, a friend and I were discussing educational and ethical influences when we were growing up in the 1950's versus today. She mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who, in 1798, wrote The Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Both of us had been required to recite parts of the epic poem in high school and in English Literature courses in college. My friend said, ""Its messages even might be called metaphysical within today's context.""

We tried reciting it and only remembered bits and pieces. (I have problems remembering Dr. Seuss.) I said I'd get two copies of the poem so each could read it. That was easy enough, but I was extremely surprised to find it had been made into a film. We looked forward to watching the film to see how it had been interpreted. After all, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner isn't exactly light reading. After each had read the poem, we watched the film together.

We considered the film a remarkable achievement, especially considering it was made in the 1970's, before computers, before the so-called ""Ken Burns effect,"" and before special effects too often began compensating for a lack of substance. Particularly noteworthy are the 19th and 20th century illustrations culled from ""lesser known artists,"" such as Willy Pogany, the early Hollywood designer.

The film is narrated by Sir Michael Redgrave, whom had taught the poem when he was a schoolmaster, adding a tone of authority and credibility in remaining true to the poem.

Its mastery is in the layers of subtle messages, conveyed without ""instructing,"" or becoming an oppressive and obvious morality tale. We found it such a refreshing change from today's 'in your face' and 'clobber them over the head' mentality. Most of today's morality messages in film are two-dimensional: extreme violence, murder and mayhem mark the bad. The bad are really, really, bad, and good are super heroes. It is as if human character lacked any nuance. The Rime of The Ancient Mariner is a celebration of the individual, of character, of an appreciation for celebrating all the richness life has to offer, within the larger context of humanity, i.e., man's capacity to give to others.

Proud of ourselves for having found this ""unknown"" gem, we then learned it had won the top award in its category five out of six times at ""name"" international film festivals. Another surprise was learning the film's director, Raul daSilva, is a recognized authority on early animation, and authored six award winning books about film.

This film's message is just as relevant today, if not more so, than when Coleridge penned the original epic poem and when Raul daSilva translated it to film. If I still was teaching high school, which I did for five years, I'd grab this one and show it to all my students. There's a level of richness here that naturally leads to discussion about the big and important issues all of us face, whether in 1798, 1978, or today--in fact, as long as humanity has a spiritual component.

Highly recommended.",1 -"If you are ever in the mood for a truly terrible film, it would be hard to find something that could even compare to this. I have spent a lot of time watching a lot of terrible movies just for the sheer joy I get from it, and man, this is one of the worst. This movie was so bad, I had to buy the third Beastermaster online. That one wasn't as bad, which is amazing since it was straight to video. This is one of those films that is hard to comprehend how it was made in the first place. I mean, someone had to actually have read the script (or many scripts, I'm sure they made several drafts) and said ""Yeah, that's it. Here's some money."" Actually, they probably just wanted to make a Beastmaster 2 before they even had a script, then went with whatever they had. Ack, horrible. So, if you are a fan of really bad movies, watch this one. It is a true classic, and film doesn't get much worse than this. And if it does, please let me know.",0 -"I first saw this movie when it came out in 1994 and just watched it recently and it is STILL funny. I don't know if you have to understand hiphop in the 90's, but it helps if you do. In the 90's when NWA and Public Enemy were at the top, there were internal strife within the groups and members when their separated ways (Ice Cube, Easy E, etc). Also there were the wanna b's, accessible rappers that start making the scene (Vanilla Ice, Freedom Williams from C&C Music Factory, etc). This movie makes fun of all of that in a way that seems like it's an actually documentary. Kasi Lemmons plays an interviewer that spends a year in the life of a fictitious rap group name N.W.H. The members of the group are Ice Code (Rusty Condieff/director), Tasty Taste (Larry B Scott/Revenge of the Nerds, and Tone Def (Mark Christopher Lawrence). They are an up and coming rap group whose politics makes them controversial. Whats good about this film is that it is so thourough in its portrayal of the hiphop industry of the 80s and they way it pokes fun at it. But, if you know 80's/90's rap, you know how much of this stuff is true. Still, on it's own, without hip hop knowledge, it is still a funny funny movie. And for all of those who ask, yes Spinal Tap came first, but Spinal Tap is not the first spoof movie either. This, in my opinion is equally as funny and in some ways, better than Spinal Tap. As Spinal Tap is to heavy metal, Fear of A Black Planet is to Rap. And the songs are off the hook also. The DVD is chalk full of extras to include music videos of NWH as a group and as solo artists. Brilliant performances by Rusty Condieff and Larry B Scott.",1 -"The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.

The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.

The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.

Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.

Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :(",0 -"Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe. Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys.

Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films.

The supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan.",1 -"I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be ""the true story,"" but it's a great film.",0 -"Franco proves, once again, that he is the prince of surreal & erotic cinema. True, much of his work can be viewed as entertaining sleaze but with Succubus (Necronomicon) he shows what he is truly capable of when he lets his warped creativity run riot and gives us a film that is both hypnotic and enigmatic whilst still maintaining the delirious eroticism intrinsic in his work. Jerry Van Rooyen's splendid score pulsates as the viewer is thrown from one bizarre scenario to another as we follow the trials of a striptease artist (Reynaud) who may be schizophrenic, or may indeed (as one mysterious character states) be a devil, attempt to come to terms with the world she inhabits. A beautiful and enigmatic piece of cinema highly recommended to anybody with even a passing interest in alternative cinema.",1 -"I own this movie and I love Canadian Movies but hire an actress like Rose I don't understand.She is completly useless in this movie just a name that's all.The rest of the cast is good,good enough to make this little thriller work.I was surprise by the plot which is not the first time it was used.But those unknown actors did very well even Jergen,I'm not a big fan of his but I liked him in this movie.If you got the chance to see it go for it.",1 -"The Curse of Monkey Island. Released excactly 6 years after the success of Monkey Island 2. You would think with Monkey Island 2's wierd ending that it would finish Monkey Island once and for all. But, it all turned out to be a trick to lure Guybrush into captivity. But enough about that, the whole jist of this is that Monkey Island has returned, and the voices are just phenominal. If LucasArts were to make a movie/cartoon of Monkey Island, this would probably be what it would look like, and sound like. It's plot is real good, and everything about it is just awesome. If you haven't heard about the Monkey Island series, buy the Monkey Island Archives or The Monkey Island Booty Pack and play through all the games starting with The Secret of Monkey Island, then Monkey Island 2, and The Curse of Monkey Island. Monkey Island 4 was real good, but this one tops them all.",1 -"This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.",0 -"This is definitely a good movie unlike what other people are saying. Peline and I have both seen the movie 3x and the end is cheesy but that is part of the package... to experiment with death is the same as trying to defy it, so the movie is cool. For those who wish to see a classic Kevin Bacon movie, see this please. take care greeting from Istanbul. we will write 10 lines if you really want us 2 but we think it is a waste of time bye. The rest of this review should not be taken seriously because we just wrote it to fill the 10 line requirement (which is crazy) but we are kind people and will therefore adapt to the rules that are set out for us. So people watch this movie not because we wrote 10 lines, but because it is good. and by the way we wrote 12 lines!!",1 -"I decided to write a comment on this amazing movie because here on IMDb it is cited that John Woo, a mediocre director who made some decent films back in his pre-American years but totally ruined his reputation by his latest, made in US films, plans to remake it. Well, here are a couple of reasons why it is one of the stupidest ideas for a remake ever: The plot of the film is simple and even clichéd by today's standards, but what makes the film a masterpiece is acting by the four leads, unique direction by Mellville, cinematography, music and its style. There is no way any director today can make such film, it is impossible to create such an atmosphere in a movie in today's Box-office targeted movie business.

John Woo did make a more or less decent film which borrowed from Melville's Le Samourai - The Killer, but remember, it was made when the director was not spoiled by big budgets and expensive (in salaries) but cheap (in acting merits) actors. So what I'm saying is that this is one of the greatest films ever made, together with another film by Melville - Le Samourai. Watch it. And even if the remake will be made, try to avoid it before seeing the great original first.",1 -"An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.

The first half of ""Footlight Parade"" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in ""The Big Trail."" Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be.

In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, ""Honeymoon Hotel,"" ""By a Waterfall,"" and ""Shanghai Lil.""

Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill ""Bojangles"" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.

Most critics prefer the ""Shanghai Lil"" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of ""By a Waterfall"" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color.

Though not nearly as socially conscious as ""Gold Diggers of 1933,"" ""Footlight Parade"" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen.",1 -"To say that this is a good show is not to say anything at all. After all, this show is made by the same crew responsible for Airplane and other hilarious and brilliant movies. Writing is superb. Even though the show is built on one-liners, they don't become overbearing or annoying. Leslie Nielsen is flexing his comedy muscle to the full extent as if saying: You ain't seen nothing yet. The format was definitely polished to introduce Naked Gun. When watching these movies, notice how many schticks are taken from the TV show. The brilliant part is that they don't have to be changed too much. The show was truly a testing ground for bigger and better versions to come later.",1 -"The only thing it has to offer is the interesting opposites of Tru and Jack, their choices and viewpoints, and the philosophical questions that it raises. Tru feels that she is helping people who aren't supposed to die, and Jack feels that they are supposed to die, and she is messing with fate's plan, or the universe's plan, or such-whatnot.

But she is obviously able to change things, so there is obviously no such thing as fate in the series' metaphysics. Jack has no basis for believing that there is. And very conveniently, Tru never asks him the right questions. Nobody does. Which obviously proves that the makers of the series don't have an answer.

There simply is no plot!

Instead, they leave it murky in order for the series to be able to continue with it's boring girl stuff, only occasionally interrupted by Tru and Jack's racing against each other towards ends that are unknown...

It turns out that there is nothing to any of it. A teenage pop series with that pretends to be something else.

Your time will be better spent sleeping.",0 -"This is a bit of a puzzle for a lot of the artsy Lynch crowd. They tend to try to write this off as some kind of meaningless, crude, side project of Lynch's. Like this is Lynch passing gas between his real pieces of film art. Well it may be a fart, but its one of those intriguing farts that you catch of a whiff of and are embarrassed to admit you enjoy.

Dumbland distilled down beyond this is art. What can you do with aspects of modern life but laugh at it. If you took it seriously you would go nuts. You hook into it, smell it, taste it, feel its agonies, its unreasoning stupidities, and then express it in any medium you choose. Thats called art, and art isn't dumb. But it is Dumbland.",1 -"This is truly a documentary of love about a fascinating character, her outlook on life and her extended family. The filmmakers spent three years taping Sister Helen at her halfway house and managed to capture so much wonderful material that you can not help but feel you know Sister Helen and her ""boys."" The house holds 21 recovering addicts each with a story almost as involving as Sister Helen's. The ending scenes are particularly involving and emotional.

Sister Helen's story of marriage, addiction and loss reveals a very complex character who's tough love is at all times funny, touching and endearing.

The film is a amazing in the way it tells its story in wonderful slice of life sequences which develop into a story that is almost as clear as if each scene were scripted and acted by the best. The honesty (and obvious dishonesty) of the ""clients"" is very involving as you learn of their fears and watch their attempts to grow.

You will never forget Sister Helen, Robert, Moe or poor Ashish(spelling?).",1 -"I thought this film was excellent, quirky and different to the usual run of the mill 'disengaged cop catching serial killer' film. Kiefer Sutherland was brilliant as usual - I really don't think I have seen anything that he has done where he has not acted brilliantly. The dialogue was funny at times lightening the mood, and the plot engaging. Thanks to other reviewers for showing the link with Alice in Wonderland - I hadn't picked up on those. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Kiefer Sutherlands (as I am) and to anyone who wants to watch an entertaining film for a couple of hours. It was a shame that it wasn't released at the cinemas for a wider audience.",1 -"How did such a terrible script manage to attract this cast? Ridiculous, predictable and thoroughly unbelievable, this is well-acted and slickly directed, but the material is so bad it still qualifies as one of the all-time worst thrillers I've seen in years. Amazingly bad, and not in a fun way. Avoid at all costs, even if you're a fan of someone in the cast.",0 -"A question for all you girls out there : If a man you`ve never met before accidentally phoned you up on purpose and continued to do so at the most indiscreet moments would you be intrigued by him or so freaked out you`d phone the police ? Yeah that`s what I thought so I couldn`t swallow the idea of Marti Gerrard putting up with the unwarrented attention of Connor Hill

***** MILD SPOILERS *****

This is a really dumb story . Connor Hill`s wife is murdered and the plot revolves around the question is Connor phoning Marti so he can have an alibi ? But there`s a massive gap in logic here , couldn`t Connor have employed a hit man ? something the prosecution seem to have ignored . And wasn`t there any forensics at the murder scene ? So why does the whole trial rest on Connor phoning Marti at the time of the murder ? Dumb . Dumb . Dumb . And it`s as predictable as it is brainless .

My abiding memory of this film is that for someone who made the winter Olympics Marti Gerrard is a really crap downhill skier",0 -"It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.",1 -"Dirty Sanchez is the more extreme, British version of Jackass in which the four boys (Pritchard, Dainton, Joycey and Pancho) go to great lengths to hurt and humiliate each other. The reason this show is better than Jackass is because most of the stunts are not planned which makes the reaction much more funny. There are 3 series of the show, the first follows them around and takes a long look at their lives eg. there's an episode on their love lives,jobs etc. The second series sends the boys to try out different occupations. The third follows their European tour. It seems that the boys get more and more daring as the show progresses through the series. In my opinion the third series is the best, but trust me when i say, if you have a week stomach DO NOT WATCH, as you are lightly to see a fair amount of blood and puke in every episode.",1 -"This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.",0 -"Elmer Fudd is laughing while lounging in his easy chair and reading his comic book, his dog comfortably nearby sleeping in front of the fireplace. All is peaceful until a flea comes bouncing by. (The flea is dressed in a farmer's-type outfit with a big sombrero and is carrying a satchel with the name ""A. Flea"" on it.) He gets out his telescope and spots the dog. (We see a big shot of the dog's butt and the flea whistles in excitement, screaming ""T- Bone!"" He then sings, ""There's food around the corner; there's food around the corner!"")

That sets up the storyline of this cute-but-obnoxious flea tormenting the poor dog. The mutt is hilarious as he reacts to the flea.

The drawings of his huge teeth chomping right next to the fleeing flea are clever and the dog's dialog made me laugh out loud a few times. This might be the funniest canine I have ever seen in a cartoon! The poor pooch, under a threat of having to take a bath, as to NOT react when the stupid flea causes him pain. It's almost painful to watch as the flea uses pickaxes, jackhammers and the like on the dog. He puts firecrackers in the dog's behind. It's brutal!",1 -"Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable",0 -"This is not horror, as the first part was: This is (""campy"") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela ""Bruce's sister"" Springsteen.

This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly ""pathological"" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some ""methods"" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.",0 -"Surprisingly not terrible and well animated for one of Disney's straight to video throw away sequels. Like the previous sequel (The Lion King 2) I was glad that Disney brought back most of the original voice actors which makes a big difference and they kept a good level of traditional animation. The plot wanders around for a while but we are distracted by an unending string of jokes ranging from hilarious to dull. To break up the detached plot and jokes they gave us some silly musical sequences, which much like the jokes, range from entertaining to a quick trip to the fridge. For the most part the MST3K-like moments are bland and full of untapped potential and really don't add a whole lot to the movie other than to act as a vehicle for an hour-long flashback. The new characters are at least likable, and the old characters are out doing their thing so I can't fault them there. Overall this movie in not bad and it makes for a nice frivolous filler between the more serious Lion King titles.",1 -"I agree with msinabottle; this is a great movie. Here are some dialogue snippets:

Raisuli (Sean Connery) to Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen): ""You see the man at the well, how he draws the water? When one bucket empties, the other fills. It is so with the world. At present, you are full of power. But you're spilling it, wastefully. And Islam is lapping up the drops as they spill from your bucket.""

Raisuli: The English have paid very well in the past. Pedecaris: Well you'll not have your way with the Americans. President Roosevelt will have your head for this. Raisuli: Roosevelt. This President Roosevelt--he would try and take it himself? Pedecaris: He certainly would! He is a man of grit and strong moral fiber. He does not kidnap women and children! Raisuli: What kind of rifle does he use? Pedecaris: A Winchester! Raisuli: Winchester. Winchester. I have no knowledge of this rifle. Pedecaris: You will.

Teddy Roosevelt (Brian Keith): The American Grizzly Bear is a symbol of the American character: strength, intelligence, ferocity. A little blind and reckless at times, but courageous beyond all doubt. Oh, and one other trait goes with all previous. Newspaper reporter: And that, Mr. President? Teddy Roosevelt: Loneliness. The bear lives out his life alone. Indomitable. Unconquered. But always alone. He has no real allies, only enemies--but none of them are as great as he. Newspaper reporter: You feel this might be an American trait? Teddy Roosevelt: Certainly. The world would never love us. It may respect us. It may even grow to fear us. But it'll never love us. For we have too much audacity. And we're a bit blind and reckless at times, too.",1 -"I cannot stand this show! Has there ever been even one redeeming quality, one funny punchline, or one plot line that ""didn't"" make the average viewer want to drown himself in a bowl of soggy cornflakes?

The voices. Oh, those horrible, wretched voices. Akin to repeatedly dragging a set of fine cutlery across a dusty blackboard, each character is uniquely annoying in his or her aptitude for shrill, nasal vocals. Cosmo sounds like a whining mongrel, Vicky sounds like a stereotypical shrew, and Timmy's dad makes every line sound like a bad impersonation of a game show host (Guy Smiley from ""Sesame Street"" comes to mind).

The animation is awful; even the producers of ""Yu-Gi-Oh!"" laugh at the overwhelmingly bad artwork on this show. Every character has buck teeth, or a square head, or a head three sizes too big for his or her body. And what's with having the characters speak every single line wide-eyed and grinning, as though posing for a photo op with the president? Then, there is the fact that every character on the show is completely moronic. Not since the subtle grace of Amelia Bedelia, Homer Simpson, and Buddy Lembeck of ""Charles in Charge"" fame have characters been portrayed as so unrealistically dumb. Usually ""unrealistic"" is synonymous with ""unfunny"", and that is most definitely the case here. There hasn't been this much slapstick based on cluelessness since ""The Naked Gun 33 1/3""...and at least Leslie Nielson was good at it.

Finally, the premise of the show (and it's the same every single episode, so big time spoiler alert here): Timmy wishes for something with his two ""Fairly Oddparents"", something goes wrong, there's always some contrived reason why he can't immediately reverse course and wish away the damage, and then everything turns out just fine in the end. Oh, and on a side note, Timmy's parents never believe him when he complains about Vicky, and they continue to employ her at every opportunity. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that a kids' show containing the subtle message that it pretty much does no good whatsoever to tell on an abusive babysitter probably isn't a great idea.

If you're writing a paper and want to cite an example of just how far the quality of cartoons has fallen, ""The Fairly Odd Parents"" has to be a great place to start. A prime example of television producers throwing together a worthless product aimed at kids with little or no effort simply because they know that someone somewhere will watch it.",0 -"I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.",0 -"On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.

The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their ""usual"" characters would do.

It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a ""straight"" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.

I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers ""see"" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.",1 -"I'm no fan of newer movies, but this one was a real pleasure to watch. Adults and children could watch it together - how unusual! My aunt liked it, too. It had laughter, tears, love, adventure, special effects, good actors - and a talking parrot. It reminded me of a favourite, The Wizard of Oz. The hero, Paulie, an intelligent parrot, is separated from his home and family and goes through many adventures, temptations and disappointments, always keeping in mind his resolution to find his friend, Marie. Highly recommended.",1 -"Well, the movie was no terrible, but whomever created the screen play did not do a good job of even creating the essence of unger. This movie was slightly below average and did not tell the story correctly on one of the most interesting persons ever born. I suggest reading the book ""one of a Kind"" the real unger story. They left out huge parts of his life. They also at times did not understand the real caractor that he was. The actual facts of his life were at times out of order. And in the end they really did not portray the actual personality that he did have. So please don't watch the movie; read the book. By the way I'm not just some prick who feels you have to stay 100% to the real story, but they did not even come close!!!",0 -"In following the lines of the classic formula to a point of taking another leap off from the material, The Thing remake becomes one of the coolest remakes of its time. John Carpenter fashions out of what must've been a fairly vague screenplay about certain things (or maybe very descriptive who knows), bringing forth incredibly wretched, brilliant puppetry and animatronics by Rob Bartin (with Stan Winston also on the team). These effects help set the tone against the harsh, detached environment Carpenter sets up with his characters. The film takes the story of a group stationed in a research bunker in the middle of an arctic climate, pitted against a malevolent force that takes the shapes of others. It's given a full life by Carpenter's choice of tones, and surprises. For someone following in the footsteps of Howard Hawks, the filmmaker here has a lot more trust and talent in executing the material than most given the chance to have another go with an old film.

With the effects people working to full force- amid what would likely follow Backdraft as containing the most fire per scene (it could become overkill, but it all fits into the suspense after a while)- the actors pull along as a fine ensemble. Unlike the squad in Predator, these are mostly just regular working guys, with the leader coming in the from of Kurt Russell's MacCreedy (very good role for his style, excellent in fact). Juicy supporting roles are out for grabs for the likes of Wilford Brimley and Keith David. And it is refreshing to see how the sort of absurdity of what's going on in the film (an alien that starts off with dogs and then moves onto the others in gory, demented transforming form) is pit against such a tone of timing with everyone. I loved the long silences at times, with Ennio Morricone's spooky, curious music in the background (and that bass line is of merit in itself).

It ranks up with being, if nothing else, delivering what it strives for for its genre/cult audience. It remains one of Carpenter's best; a rare breed of horror film where the story is told clear and precisely by way of the position of the camera, dialog, and timing with the scenes. That's not to say the film isn't chock full of violence, it is, and in fact a couple of times it's almost funny. But given that it goes back to what is ridiculously seeming like a by-gone era, the creatures/make-up, alongside the steady, well-calculated script, was done completely without CGI. It's disgusting, but it's real, and atmospheric to a T.",1 -"For years I remember reading about this show ""Trouble With Tracy"" in the TV Guide. CFTO-TV Toronto every Saturday morning at 6 am! I lived about a two-hour drive north of Toronto and we couldn't get CFTO, but you know how it is - we always want what we can't have.

Well, I knew what I wanted and what I wanted was to see what this ""Trouble With Tracy"" was all about. Did it have a beautiful girl in the starring role? Was there nudity? Was there suspense? Was it a comedy? It would've been fine if there was some promotion of the show. At least I could've known what I was missing. But, NO! The mystery drove me bonkers, until CTV affiliate CKCO built a re-transmitter in Wiarton, Ontario and began to broadcast ""Trouble With Tracy"" at the same time as CFTO....Saturday mornings at 6 am!! One Saturday morning I got up and turned the TV on at 5:59 and at last I got to see what ""The Trouble With Tracy"" was. Yes, the ""Trouble With Tracy"" was that it was Canadian content and stuck in the harmless 6 am spot so no one would ever see how awful it was.

Talented Canadian Actor Steve Weston died a few years afterward, but many would argue he effectively ""died"" the first time he appeared on this show. When I saw it for the first time that cold Saturday morning and fell despondent back into my bed, part of me died, too.",0 -"At last! A decent British comedy that isn't centred around some mockney bank robbers or spun off from a TV series. John Ivay's film is a psychoactive tale of discovery, dressed in biker gear. The three protagonists are gentle fools with a penchant for failure and each at a turning point in their lives, giving a sensitive, emotional trio of sub-plots to sew the riotous comedy together. The chemistry between the three amigos is palpable and makes for a touching companionship with hilarious dialogue and some classic comedic moments. It feels part Withnail and I, part American Werewolf in London, and part Quadraphenia (but only because of the bike gangs, and Phil Daniels). In fact, Phil Daniels' lovable rogue reminds you of Danny the dealer in Withnail and I, with his scholarly approach and scientific commitment to drugs. This is a great film, particularly for those who've dabbled in psychoactive substances in the past, who will relate to many moments in the film. A personal favourite is the brilliant scene in the Welsh corner shop, buying munchies while tripping on 'shrooms. This gentle comedy will warm the cockles of your heart and have you laughing out loud. And you don't have to ride bikes or even like them to enjoy it. But it'll add to it if you do. Brilliant.",1 -"Wow! All I can say is that if Elizabeth Montgomery is the enemy (she speaks Russian), then I'm surrendering right now. In her short skirt, high-top boots, and pronounced bust line, she's a real babe, even if her zombie-like eye-shadow sort of comes and goes. This 30 minutes is no doubt the sexiest of the series. Note the realistic and revealing wrestling match with Bronson until he ungallantly slugs her on the chin, ruining all the fun. Okay, probably I should leave off my hormonal response.

This is a very well produced half-hour by that underrated force behind the series's success, Buck Houghton. Naturally, the producers want to lead off the third season with an above average entry. It's post nuclear-holocaust America (we know because she's part of the invading force) and only American Bronson and Soviet Montgomery are left, along with about twenty tons of realistic wreckage. They wander among the destruction in alternating moods, while we wonder how long it will take for biology to trump politics, which of course it eventually does, (lucky Bronson). And that's about it. No real talk, except for what Bronson has to say which is pretty overblown. Nonetheless, the screenplay is still entertaining, and rather daring for its time, even suggesting that not all Russian women looked like truck drivers (a popular Cold War stereotype of the time).

In passing-- it's rather curious that the very Slavic-looking Bronson (Buchinsky) would be cast as the American and the glossy-looking Montgomery as the Slav. Appearance-wise, it should be the reverse. My guess is that the producers did not want to cast the American in the physically weaker role of the female, regardless of appearances. However that may be, there is little of the usual TZ fright or atmosphere, still the episode remains a very, very watchable 30 minutes.",1 -"The story is about a little girl growing up in colonial Africa, but it is so much more than that.

Anyone growing up in the South would experience the same things. A longing for another, one of a different race, that cannot be consummated. Even a glance is forbidden. There are no words needed. Their facial expressions say everything.

It is the story of a black servant, Protée (Isaach De Bankolé) and a white woman, Aimée (Giulia Boschi). Their desire for each other is so strong that they torture each other because they cannot have each other.

The little girl, France (Cécile Ducasse) is lonely and spends all her time with Protée. She really can't see this dance.

One of the more irritating aspects of the film is the laziness of the colonials. They cannot even get undressed for bed by themselves. There world is about to end; they just don't know it yet. Their racist attitudes will be erased with their presence.

I think I would like to visit this Africa. It seems so quiet; especially at night when you only hear the animals.",1 -"The first mistake you make in titling a film is to use ""of the living dead"" without really having a budget for real zombie FX. Sure, this was a low budget zombie flick - really low budget. I thought it was a film school project. Amateur actors and amateur effects.

It was really not too bad considering the above, and it presented an interesting twist to the zombie genre. If you are going to get an ""R"" for violence, you might as well give us some good shots of the babes being attacked. The women were so little used in this film that it could almost be classified as ""gay interest.""

And, I am staying out of Oakland. There was a heck of a lot of shooting going on and no cops in sight!",0 -"Bottom line - best romantic comedy ever. This movie accomplishes what all great movies strive for: the creation of a world and time that we want to re-visit and makes us glad to be part of the human race. When I am blue, this movie lifts my spirit and makes me laugh (and that is still true after many viewings - always fresh).

All of the actors are in top form. The characterizations are so dead on and the characters mesh so well together that you forget the actor (usually difficult to do with Matthau, Robbins and Ryan). The supporting cast is consistently brilliant: Fry (""agae"", ""a total pygmy package""!), Jacoby & Saks & Maher (the three theoretical physicists as ""Greek chorus"" - ""but time doesn't exist""), Durning (""something we can launch from NJ""), Shalhoub & Whaley (Robbins' boss and co-worker at the service station), and Curits (Eisenhower - how many comedies have Eisenhower??).

Don't miss this overlooked treasure.",1 -"All right, let me start by saying I love the original RS for the 64. The graphics were new, the ships were really fast and cool. The missions were a challenge, but you had a strategy to come up with. The computer didn't tell you every step of your mission, you could wander and explore.

That's the first thing that's wrong with RL, everything you do is under a timetable and controlled by other people. I mean, shouldn't you, as the leader, be telling people how to handle each and every mission?

And speaking of missions, why do they intersperse the original trilogy with completely made up crap? Never mind.

I was so waiting for this game when I heard they were going to allow you fly through the asteroid field from Empire Strikes Back. I think anyone who is a fan of the films wanted to do this. So, they give it to you. It's the stupidest level in the game. You start by flying through the asteroid field with ties chasing after you, and your whole objective is to get farther into the field while shooting the ties. You have to kill them all to get ahead. Hey, remember how many Han killed when he was in the field? None, they all had poor piloting skills compared to him. I just wanted to be able to dodge the asteroids as they came at me, but instead I have to use my automatic aim guns to kill ties behind me.

That was the biggest disappointment, you have no control over your flying, everything is sluggish. All except for the A-Wing, probably the fastest and most maneuverable ship in the entire fleet. But, oh yeah, didn't Han say the Falcon was? Anyway...

You finally get to the Battle of Endor. Here is the ultimate level, you get to destroy the death star, everyone's first instinct is to pick the Falcon and be the leader. But, of course, you get there and have to do stupid pre-chosen strategies like finding (not to mention deciphering the difference between) the tie-bombers. This is impossible in the falcon, by the time you have spotted one group the frigate gets destroyed. The only way to get passed this part is to pick the A-Wing. After this you have to attack the star destroyers and that's a real stupid chore. This game makes you feel like you're the only one defending the rebel alliance.

After you frustratingly get through that 'fun' fight, you get to the death star. And here, you might think 'yay! I get to destroy the death star', and again, like in the Asteroid field, you have to do some tedious thing while narrowly getting passed the tunnels of impending doom. Your mission is to protect the ship in front of you, remember that from the Return of the Jedi? It's so moronic because if you pick the falcon, you'll die because you're not maneuverable enough, but if you pick the x-wing, you have to keep locking and unlocking your s-foils. So it's a choice to either kill the bad guys, or try to catch up to Lando, who apparently doesn't know how to maneuver. Thus dying in the process.

The bonus stages aren't even worth aiming for as each level just gets more and more frustrating. It makes me feel the way I did when I saw the new three films, upset and in need of killing something. Lucky for me, Smash Bros Melee exists.

I hope with the Wii they come up with something a lot better and have the original trilogy levels to full capacity. I'm going to sell this game the first chance I get.",0 -"I love the beach boys and their music. So, being that I am a filmmaker, I thought, wow, a Beach Boys Movie sounds great. Well, WRONG! I just actually turned off HDNET, the channel the movie was playing on, because it was so bad. Someone above mentioned about editing... well, they should have at least looked at the monitors while they were filming. I don't know if anyone else caught the mustache falling off the face of one of the guys after he kissed his wife and then he smoothed it back on with his hands. Ever heard of re-taking a scene! Acting was terrible. Direction was terrible. Make-Up was TERRIBLE!!! Possibly the worst make-up job I have ever seen. Brian Wilson's ""fat"" cheek's looked like pl-ado.

This is honestly the first time I have ever commented on IMDb, and I know it really doesn't make a difference... but come on, what the hell were the producers thinking?!?!!?",0 -"If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.",0 -"Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in ""krummernes Jul"", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!

Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like ""Film folket""!

all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun!",0 -"Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars.",1 -"60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says ""something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man"". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched ""this-is-shocking"" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?",0 -"This is a 1972 Disney movie. For the time, I was eleven years old and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Feeling nostalgic, I purchased the three series DVD's of the Dexter Riley movies and even now, at age 46, I still enjoyed them. It was all about fantasy, magic, and clean fun. And it still is! I wasn't sure which of the three movies came first then second and last. So now I have the official dates. On December 31, 1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes--On July 12, 1972 Now You See Him Now You Don't--On February 6, 1975 The Strongest Man In The World. I still think the middle movie was the best. The special effects were amazing back in 1972 to us kids. I definitely recommend it to all ages.",1 -"There's nothing quite like watching giant robots doing battle over a desert wasteland, and Robot Wars does deliver. Sure, the acting is lousy, the dialogue is sub-par, and the characters are one-dimensional, but it has giant robots! The special effects themselves are actually quite good for the period. They are certainly not as polished as today's standards, but it contains a minimum of computer graphics and instead uses miniatures, so it has aged fairly well. Its shortcomings are easily overlooked given the films short runtime, and it does have a certain tongue-in-cheek humour in parts that make it quite enjoyable. I would recommend this to any fan of giant robots or cheesy sci-fi who is looking for a lighthearted hour of distraction.",0 -"Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in ""Casablanca"" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Château d'Yquem with the foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and perhaps a 1961 Château Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed?",1 -"The title is from a passage in the Bible (Deut. 28:28). Let's just say it is taken horribly out of context - but nonetheless, that is where the title of this agonizing movie originates. The other reviewers cover the plot details so I wont rehash. But the husband, who is a psychiatrist, delivers a lecture on ""Inferior function"" where he discusses how a person can meet another another person and they can experience a ""cataclysmic crisis"" in their lives where they cease to be masters of themselves and incapable of fair judgement. He is saying this at the podium at the exact moment as he lays eyes on Leonora Vail in the audience - the woman who will become his mistress. Not very subtle for showing that this is indeed what will happen to this poor man.

I think the whole premise of the movie is implausible and just didn't work. Here is an over-the-hill psychiatrist, and we are to believe this young, beautiful woman falls for him and comes between the happiness he and his wife shared. What's even more implausible is how the betrayed wife responds when she learns of the infidelity. Not only is she understanding, but she INSISTS her husband embark on a several month vacation with the tramp - ""so we all can get a little relief from this unbearable stress"". GIVE ME A BREAK!! I wanted to reach through the screen and throttle not just the adulterer but the dim-wit wife.

The fact that the whole movie takes place as a flashback after already revealing the end of the movie at the beginning (the fact that the husband had a terrible accident) - it leaves no doubt as to the outcome of the sordid affair. I think this was a poor decision as it leaves absolutely no plot twists to look forward to, as the whole movie is completely predictable. You already know the wife's resignation to the affair at the beginning of the film as she summons the mistress to the dying man's bedside and expresses no ill will towards her.

Not only is the script defective, but Noel Coward is horribly miscast (even though it is HIS screenplay). He and Leonora have absolutely no chemistry on screen whatsoever. Its interesting that Michael Redgrave was originally cast in that role, but was replaced during filming. I wonder what that was about? In the end, neither the husband or the wife cause you to feel any sympathy for either one of them. I do think Margaret Leighton played the part of strumpet quite well. But she couldn't possibly overcome all the negatives this film had. Also, as is the case of many British Productions of this era, the dialogue is hard to understand due to the clipped, fast speech pattern of the actors. I saw it on TV and couldn't even rely on closed captioning to fill in the blanks for me.

Don't waste your time on this one.",0 -"I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable.",0 -"I have watched every version of this play that I can think of, including several on the stage, and Sir Derek Jacobi is absolutely the best Hamlet I have ever seen!

He has the most wonderful voice for stage acting, and his expressive face will take you on a roller coaster of emotions throughout this play. The way in which he delivers his lines takes you on a journey through madness. He (as Hamlet)can in an instant be loving, soft and gentle and in another instant be raging against the hell that is his life. You believe that he is in pain, you believe that he is angry, you believe that he is not a little mad. You believe he IS Hamlet.

Of course, some of the thanks obviously goes to Shakespeare, :) but without an excellent actor to get the words from the page to the stage, it doesn't really matter how well written a play is.

If you like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. If you don't like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. You will come away with a new appreciation for Shakespeare if you do. The nuanced performance that Sir Derek gives will leave you breathless.",1 -"I have to start by telling you how I came across this movie.It was winter time in Alaska around the year 1990.A friend of mine from Australia was staying with me and my girl friend in a shoe box of an apartment.Winters in Alaska can be a bit brutal and most people stay indoors,drink heavily and watch anything that comes on the television.I had found this movie outside of a thrift store laying in a snowbank and right away new it was a treasure.It is quite possibly the best worst movie ever.We spent the next two weeks watching this movie and drinking like fish.We watched it so many times in fact that we would sometimes turn the television on its side or upside down for a more full filling effect.It is a true gem.The laughs will come nonstop and the memories last forever.If you see this movie for rent in a video store,steal it.You won't regret it!",1 -"Here is a rundown of a typical Rachael Ray Show:

1. The awful theme song begins to play, and Rachael descends wearing her Snapcrotch outfit in this bizarre cargo elevator. 2. She begins running around screaming and/or insulting the audience, then yells at them sit down. 3. An awkward monologue.

(The next are in any order) 4. A segment tooting Rachael's own horn (i.e. ""I Lost 500 Pounds with Rach's Recipes, ""Rachael Ray Saved my Life,"" ""Rachael's Fashion Tips."") 5. A totally useless D.I.Y. tip (i.e. how to engrave words into casserole dishes, how to use your washing machine as a salad spinner, how to build a tube of lipstick with a light on it.) 6. The unleashing of horrible recipe on the unsuspecting audience (reaction shots of first bites are never shown). 7. A celebrity guest with an awkward interview, followed by some obviously scripted questions from the audience. 8. A person who gets help from one of Rachael's cronies (i.e. the I say yes to everything woman, the I own nothing but overalls lady, and the I can't find time to put on makeup housewife). What would they do without you Rachael. *gasp*

Reasons that this show should be avoided like the plague: 1. Fakeness: Rachael Ray claims that entire show is unscripted. Many people who have attended tapings of the show have claimed that the entire show is scripted. Many of these same people have also mentioned that there is even a very strict dress code for the show.

2. Her show jumps around too much: Where as Oprah, who is the highest rated talk show host of all time has a definite theme for her show, Rachael's jumps around like an ADHD soda child on crack. Her show averages perhaps 10, short, worthless segments a show. On second you will be getting fashion tips from Kojo, and the next Rachael will be making gross stuffed ""Spanish"" peppers with manchego cheese, and the next their will be a giant anaconda up on stage, and the next, well you get the picture.

3. Rachael is a poor host with bad ideas: Aside from her grating personality, Rachael's hosting ability is terrible, at best. Her questions for her celebrity guests are poor, and often times not even relevant to the interview, and her segments are unappealing and offer little educational, or humorous value.

In conclusion, you need not waste your time with this schlock. It will be canceled soon anyways.",0 -Liked Stanley & Iris very much. Acting was very good. Story had a unique and interesting arrangement. The absence of violence and porno sex was refreshing. Characters were very convincing and felt like you could understand their feelings. Very enjoyable movie.,1 -"Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every ""Godfather II,"" there are dozens of ""More American Graffiti's,"" ""Stayin' Alives,"" and ""Grease 2's."" While the original ""Grease"" is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.

Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.

Reviewers have complained that, because ""Grease 2"" is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for ""Our Miss Brooks"" and ""Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour."" The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, ""Grease 2"" is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage.",0 -"CONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a ""talking"" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom.",0 -"The film portrays France's unresolved problems with its colonial legacy in Western (Francophone) Africa through the befuddled and complex psychoanalytical prism of a young woman, France (herein symbolically representing her nation). It is an often engaging and challenging portrait of a young woman's desire to come to terms with a traumatic moment in her past, in particular, and a nation's desire to reach out to the 'other' it once 'owned' and moulded. This is reflected in the way in which it centres entirely around the notion of travelling (or being in transit) from the present to the past; remembered realities to undeniable contemporary political and economic actualities.

The characters all play a symbolic, albeit a limited and unconvincing role. France, meant to be a visual as well as a totemic representation of contemporary French society, leaves one indifferent to her plight as she seems still to be imbued with the same naiveté she enjoyed as a child-in fact as a child she seems more in possession of her reality. The rest of the rag-tag ensemble is just forgettable. The black Africans are, to say the least, offencive impressionistic portraits of former colonised peoples now colonised by the director's poor handling of her material. They are no more than a dark and moribund backdrop against which the blythe-like France wonders seeking a world she never knew, and hoping for one that can never be found in Cameroon.",0 -"The title says it all. ""Tail Gunner Joe"" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.

A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.

The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think.",0 -"Why did they have to waste money on this crap?!

WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!

The plot: down-to-earth-good-kind-girl meets a rich-snob-ignorant guy. Her boyfriend gets jealous and with the guy, they burn down a resturant? (Over an UGLY girl?) Guy has to stay in town to build a new resturant, perfect for the love story to begin. But, hark!!! The girl is dying!!! Isn't that a surprise boys and girls? But she teaches him love life, and enjoy it. He's sad she is dying. She dies. He is sad. But has now learned to love life.

What's the moral of the story? When, dying, teach another person to love life.

LIKE EVERY OTHER LOVE MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!

AAAAAH! This movie was the crapiest thing I have ever seen!!!! Did the director want to try to make this plot original?! AAAH! And the friggin' girl would not die!!! It took her a half hour?! I felt no pity for the charactors, and the love story died the first hour of the movie.

1/10

DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE BORED OR GET A HEAD ACHE!!!!",0 -"Sorry to repeat myself over and over, but here's another great Columbo episode. I guess that's why I'm such a fan - most episodes really are great! The best episodes always have a standout feature of some sort, and in this case the murderer and his accomplice are possibly the youngest ever Columbo villains.

After watching a lot of episodes where Columbo and his adversary act like close friends, it's good to see an episode where tempers fray and bad feelings rise to the surface. It just gives an episode a bit more drama and bite. Columbo is rapidly onto the fact that the two students who claim to be helping him are not very secretly laughing at him and feeding him false clues. He happily plays along, deliberately turning up the bumbling in front of them to make them underestimate him! But of course he knows instantly when they are talking baloney.

The murder itself is another complicated one, along the lines of The Bye Bye Sky High IQ episode, with a sophisticated chain reaction of events that manages to kill the intended target while providing the assassins with a seemingly watertight alibi. In the intervening years between 1978 and 1990, the technology has moved on from record players and firecrackers to remote control car locking systems and hidden cameras.

Stephen Caffrey puts in a great performance as Justin Rowe, the obnoxious, spoilt student. Gary Hershberger is low-key but good as his ""yes-man"" friend Cooper Redman. And it's nice to see Robert Culp as Mr Rowe, Justin's dad.

A very satisfying episode in all ways.",1 -"Great fun. I went with 8 friends to a sneak preview viewing of this film. We came to see different one but after 10 minutes wondering what the heck we got ourselves into this time the jokes became funny and they stayed funny throughout the movie. In the first part you just keep asking yourself about this 'malinski' and 'bellini' stuff (there are many more examples of this lingo) and because they keep repeating the same jokes (with different twists) they get funnier and funnier. In search for this malinski all the main characters are introduced the first one even wackier than the next. Until half of the film was over we didn't even know the name of this movie because there were no opening credits and we went to this sneak viewing, but we sure had a good time. The house was loaded (appr. 250 people) and I think about half of them didn't like it and the other half loved the film. If you like weird comical movies with great dialogue you will love it. Apart from Clooney This movie deserves a lot better than the 5.6 IMDB rating it has at the time I write this, but when more ppl have seen it I am sure it will go up. 7.0 is reasonable I guess, I would give it an 8 out of 10. (10 out of 10 after a few beers)

",1 -"I discovered ""The Patriot"" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10.",0 -"John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.",0 -The trailer is so deceiving... I thought this will be a good film... What was the point in bringing the women in Hong Kong for being killed? They could have done it in Paris. And the fist half hour:

-You love me!

-No I don't! -You love me!

-No I don't! -You love me!

-No I don't!Repeat for 100 times... then... Well I don't love you... So i shoot you! :D So here is the reason why movie piracy is a good thing! Imagine if I would have even give money for this torture! I'm sorry for the time I lost watching it... the film makers should pay me

for the inconvenience... Worst film ever seen...,0 -"Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.

In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like ""The Jerk"", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.

To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.

In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original ""Odd Couple"" again.",0 -"While The Twilight Zone was a wonderful show, it was also very uneven--with some great episodes, some lousy ones and many in between. Don't believe the die-hard fans--there were some stinkers and this was definitely one of them.

In a plot that is obviously meant to be an attack on Fidel Castro, a near lookalike (Peter Falk in lots of makeup and a beard) obtains a magic mirror that allows him to realize who all his enemies are so he can liquidate them. While I do believe that Castro is a thug and dictator (and tens of thousands of refugees and political prisoners will attest to this), it's amazing how this sort of preachy episode actually makes audiences laugh at the American efforts to marginalize the creep and actually makes Castro seem okay!! Think about it--Serling and company wanted to hurt Castro but instead only seemed to be obvious, preachy and silly in the process.

It's indeed bad--almost laughably bad when seen today.",0 -"i will be honest and say i gave up on watching it somewhere mid-way and then fast forward with a few breaks. then i came back here and read many of the reviews already made....

maybe is just me, and i can not help it, but this cartoon to north American society seems to have a purpose of ""lets save them from themselves"" and iraq comes to mind right away. it seems to me that this is a justification, or part of, for another invasion with ""good intentions"".

the lady to me seems a self indulged person and i frankly got annoyed at her portrait of trying to raise pity and ""feel"" for her. well in this case this could never happen because, just like a history teacher has already mentioned here, i NEED to know how come her family was so wealthy above average, manage to keep that ( were they playing both sides maybe?)and send her to Paris!? now, if this would have been made after a poor girl's biography i could see myself having certain emotions. but as it stands + its release timing this is just pure propaganda movie; even worse, since its cartoon, it overplays the ""soft"" side of tings too well for its own good , in order to possibly be taken serious.

besides there are those clichés regarding gays. well, a woman that fights toward winning her rights should not have at least some compassion for the underdogs of society just like her??? the message is obviously self indulgent from the view of a ruling class member.

i only give it 2 stars because its production and related stuff. a propaganda movie obviously has interests in convincing-manipulating my thoughts and therefore generally is well done appealing to certain visual emotions that i can not deny i might have as well.",0 -"I thought sleeper cell was interesting, and exciting to watch, up until the last episode, when nothing happens, its F****** BS, you Americans portray Muslims as terrorists, and the Americans as hero's, its the other way around, i hate it when every American TV show ends up predictable, i was hoping the bombs would go off in that stadium, but i knew it would'nt, it takes the joy out of watching it when you know that the good guys are going to save the day, yet again, Americans are the biggest terrorists, g bush the leader of them all, he is to blame for 9/11, and I'm P***** off that you keep throwing these shows at us, which are all the f****** same! i've a good show about terrorism, its called "" The Whitehorse"" and bush himself the cell leader, its the same with 24, how ever 24 was good, sleeper cell is a mock and should never make a season 2, its F***** joke! and so are you American producers.",0 -"The Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back",0 -"Even Sophie Marceau's presence and the few (very few) good French gags are unable to save this otherwise slow and boring movie! A disappointment. The story is weak and so is acting. This movie was advertised as the French version of The Mummy, but the Mummy has at least spectacular and enjoyable effects...",0 -"I can only say this: ee03128 from Portugal, I couldn't say it better. The worst movie I've ever seen... and I've seen lots of crap! When I read you comment I thought only about the thoughts I had while watching the movie. When I saw who was one of the script writers I understood it. Balagueró uses the same tricks in all his movies. And his scripts are not much better either. And, of course, in Barcelona we have tons of temples and churches around the city so we can keep cursed nuns to scare young Americans coming on vacations. Please, be serious! And I do not want to talk about the quality of the actors... There is something remarkable too. It is fair to recognize it. Compared to the usual level, all the Spanish actors use a fairly good English",0 -"That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...

None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!

Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense.

The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!

3/10",0 -"Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.

Got that?

Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.

The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why.",0 -"We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.

One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called ""The House of the Spirits."" Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the ""big house on the corner,"" a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.

If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.",0 -"Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is probably the best sequel out of all of the Halloween flicks. Jamie, serial killer Michael Myers' niece, bears a baby who is then taken by the Man In Black from the conclusion of Halloween 5. A kind nurse helps Jamie escapes but Myers quickly tracks her down and kills her. Jamie's baby is found and rescued by Tommy Doyle, one of the kids Jamie Lee babysat in the original film, and Myers arrives in Haddonfield and begins to kill off the Strode clan living in his old house. The film concludes with scenes revealing clues to Michael's evil, the identity of the Man In Black, and a close to the whole Dr. Loomis/Michael Myers storyline. I highly recommend this brilliant horror masterpiece.

Halloween:The Curse Of Michael Myers is Rated R for strong graphic violence, extreme gore, brief sexuality, language, and brief nudity.",1 -"This is by far the worst movie ever made. I have no doubt. I have seen such crap as Manos, Space Mutiny, and whatnot, and I can honestly tell you that they do not hold a candle to Science Crazed.

Science Crazed has no discirnable plot. Something about a guy making a woman pregnant via turkey baster, and the child born *hours* later is fully grown, and ready to kill. Of course, being a newborn, it takes him about an hour to kill people. The director loops footage constantly, and takes about fifteen minutes to set up an awkward death. There is about a page of dialogue for the whole movie, however the dialogue arrives about a minute after it is spoken.

Sample Scene: The monster is walking down a hall. We know this because there is about ten minutes of looped footage of his feet. In between loops, we are treated to two women working out. Repeat ad nauseum for about 20 minutes. When the monster does show up, no one moves, and everyone looks like deer in headlights as the monster takes another 10 minutes to get to them to kill them. By the level of the acting, you would guess that the people are already dead.

I know my description doesn't seem too bad, but trust me, I can not fully describe the pain that is Science Crazed.

Stay away, and boycott all video stores that carry it. :)

",0 -"I picked this film up based on the plot summary and critics' quotes on the back of the box. I'm not big into foreign films, and didn't know what to expect. I don't really care for subtitles either. But I absolutely loved it! It has a simple, lovable quality that leaves you feeling good about life. I found myself laughing out loud repeatedly. I'd recommend this picture to anyone, even those who abhor foreign films with subtitles. This one makes it worth the effort.",1 -"An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement.",0 -"Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration.

The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, ""quick - we must try to save him,"" but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two ""rescuers"" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!

I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?",0 -"Guys, what can I tell you? I'm Bulgarian. I can't remember how many times I talk to Americans and let alone that they don't have a slightest clue where is Bulgaria, but they say things like: ""There's a war going on there, right?"" or ""I've never imagined that in a place like Bulgaria people have Internet"" Go watch Bruce Campbell's ""The Man With The Screaming Brain"". I was curious about this movie, cause 1) I'm Bruce Campbell fan - ""Evil Dead"" trilogy and ""The Adventures of Brisco County Jr."" 2) The movie was shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, the second after ""Alien Apocalypse"" which is also nearly unwatchable. 3) I enjoy nice B-movies

Well... The movie presents our country like a never-ending Gypsy Town where they raid your car, wave around illegal guns, and you can get killed any moment. And Bruce's line ""Bull$h1t Bulgaria"" is more than offending.

Ted Raimi and Stacy Ceach make a great team, Bruce does his special - beats himself up and that's all. Nothing more to see here.

Peoeple give this movie 10 just because of Bruce's cult status, but it doesn't deserve more than 3. Waste of film.",0 -The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared,0 -"If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.

In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.

The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding ""southern accents"" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions?

Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???

They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.",0 -"This is the underrated Kellie Martin's best role. Based on a true story, it tells the story of Fusia's attempt to save the members of the Diamant family and other Jews she meets over time. One of my all-time favorite movie scenes involves an heroic act by Fusia's little sister. All children should see this scene-role models like this are very few and far between. The movie is well written and acted. I am a movie lover and this movie I rate a 10 on imbd's rating system. It is on my top 25 movies of all time and should be put out on video.

Mike Porter",1 -"How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!",0 -"Jack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.

I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.

The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.

Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.

Not so.

While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.

Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off.",0 -"As a kid, I never understood WHY anyone would watch this very crappy show. It was pretty stupid and I always wanted Spridle and Jim-Jim to get in some sort of fatal accident (they were THAT annoying).

Now, almost 40 years later, I have a new attitude about the cartoon. While I still think it was complete crap, this is only in regard to the American version of the show. That's because I was reading a book about anime and found out that the shows we watched growing up were completely different from those originally shown in Japan. You see, the idiots in charge of syndicating the series thought it was too violent so they cut this out of the episodes. That's bad enough, but what else they did is beyond belief--they actually chopped the episodes apart and spliced them together to create shows that were NOTHING like the originals! For example, one episode might be made up of parts of episodes 3, 6, 18 and 27! As a result, I really don't know if the original show really was bad--it might have been brilliant. But who can tell considering all we have to watch is this Americanized mess!?",0 -"Take your basic Frankenstein flick, inject some Reanimator (but not the good parts), and you have Doctor Hackenstein. Certainly, this was obviously inspired by aforementioned films but it never materializes as anything special on its own.

A scientist accidentally kills his wife, so the whole movie takes place over the course of one night as he attempts to revive his wife. To revive his wife, he decides to chop off body parts from some women that have become stranded and, coincidentally, decide to stay the night at his place.

I can't really say the acting is bad, nor is the directing. Everything here is just way too standard. What little attempts there are at humor actually work (check out the scene when Hackenstein keeps hiding behind his deaf assistant because she would undoubtedly be very upset if she saw him clutching a woman and a needle), but that's hardly enough to recommend this film. The music is decent, what blood that's there is decent, and the cast looks quite good. And for half of the time, I was even entertained by this film. But I never felt like this was anything more than a time waster. Avoidable.

Try Frankenhooker instead.",0 -"Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is ""Boring"" and ""Dumb"".

I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...

The movie on this DVD was so ""DARK"" ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.

Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier.",0 -"The traditional Western is synonymous with wide open spaces, clearcut morality, inevitable storylines, the optimistic faith in a hero's ability to shape his own destiny, to escape his past. These qualities reflect directly the American sense of self, the self-shaping Dream, the pushing of boundaries and frontiers, which is why the genre is still alluded to by opportunistic politicians. With some noble exceptions (eg Wellman, Hawks), the Western was healthily free of neuroses or real anxiety. Anthony Mann changed all that forever, and this first foray into the genre is one of the most violent, vivid, complex, not to say exciting Westerns ever made.

The traditional Western depends on a hero who exemplifies rugged wholesomeness, whatever misfortunes he may have had in the past, a supporter of order and right, who dominates the film, removes its obstacles, restores harmony in effect; and an obvious villain, who often, ironically, drives the plot, forces the hero into certain actions. The difference between the two is often delineated as mythically simple as the wearing of white or black hats.

Mann's background was in film noir, a genre antithetical to wide open spaces and optimism. Noir was neurotically charged, focusing on the dissolution of an unstable protagonist, where morality is blurred, the hero is as often the villain, trapped in an interior-labyrinth of his own making, a passive victim to destiny. Noir is about regress not progress, the interrogating and denying of modes and signs of representation, not the creation and confirmation of them.

WINCHESTER 73 is fraught with noir anxiety. Noir is often considered a psychological genre, visualising the traumas of its protagonist's head. 73 does this too, and is all the more disturbing in that that protagonist is lovely, homespun Jimmy Stewart, initiating here his great run of difficult films with Mann and Hitchcock. In many ways, good-natured and sweet, representing right and trying to restore disruptions to the natural order, he is also a near-lunatic who will stop at nothing to achieve murderous revenge, whose relentless quest mirrors Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS in its inhuman persistance, whose human instincts are frayed by this quest, and whose bursts of violence are genuinely terrifying to witness.

As in noir, his anxiety has a psychological base - unlike most 'healthy' heroes who have outgrown (symbolically killed) their fathers, McAdam's father was killed before he could complete the process; his chasing his brother is less moral revenge than an anguished protest against stunted growth. The climactic shoot-out is not cathartic: McAdam staggers back into 'normal' society, like he's just witnessed some of the world's most ghastly horrors.

What is most unsettling about the film is that it's not really about a hero or a villain at all, but an inanimate piece of weoponry that drives the action. 73 opens with the gun of the title privileged, on display behind a glass window, while its admirers are trapped, squashed, undifferentiated, framed, admiring it outside. Throughout the film, human power is reduced to the most arbitrary of signifiers - names change; Lin and Dutch mime shooting each other because they've no guns; quests lose their moral vitality and their practitioners veer close to madness; armies have to ask for help from Confederate strangers to fight battles; a man becomes worthy of respect only when he mentions his name; another man is revealed as a coward when he abandons his fiancee to the Indians; the gun retains its prestige, power, wholeness.

It's not the revenge plot which drives the film, but the story of the gun; this wrenches the film out of conventional expectations, and creates an eerie, alienating, modern feel. We become so caught up in the revenge plot that when we follow, with the gun, another plot entirely, we feel slightly bewildered.

This emphasis on the gun, symbol of potent masculinity, actually allows for a critique of that masculinity, revealing pointless elaborate rituals at the expense of society and order; brute capitalist greed; murderous Indian-traders who defraud both seller and enemy; cowards; psychotic killers; before returning to its 'true' owner, a broken hero thoroughly compromised, who has become as murderous as the murderer he seeks. The gun is never imprinted with the name of its owner, not only because there is no fixed owner, but because there is no fixed masculinity, an insight anathema to the traditional Western.

73 brilliantly invokes Western myths - Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the Cavalry, the Civil War, the wide open West - only to undermine them. Earp has an inflated reputation that is all name but never proven - Dodge City is no safer against outlaws than anywhere else; the Cavalry is inept (Custer has just lost Little Big Horn) and the bitter feud of the War is shown to be irrelevant. The myth of the open West is a site for a very closed, inescapable, circular plot which traps its characters, refuses to allow them shape their destiny, but allowing it to shape them.

The old John Ford silhouette of riders on a vast mountain is reprised, but signals here not progress but repetition and circularity. But for all its deconstruction, the film is also tangibly vivid in a way few Westerns ever achieve. Mann's incisive technique intrudes his camera in crucial positions, alternating revealing distance with intense examination, making the saloon doors and stagecoaches seem thrillingly alive and lived in.",1 -"There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's ""Jindabyne"" and his last movie ""Lantana"" – a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas ""Lantana"" offered some hope and resolution, ""Jindabyne"" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.

The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble ""Short Cuts"". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions ""Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?"" and more poignantly for Australians ""Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?"" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike ""Picnic at Hanging Rock"".

If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale.",0 -"The first time I saw this episode was like a shock to me, it was actually the first time I saw ""24"". The speed things are happening is amazing, and it's so surprising, thrilling, and even interesting, it's almost as if you are reading a book; once you start it, it's very hard to stop. From the minute Richard Walsh was talking privately to Jack about the possibility that they have a mole inside CTU, I was sitting 6:40 hours, which means 10 episodes!!! (Sounds funny and crazy, but I'm the kind of guy which when he is interested he just can't stop)This series is one of the best of it's kind. And it's build in a way of having a few different stories that are being connected together. Recommended in every way!",1 -Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!,0 -"I've seen this movie n I can say that this is really a bad movie. The director's gone nuts... of course.. he does know a lot about the army, but then he certainly is a cheap guy. There are a lotta technical flaws in the movies as well...

Okay... here's my doubt- in the end when they rescue the family (including a girl who was just raped)... why do they leave them there outside their place? I didn't see any ambulance around! There are a lot of aspects in the movie that are real... but then I just wish the Major had narrated/helped/assisted some other good director n made the movie.

Mohanlal surely does deserve a better director!",0 -"I saw ""Heaven-Ship"" (""Himmelskibet"") at the 2006 Cinema Muto festival in Sacile, Italy. What a great movie! This Danish steampunk saga is the stirring tale of the first trip to Mars, in an era when wireless telegraphy hasn't been perfected. The spaceship hasn't got a radio, and the heroes are brought back from the landing field via horsecart. Even the intertitles are delightful ... some of them written in rhymed couplets in the original Danish.

The actors' performances are laughable, largely hand-to-brow histrionics. But the sets are astonishing, easily surpassing anything done by Georges Melies a decade earlier (or in ""Die Frau im Mond"" a decade later). Of course, the plot is simplistic. The spaceship's crew consist of seven thin guys and one fat slob. Guess which one cracks. Interestingly, everyone in this movie (except the dubious Professor Dubius) ardently believes in God. Even the Martians.

Impressively, the scenarists have the sense to acknowledge that a trip to Mars is no doddle: the title cards establish that it takes the scientists two years to build their spaceship (which has an airscrew) and six months to reach Mars. During the construction sequence, there's one extremely impressive set-up which must have been choreographed: dozens of workers all hustle through the worksite in different directions, with no hesitations and no collisions. The Danish scientists christen their ship ""Excelsior"" (""packing materials""?) and set course for Mars, even though the Moon and Venus are closer. When the ship (which flies horizontally, not vertically) lands on Mars, it is greeted by ""Marsboerne"" -- Martians -- who turn out to be Nordic blondes, all highly-developed pacifists and vegetarians. (As a highly-developed meat-eater, I resented that part.)

Conveniently enough, Mars turns out to have an atmosphere just like Earth's, as well as equal gravity. In an exterior shot of the Martian landscape, the Sun's apparent magnitude when seen from Mars is the same as it is when viewed from Earth. I also couldn't help observing that all the wise elder Martians are male. In fact, female elders are thin on the ground here: both the Earth-born hero and the Martian maiden are motherless. The Martians speak a universal language, wear ankhs on their robes, and greet the Earth visitors with a globe of Earth ... which of course they hold with its North Pole upward.

That Martian maiden is Marya, played by an ethereally beautiful Danish actress. (Waiter, I'll have some of that Danish!) We see a Martian dance of chastity which might have been twee or ludicrous but is actually quite touching and beautiful. Also, the Martian funeral scene features one shot which reminded me of a sequence in ""The Seventh Seal"". I wonder if Ingmar Bergman saw this film.

""Himmelskibet"" has a few flaws, but its production design and its other merits very far outweigh its drawbacks. The Ole Olsen who is named in the credits (and who appears in a brief prologue) is no relation to Chic Johnson's vaudeville partner from ""Hellzapoppin"". I would give ""Himmelskibet"" a 12, but the scale tops off at 10 ... so, a full 10 out of 10 for this delightful trip to Mars, the blonde planet!",1 -"This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but ""white"" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police.

Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.

Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity",0 -"Killjoy 2 is the same as killjoy 1. Bad acting, bad characters, annoying clown, bad lines, you name it. Honestly, I'm not all that surprised that more people haven't seen this movie. The only reason I watched Killjoy 2 is because I wanted to think that the filmmakers learned from their mistakes. They didn't. This movie is just as bad, if not worse, than the first one. That clown.... that goddamn clown.... I hate him! I hate him so much! And I don't hate him because he is a good villain... I hate him because he is annoying beyond belief! I hope that the filmmakers realized after trying and failing again that this movie is unrepairable. The last thing we need is a Killjoy 3.",0 -"Old Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard ""billy club"" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of ""shrunken heads"" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane.",0 -"I disagree with Anyone who done't like this movie.

I used to LOVE this movie when I was little and I still do. It's sweet, funny and warms your heart. And It proves that love and friendship can never be destroyed.

And even though it didn't have much of a story, it was still excellent I give it a 10 and two thumbs up.

Oh yeah and it proves that your deepest wish's and dreams can come true. (Tear, tear)

I love this movie, personally if anyone says it sucked than I will say ""Shame on you."" Because it was a delightful little movie and I'm glad that at least SOME people liked it.",1 -"Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making ""Superhero Movie"" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.

You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.

After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.

Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.

But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.

featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.

Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.

My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain.",0 -"Dee Snider was inspired to do a two part song by a horror movie. This movie he wrote/directed/produced and starred in details the subjects from those songs (Horror-terria,from TwistedSister/ Stay Hungry). People have commented he must have a sick mind to put something like this out. I don't hear anybody making comments like that about Stephen King, Wes Craven,Dean Koontz,or in his own time Alfred Hitchcock. The movie profiles a modern Psychotic created by current trends in society. Personally I thought it was pretty well done from sheer imagination and inspiration,also without the benefit of a large budget and interviews with actual victims/criminals. This movie is perfect if you want something to give you nightmares and make you cringe about the possible and probable. IT COULD HAPPEN!!",1 -"I find it rather useless to comment on this ""movie"" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ...

Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian ""movie"" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called ""Romanian reality"" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).

Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this ""movie"" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.

On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : ""How NOT to make a movie.""",0 -"I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week. My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too. I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.

Boy, was I disappointed. This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable. George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time. The rest of the time he was quite flat.

I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part. But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.

The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.

I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the ""reformed"" Scrooge at the end. That was a refreshing portrayal.

I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden. And Tiny Tim... oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...",0 -"This episode sucks.

Over the past few years I have watched all episodes of ""Next Generation"" and ""Voyager"" and am now watching ""Enterprise"".

I am thoroughly enjoying this series. Until this episode. I stared at the screen in horror at the destruction of character and entertainment. It is more like an attempt at slapstick.

It does not build the characters but throws them out on a limb - and leaves the audience gasping. It does little to build the series.

Why this was ever allowed to go to air amazes me. Was it the writing? Was it the directing? Was it the producer? We'll probably never know.

But one bad apple isn't bad I suppose. I say that hoping it is only one.",0 -"Fantastic Mr. Fox is a comedy based on the classic Roald Dahl book. Wes Anderson directs, and respectably takes the short book of the same name to the big screen in a full length film. While I respect what Anderson, an incredibly talented man did, the film seemed to have gotten lost in its own clever spirit. Anderson seems to have left the story behind knowing that he is a talented man, and if this happened to be a bad film, it would be his first bad film. Just like when you go to school and have your first bad day, this is Anderson's first bad day in film making, so I am going to let him off easy. I will admit it did have a cleverness and nice spirit to it, and the animation is nice, but the film gets progressively harder to get into, leaving the story behind and having random shots of random things happening. The characters are good, also. Jason Schwartzman voices Mr. Fox (George Clooney)'s smart ass son, Ash, and especially engaging. The film does not quite make it up to a level of terribleness, but it certainly gets closer and closer as it goes along. I'm sure Wes Anderson will get back on track with another amazing film when and where he decides to make another film, but for now, I'm sorry, Wes Anderson, this film of yours was a big disappointment.",0 -"i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.

The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.

The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.

Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.",0 -"Popular radio storyteller Gabriel No one(Robin Williams,scraggy and speaking in hushed,hypnotic tones) becomes acquainted and friends with a fourteen-year-old boy from Wisconsin named Pete Logand(Rory Culkin),who has written a book detailing sexual abuse from his parents. To boot,Pete has AIDS and this compels Gabriel further still,since his partner Jess(Bobby Cannavale,good)happens to be a survivor of HIV himself.

He also acquaints himself with Pete's guardian,a woman named Donna(Toni Collette,brilliant!)and when Gabriel decides he wants to meet and talk to the two of them in person and goes to Wisconsin,he discovers some secrets he was(naturally)not prepared to find.

Based on real events that happened to Armistead Maupin(who co-wrote the screenplay with Terry Anderson)and directed by Patrick Stetner,this film moves a lot faster(90 min.,maybe a few minutes longer)than one might think a movie of this genre would run. That's good in that it keeps the action and storyline lean and clear. It's bad in that it leaves various holes in the plot and doesn't sew-up any of the plot openings or back-story. I'd rather not go into any great detail except to say that,if you are not familiar with Mr.Maupin's works or his personal story,you feel a little bit out of the loop here. Still,the performances by Williams( I would've loved to heard more of his narration,personally),Collette,Cannavale,Culkin and much of the supporting cast(the Waitress at the restaurant Collete's Donna frequents does a great job with what small part she has!)are top-notch and the mood established here--namely,the chilly,lonely dark exteriors of Wisconsin and New York--give a terrific framing for this story. It may have ends that don't tie together particularly well,but it's still a compelling enough story to stick with.",1 -"The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being ""just"" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!

People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy!

In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks!

Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10",0 -"I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job.",0 -"Welcome to the world of Vikram Bhatt, the man who was once successful and got several hits with small actors like KASOOR, RAAZ and also the multistarrer AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA and his one film with Aamir GHULAM

One sneak peak about this films are that all are Hollywood remakes and some decent ones like the once which worked

SPEED is a remake of CELLULAR and that too a terrible one

A look at the stars, we have the once saleable but now out of work Urmila and Sanjay Suri, then we have the flop Aftab, Ashish Chaudhary, Zayed Khan and others

The film could be a decent thriller but many problems are there The storytelling has several cringeworthy scenes like Zayed hijacking a Mobile Company and many more and the stunts too are laughable while the twists in the end are too laughable The film also took a long time to reach the theatres which looses it's spark

Direction is awful Music is outdated

Zayed Khan screams, makes faces.etc what he does always Urmila is good in her part, Sanjay Suri is not that convincing Ashish Chaudhary tries hard in a negative role and he is okay Aftab is horrible and he makes you laugh in a negative role Surprising the same director gave him his only solo hit KASOOR Sophie is horrible Tanushree is a non actress",0 -"This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting ""Happy Ending"" song at the end of ""It Happened At The World's Fair"", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called ""Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little"", and makes ""Stay Away Joe"" look like Olivier playing Othello.

Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).

Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).

There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of ""A Little Less Talk"" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.",0 -"This is a little slow-moving for a horror movie, but the quality is better than you might expect for a director's only effort on IMDb. The camera work and lighting were both surprisingly good, and the acting – although variable – is better than is often found in Indie genre flicks.

As the lead, Robert Field is rather stiff, which is especially unfortunate given that his character, Claude, is the film's narrator as well as the centre of its action. However, it was the entry of Christopher (Brandon deSpain) that I considered the turning point of this film – and not in a good way. A twist is introduced in a clumsy fashion, and slow-moving becomes drawn out and overly wordy.

On the up side, Pete Barker is consistently entertaining as Father William. He's the easy stand-out in what is a fairly ordinary offering. While the first half hour caught my interest, I ended up feeling quite disappointed in the way things played out.",0 -"Not very interesting teen whodunit saved from being a turkey from some decent performances. The main cast consisting of Taye Diggs, Mia Kirshner, Dominique Swain and surprisingly Meredith Monroe are all good but the story is not very original.",0 -"I have a letter from Ms. Knight, who went to college with my older sister. In it, she tells of the hardships of making this film. She, herself, was pregnant--an interesting conjunction with the movie's plot--and the novice director was unsure, fairly green, and having great difficulties with all the decisions, logistics, etc. They were on the move all the time, and it was a very difficult shoot.

The film, however, with a strong debut for James Caan, remains effective and affecting. It's a great showcase for the talent that Ms. Knight has demonstrated her entire career--on television, in movies and on the stage, where she won the Tony for ""Kennedy's Children.""

This film has aged well.",1 -"... with a single act.

Charlie Wilson, congressman, a real character. During the 90s, when the communism on USSR, the Wall of Berlin and the war on Afhganistan (with the Soviets) broke over. He did it, a single denial for money, and everything went down. He should be remembered, so here it is. His memorial.

Back to the movie. Funny, dramatic, snob, politic or just boring. Anyways, it's a smart movie about politic life, about ruling the world and about, above all, a lesson to the world. A lesson to every politic out there, a critical point of view referring to countries who support wars with money, guns and words.

Lesson Learned - World isn't a nice place to live in",1 -"This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like ""freeing"" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.",1 -"I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly.",0 -"Oh Geez... There are so many other films I want to see out there... I got stuck with my nephew for the weekend and this is what he wanted - Yeah...

I used to watch this show when I was in college...it was mindless, kinda fun, and somewhat action-oriented. The show had a good heart tho...and the characters were cute; no one ever got killed or even hurt badly... it was like a cartoon come to life. Cut to 2005...What happened? This one doesn't work. As others have said, there simply isn't a cohesive story and the performances are weird...almost annoying - definitely not faithful to the original characters...the whole thing is a like a Mad TV skit and it lasts over 100 minutes! This was one of the few times I've been EMBARRASSED watching a film. What were they thinking? As best I can tell, must've been for the product marketing, toys, etc. All I can say is, let this one die a quick death. It makes the original Dukes of Hazzard seem like Masterpiece Theater...

I think the only remake left to do from TV is Gilligan's Island... Good Luck!",0 -"Like most people I love ""A Christmas Story"". I had never even heard of this film and perhaps for good reason--it is awful. Same locale, same narrator, same director but the warm fuzziness of the original was lacking. Charles Grodin was a poor choice to replace Darrin McGavin but I cannot imagine anyone being able to replace him. The story seems forced and lacks the sweetness of the original. The interaction with the neighbors, the Bumpuses, is ridiculous. In ""A Christmas Story"" Ralphie's obsession with the BB gun seems cute but his obsession in this movie is boring. Scud Farkus, the original neighborhood bully, is replaced in this film by yet another kid with braces and a weird hat but with little of the Scud Farkus menacing appeal. It would be pretty difficult to equal the original, even if this movie had been made with the original crew.",0 -"For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do.

One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs.

* out of ***** (1 out of 5)",0 -"Quite liked Flesh and looking forward to Heat but couldn't help but feel Morrissey grossly exploited most of the ""performers"" featured here. Stumbling around naked in a narcotic stupor seems to be all Dallesandro was capable of in this feature--a huge and heartbreaking contrast from Flesh. His semi-erection in a few scenes is the only indication that he might be acting; mostly it looks like something he did to buy drugs. Woodlawn is a revelation all right--she is the embodiment of the Lower East Side. But hers is a one woman show--she rarely engages the other performers though, it has to be said, her sex scene with a beer bottle definitely leaves Halle Berry in the shade when it comes to cinematic displays of raw passion. When she pounces on a young, would-be lover it is with the ferocity of a vampire. Two of the female performers, Andrea and Jane, have such annoying voices you'll have to mute the sound to get through their scenes. The fact that several of these performers committed suicide or were murdered a few years after only adds to the air of exploitation. But they were probably desperate to get in front of Morrissey's camera anyway. There probably isn't a worse way to spend a Saturday night but at least it brings a specific time and place vividly to life.",0 -"Joan Fontaine is ""A Damsel in Distress"" in this 1937 musical starring Fred Astaire, George Burns, and Gracie Allen. The plot, what there is of it, is about a British woman (Fontaine) in love with an American, who is mistaken for Astaire, a musical comedy star.

The film, directed by George Stevens, contains some wonderful Gershwin music, including ""Nice Work if You Can Get It"" and ""A Foggy Day."" The best scene is the ""Stiff Upper Lip"" number, which takes place in a fun house.

Astaire's singing voice sounds more robust in this film than it does in others, and he has a couple of excellent dance numbers. Burns plays his over the top publicist and Allen is Burns' secretary. She's hilarious. The problem, as others have pointed out, is Fontaine, who has to dance with Astaire at the end of the film. Stevens could easily have used a double because he shows the dance in a long shot, and it takes place among the trees. I would have thought it was a double except the dancing was so lousy.

Definitely worth seeing despite its flaws.",1 -"A young woman leaves her provincial life for a new one in the city and there she meets another woman with whom she falls in love with. Their relationship turns physical quickly and they both believe that they are soul-mates, until one day, the provincial girl comes home to find a man in their bed. Her lover then reveals to her that their relationship was just an experiment and she really likes men. Um, kinda like the Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres thing. So, anyway, the provincial girl, broken, torn and shattered by this discovery moves out and begins to discover what the real world is all about as she falls into the hands of all sort of vindictive and salacious people in 19th century England.",1 -"I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from ""Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their ""fans"" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10",0 -"I first didn't want to watch this film, for the trailer gave the impression of a common and too expected film...but as I recently had the pleasure to discover the surprising ""Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinité"""" which was beautifully directed and written by Laurent Tirard (screenwriter of ""prête-moi ta main""), I changed my mind and decided to try it, thinking that ""Prête-moi ta main"", would be as good as ""mensonges..."". And it is absolutely not. The script is not bad, but it is not as well directed as ""Mensonges..."", the actors not as generous (especially Charlotte, as boring as she usually is) as Edouard Baer or Clovis Cornillac, and too be honest, I still don't understand how such crap can have such a success, even with such a casting... Anyway the story could have been a pretext to create so many interesting plots, but it is not as good as Tirard's ""Mensonges..."" though it's also written by him. Easy, unsurprising, and lazy work. Totally overestimated!",0 -"I really wanted to write a title for this review that didn't come off as corny or gushing but still described my feelings for this show. I can see now that it is not possible. ""American Family"" is one of the best shows I have ever had the pleasure of watching on television. Several reviewers here on IMDb have mentioned the word ""beautiful"" when describing this show. Never has a word been more fitting. The cinematography for this show is stunning. Every scene and shot looks like a masterpiece. The lighting, camera moves, scene composition and colors...I have to keep reminding myself that I'm watching a TV Show and not a Motion Picture masterpiece. The score by Lee Holdridge and Nathan Wang brings tears to my eyes. And most importantly, the acting by the all around amazing cast is honest and sincere. I do not feel like I am watching performances...I feel like I'm watching real life. If only real life could be this beautiful.

""American Family"" has indeed raised the bar for quality entertainment on Television. I highly recommend this show to anyone who is willing to watch it. I could easily chide CBS for passing on this show, but I have to say that it doesn't matter to me who airs it. I'm just glad it's out there for everyone to see. So I do thank PBS for not allowing this show to disappear into nothingness.

I have to give special recognition to the way each season's finale ended. The first one was pure creative brilliance and it moved me to tears. I was waiting to see if season two would also end in a creative way, and sure enough it did. Again, tears.

My thanks to all of those involved. You really have made a special piece of art with this show, and I sincerely mean that. It is a shame that we only got two seasons, but a miracle we got anything at all.",1 -"Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? ""An Unexpected Love"" - ooh, how provocative!! ""This Much I know"" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who ""turns"" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it?",0 -"This is the story of a guy who went up to see a comedy and it turned out to be a horror movie. The true story of a guy who's infatuated with pictures and got scared when he identified himself unexpectedly with one of them. The unbelievable story of A GUY who got scarier when the female-hero was deluding herself as well as the male-villain. Gosh, is this what life made us be? People deluding themselves about the perfect face imagining how that face should be perfect inside? ""Toto, I think we're not in Kansas anymore"".",1 -"I think it was way back in 1987 that we had our exams and my friend and I saw in the papers that one of the theatres was playing 'teen deviyan'. We decided to go just for the heck of it without hoping anything great. But we were in for a pleasant surprise. The movie was made in 1965 but even by today's standards, the plot was absolutely modern and way ahead of its times. The music was wonderful and Dev Anand as a city bred looked and acted his best. I still remember that elated feeling when we came out of the theatre after the movie was over.

Whoever thought of this story of one man falling for three very different girls at the same time? No he is not three timing or fooling them but he genuinely likes all three of them for different reasons. One is homely, one is an actress and the third is a 'high society' girl who can also help Dev in his career as a poet. The question is which one is the 'One' for him. What makes the matter worse is that all three of them like him too. When things come to an impasse, a hypnotist takes him in and in his hypnotized state he dreams of his future with each one of them and reaches the right decision.

This dream of his which is the only colored part in an otherwise black-n-white movie is the crux of the film but surprisingly is edited out from most of the versions available today. If you want to watch this movie make sure that this part is intact. In case you watch this movie without this part and get confused, don't worry because you just watched an incomplete movie.",1 -"Musings: Pure delight from beginning to end. Not a laugh riot, but a more subtle, sophisticated humor. What a goldmine of great scenes and character actors, including Reginald Denny, Nestor Paiva, Ian Wolfe, Harry Shannon and Jason Robards Sr..

Cary Grant is at the building sight of his new home, which is at that point, being framed. A young carpenter, played by future Tarzan Lex Barker, asks him if he wants his ""lallies to be rabbeted"", or some such thing that only a carpenter would know. Grant, not wanting to appear ignorant, replies in the affirmative. At that, Barker yells up to his mates, ""OK boys, he wants 'em rabbeted, so....YANK 'EM OUT!"" A second later you hear the ripping and tearing sounds of about 20 big nails being pulled out of various boards. All Grant can do is moan.

Yes, the movie IS dated. You'd never see that many carpenters working at once on a single family home, and a place like that, in Connecticut of all places, would probably run a few million bucks.

A classic movie that is really a treasure.",1 -"If people didn't know who Barbra Streisand was before this,...(is that POSSIBLE?)...they sure knew who she was after!

This show went on to win 5 Emmys, & stands out as one the best things Streisand has ever done.

It's made up of 3 acts....

ACT I...Barbra singing standards from room to room, filled with musicians, including a segment where she is a little girl again,all ending with a splendid version of her signature song,(at the time)...""People"".

ACT II....A musical tour of Bergdoff-Goodman,while Barbra Sings poverty songs..it's better than it sounds...

ACT III.....The best part, Just Barbra,musicians,& some great songs,like.....""Happy Days Are Here Again"",& a ""Funny Girl"" medley....

all in all, a great part of television history,made by one of the greatest performers in the world!",1 -"Harry Langdon's ""Saturday Afternoon"" is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's ""Cops"" or Chaplin's ""The Immigrant"" this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.

For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of ""Saturday Afternoon"" may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch ""Saturday Afternoon"" will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.

But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of ""Saturday Afternoon,"" when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.

""Saturday Afternnon"" and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake.",1 -"I've given 'Kôhî jikô' a low score not because it was a bad movie, but because it doesn't do anything worth praising.

I've not seen any of Hsiao-hsien Hou's work before, but for the uninitiated (me included) 'Kôhî jikô' is advertised as a homage to Yasujiro Ozu. (A Japanese director whose last film was way, way in 1962) The film is an extremely sparse work...containing very little dialogue, story, music or emotion.

Yo Hitoto plays 'Yoko' a jobless, wandering character who spends her time in her local coffee shop or loosely investigating a Taiwanese composer she likes. Tadanobu Asano plays her friend, who works in a cd shop and occasionally indulges his otaku interest in trains. And that's about all it.

We watch as Yoko drinks coffee alone...walks around...waits for a train...catches a train...falls asleep on the train. The kind of mundane reality anybody in Japan can see on a daily basis. Hou captures these ordinary moments of these characters life, but without any meaning to these vignettes it's an entirely pointless film to make or watch.",0 -"The large bell in a bar intermittently rings for last orders and the inevitable rush to queue forms at the counter – do we want what we need only when it's too late? Or is the irony of the opening scene's wailing Cassandra a more resonant reflection of our perceptions on individual existence? There's an endless fascination about where writer-director Roy Andersson wants to take us in his fourth feature, ""You, The Living"". With fifty or so semi-related vignettes strung together by a penchant for tragicomic hyper-reality, its wistful interpretations and symbolic instances of life that bind us all in this great big cosmic Sisyphean struggle. The sheer simplicity of these vignettes act to dramatise the tenuity and immense preciousness of being apart of the symbiotic relationships we have with one another. Andersson might whittle down the complexity of the human condition through harsh and fast cynicism more than he should, but he also reminds us of the inherent, reassuring glory of waking up each morning to a new tomorrow when we're all aware of our own distinct forms of arrested development.",1 -"This ""film,"" and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: ""P.U., stinky poopies!""

Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid.

That said, there are a few bright spots.

The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!

Moose, the dog from ""Frasier,"" phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable.

The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.

The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the ""Memorable Quotes"" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the ""crappiest crap in Craptown,"" it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.

Over all, since there's nothing lower than a ""one,"" I give this film a ""one.""",0 -"Of all the film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s, this has to rank as one of the strangest, and most fun to watch. I say that because of the four main actors: Orson Welles, Rita Hayworth, Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders.

The first two names are familiar to everyone but it was the last two that made this movie so entertaining to me, especially Anders. His character, ""George Grisby,"" is one of the strangest people I've ever seen on film. His voice, and some of the things he said, have to be heard to be believed. Slaone isn't far behind in the ""strange"" category. Hayworth is not as glamorous with short, blonde hair but still is Hayworth, which means a lot to ogle if you are a guy. Welles' is as fascinating as always. One tip: if you have the DVD, turn on the English subtitles. His character in this movie is an Irishman and you need the subtitles to understand everything he says.

Welles also directed the film which means you have great camera angles and wonderful facial closeups. You also have a unique ending, visually, with a shootout in a house of mirrors. Great stuff! As bizarre as this film is, I still thought the buffoon-like carnival atmosphere at the trial near the end was too much and took away from the seriousness of the scene. Other than that, no complaints.

This is great entertainment, which is the name of the game.",1 -"This would have to be by far the greatest series I have ever seen. I vividly watched every sunday night and purchased the box set as soon as it was available. this is a timeless play written by a fantastic Australian that people of all ages could relate to, whether they are Australian or not, however for those of us that are Australian it truly brings across the typical Australian icon. A must see 10/10",1 -"This thing was bad. Really bad. I mean, low budget can sometimes be very inspiring, but not this. The story was so off-the-shelf, the alien's behaviour so illogical, the characters so clichéed. I found nothing good in it. And I did try.",0 -"Brilliant Biographic FILM………..

Well this certainly is one of my very fav. Biographic movie. This movie came as a Total Surprise to me. I had been avoiding this movie for a very very Long time. Now that was because I am not a fan of Jamie Foxx. I still am not a Big Fan of him But I sure am a FAN now.

Well He deserved every BIT of that Oscar. His performance is one of the BEST performances I have seen in a Long Long time. He is truly Sensational!

Well the narration, or the Flow of the story is Brilliant for a Biographical movie. I am a DRAMA fan so I wasn't bored at all.

I was way too much surprised to have being liking the movie so much that I did not see any flaws in the movie. I think there isn't any flaw in the movie. Maybe some Events errors But hey who Cares?

The performance by the woman who plays ray's Mother was also really GOOD. And well Kerry Washington … she has so much Potential.. if given the right role She might just be the Next Oscar winner.

Well the Story of them movie was so EMOTIONAL so TOUCHING.. I Cried… I Cried very Badly……

I don't give a damn if the things were mad- up or not cuz this movie mad me cry… And that's a lot for me!

All in all a SUPERB FILM……. One of the very best of this century!

10/10",1 -"I just recently watched Ed Wood Jr.'s autobiographical movie Glen or Glenda for the first time after having heard so much about it for so many years. Nothing I had read or heard about this film could prepare me for what I saw. This has to be the most bizarre movie ever made. Stampeding buffalo, women in bondage, Satan prancing around and Bela Lugosi, rambling only as he can, ""Bevare, Bevare....pull the string, pull the string..."", it was totally insane. The acting was atrocious and the dialog was unintentionally hilarious, exactly what one would expect from an Ed Wood film. Having said all that, as horrible as this movie was, I have to give Wood credit...he was way ahead of his time. You have to remember that when this movie was made transvestites were not even discussed in public, much less the subject for a movie. I have read that Wood was a transvestite in real life, and I'm sure this movie was based on his own experiences. It was sad to see Bela Lugosi having to say the ridiculous lines he had to say for this film, but it was kind of Ed Wood Jr. to at least give Mr. Lugosi an acting job at a time in Bela's life when he was penniless and a drug addict and no one else in Hollywood would hire him. If you have never seen this film then you have to see it, especially if you are a fan of Ed Wood Jr.",0 -"At last, a great film that doesn't have to be edited for profanity or sex! It's a fun film that the whole family can enjoy. Willis is great, as always. ""Rusty"" was delightful. Just enough action to keep interest going.",1 -"This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow … Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.",0 -"A delightful story about two evacuees, has been turned into a nice little film, by the BBC. Most children who like a good story will enjoy this. The characters are played really well by a very good cast. Not sure whether our American friends will appreciate it, but they do get a mention, as Aunty Lou runs off with a gorgeous American soldier.",1 -"This has to be one of those times you come across a movie with a neat cover, my first impression, sweet, full moon, crows, a scarecrow holding a scythe. OK my impression (I had watched scarecrow on TV a weeks ago) perfect, a nice slasher film to start the evening with. ................... wrong, absolutely wrong I think 5 mins in I was gonna take it out, but thought I wasted 3$ on this so Ill finish it wheres the scarecrow, well Im guessing its the legs of the fisher man wearing heavy duty rain boots. you see that every so often. I was watching this thinking.... OK when are those brats gonna run into this dude, at one point I thought they died. but no.... I mean frig, their still alive. I only chuckled at a few parts cause of how badly staged they were. one was the zoom in part at the start. the director/actor/writer says, ""remember I had that feeling, well I have it again"" and it was either a zoom in or zoom out, to hell I'm checking back. but I guess the scene was supposedly shocking, I mean whats more shocking is his wife had the same shocked look.... OK... she believed him??? Im sorry but YEAH.... i didn't know he was psychic until I read the movie box to make some sense out of what I witnessed. not only that, they used pictures to make you think this movie is at least clear.

the other thing that made me laugh a bit was the, scream in the camera, to make it scary....... OK............... filming a girl close up screaming into the camera for 5 mins.......right..... I laughed cause of how pathetic it was these kids cannot act like the rest of the people in the movie.

to top things off the scythe must have got lost or something.... cause seems the bad guy had just a stick. not even an ax, someone should axe the dam production film

Don't fall for the picture, this movie is a piece of sh*t. I watched the trailer and guess what it has

GIRLS WHERE ARE YOU TALK TO ME and CORN",0 -"WHITE CHICKS Hold on, why couldn't they have dressed as Black Chicks, oh yeah, they wouldn't look different at all. Can anyone give me one Wayans movie where they haven't dressed up as ladies? Don't Be A Menace doesn't count, Jack White and Michael Costanza ghost wrote that (the other Norton Trio members acted as Directors).

In White Chicks, there's never really any jokes. It's just the Wayans acting like girls for 2 hours. There's no setups, no punchlines and no laughs. There is a lot of ""I think I'm gonna play some Time Crisis 3."" At least for me there was (5 times to be exact).

Somebody has to tell Kenan Ivory, Damon, Marlon, Shawn, Damien (the only talented one), Kim, Rakeesha, George W., and Osama Bin Wayans to stop making movies. Its only hurting the O-Zone layer.

VERDICT 1/2* out of ****",0 -"This was my first look at this short-lived British TV horror series, but I had seen a couple of Hammer horror films (Horror of Dracula, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter) and thought highly-enough of them to give this a look.

This first episode was a shocker - not for the horror but for all the nudity. Was this ""regular"" TV in England in 1980? If so, it showed a lot more skin than what we see in North America. There were three separate scenes showing naked women and their breasts, one scene where a guy put his hand on one, and another scene with man a top of a woman faking intercourse. Hey, I'm not complaining.

The story is a simple one: a witch who had disappeared in the 17th century comes back to her old house and makes life tough for the married man. The latter, Jon Finch as ""David Winter,"" wasn't much of an actor, but his wife wasn't bad and was a really beauty. She was be Prunella Gee as ""Mary."" The husband suspected her, rightly so, of having an affair and that plays a part in this story.

Patricia Quinn was entertaining as the laughing witch ""Lucinda Jessup,"" who comes back with a mean streak in her and has a good time tormenting the couple until things go wrong at the end. As a man, I'd say it was particular fun to see the two women going at it! This starts off slowly but once ""Lucinda"" starts stirring up things, it gets very entertaining.",1 -"It was a movie that made ya think a little. Some parts a little cheesy, some parts pretty good. Plot did thicken at times and just when you thought Angella (Sandra) found a friend the friend was fraud or dead. All I got to say is that DENNIS MILLER should have been in the whole movie. His character was the best, very refreshing after all the crap Angella went through. He would have lifted me and Angella through the dumps.",1 -"This home movie is basically scandalously rubbish, but you have to give them 3/10 for trying. The blood is rubbish, but the granny that kills them is quite funny, and I think the concept is good, and make-up is OK for a home movie. However thank god it was only 55 minutes long, and the twist at the end is quite literally Fight Club (as in almost as trash as the film). Just read this comment, don't watch the film.",0 -"My Score for this crap: 1 / 10 1 for the technical only. Everything else is very bad.

Another film that makes no sense. Clearly it seems that creating a good script for film or television is almost a impossible mission.

While it's easy to understand why politicians never say the truth, they are among the biggest liars on the planet, it is difficult to understand how to make films so pathetic.

We must believe that taking people for morons. Perhaps it was reason to believe, since 99% of the films are crap. Because they are stupid and ridiculous and very bad scenarios.

When you look at the price we give Oscars, we understand better why we continue to make films any more ridiculous than others.

And oddly enough it was always money for such nonsense. But it was not for education and health.

If you still want to listen to this s**t, press super Fast Forward button (at least 20X).",0 -"I have seen many movies over the years and I am a big fan of comedies.

But this so-called comedy almost reduced me to tears. It is without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever witnessed, the worst.

I remember hearing about this movie from a friend, and decided to view it. If I could I could turn back time, I would. I will regret for as long as I live, the time I wasted watching this rubbish.

The storyline is so insane; it just makes no-sense at all and leaves you confused. There is a Scottish mob and a German headhunter who are after Pestario 'Pest' Vargas (John Leguizamo), the Scottish mob after $50,000 dollars and the Germans after his head.

In trying to escape The Pest, takes the form of many disguises. But in doing this we witness some of the most annoying, worst, mind numbing acting, dialogue and sounds in cinema history. This movie annoyed me so much; by the end I was full of aggression. I was so angry that I had wasted so much time watching a movie that would surely drive depressed people to almost certain suicide. I mean how can there be hope when a movie like this can be given permission to be made?

I know people have their own opinions, but the most shocking thing about The Pest is that people actually like it. Why? What is funny about a man that is annoying from the very first second to the last? A man who cannot act? Who has an annoying voice and confusing face?

I sat through it thinking the movie would get better, surely it would. It did not. Usually, you want the good guy to survive, but I wanted the Germans or the Scottish mob to find and kill The Pest, anything to put me out of my misery. There is nothing funny, interesting or normal that happens in this movie, its just plain annoying and confusing. The jokes are dead even before they are told. I feel sorry for the cameramen who have no say in how the movie is made, but actually have to film this drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if they are receiving counselling.

If you want to remain sane and part of society, my advice is to never watch this movie. I'd rather lock myself in my room for 5 weeks and go without food and water than watch this movie again!

I don't think I'll ever hate anything more than this.",0 -"I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.

Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.

The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.

This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs.",0 -"This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch ""Mr. Imperium"", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.",0 -"I wanted to watch this, to get a inside look at the show. It told the story more of Robin Williams, then Mork & Mindy. Still, thought it was great. We got to see, Robin always being 'on', no matter what. The performance of Diamontopolous was awesome.

The introductions of the main players, seem so real to me. Roebuck as Garry Marshall was wonderful. He was so charming in this, which helped me get through all the Williams energy. The little behind the scenes pieces of his other shows (Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley), was enlightening. I also thought Richmond-Peck's Harvey was also a nice rock in the pond. (This is a good thing).

This movie told the age old story of Hollywood folks, going through the ups and downs of stardom. It kept me glued to my TV, and I learned to love Robin, well hell, mostly everybody seem to be the super people I sometimes think Hollywood is. Go figure.

I sometimes wonder why the network people are always played to be idiots. We never saw the head of ABC. Just heard him, like Charlie from Charlie Angels (I wonder if this way planed?). It seems so sad, that a show at number 1, could be so destroy by their own network.

I think this story could be told about anyone's life, as they climb the ladder of any job. Movie, and TV stars are always loved or hated by so many people, that you grew up with, you just want to reach back in their past, to remember your own past. I Remember watching the show, and always wondering what does happen in their personal lives.

Mork and Mindy, will always be part of me, and I got to see part of them. It may not all be the truth, it's also all not a lie, but in the end, it told me a wonderful sad, happy story.",1 -"Not even the Beatles could write songs everyone liked, and although Walter Hill is no mop-top he's second to none when it comes to thought provoking action movies. The nineties came and social platforms were changing in music and film, the emergence of the Rapper turned movie star was in full swing, the acting took a back seat to each man's overpowering regional accent and transparent acting. This was one of the many ice-t movies i saw as a kid and loved, only to watch them later and cringe. Bill Paxton and William Sadler are firemen with basic lives until a burning building tenant about to go up in flames hands over a map with gold implications. I hand it to Walter for quickly and neatly setting up the main characters and location. But i fault everyone involved for turning out Lame-o performances. Ice-t and cube must have been red hot at this time, and while I've enjoyed both their careers as rappers, in my opinion they fell flat in this movie. It's about ninety minutes of one guy ridiculously turning his back on the other guy to the point you find yourself locked in multiple states of disbelief. Now this is a movie, its not a documentary so i wont waste my time recounting all the stupid plot twists in this movie, but there were many, and they led nowhere. I got the feeling watching this that everyone on set was sord of confused and just playing things off the cuff. There are two things i still enjoy about it, one involves a scene with a needle and the other is Sadler's huge 45 pistol. Bottom line this movie is like domino's pizza. Yeah ill eat it if I'm hungry and i don't feel like cooking, But I'm well aware it tastes like crap. 3 stars, meh.",0 -"Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're ""The Cavern"".

A good horror/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die. However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.

All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.

(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.

I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch ""The Descent"", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either.",0 -"This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.

Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.

The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the ""naked ladies.""

The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.",1 -"This is one of my favorite series, all categories, all time.

I was fortunate enough to get a hold of the whole series on VHS a few years ago. I loved it when I saw it back in -91 -92, when I was about 12. I love it as much, or more, today, which is remarkable considering my (hopefully) improved film appreciation and criticism skills. Most of the movies I liked back then I'm not that fond of today, besides for the nostalgia factor. That factor is present here as well, but there's so much more to Robin of Sherwood than nostalgia.

There are only a few bad things about this series. First, the picture and sound quality is so-so, at least in the first couple of episodes. Fortunately, it gets better. Secondly, you could have wished for a bit more blood and realism in the fighting scenes, although I know that was not an option in this case.

So, on to the good things! And there are a lot of them. First of all, Michael Praed IS Robin Hood. I don't think I have seen him in a single role since then, which only strengthen this fact for me. He delivers such a believable performance as Robin. Jason Connery had an impossible task replacing him. The fact that Michael Praed hasn't become a bigger name as an actor is unbelievable. Or perhaps that was his fate, to do this one role perfectly, then disappear.

I love Nickolas Graces Sheriff of Nottingham. He is really not a complex character, but totally rotten. The relation between him and Gisburne is just hilarious. Actually, just looking at de Rainault sitting in his throne, bored, glaring, makes me laugh even before he has said anything. Another actor that deserves extra praise is Ray Winstone as Will Scarlet. You can really feel the sadness inside of him as well as his hate for the soldiers who killed his wife. Winstone is an actor that finally has gotten his well deserved Hollywood breakthrough (in films as The Departed and Beowulf). There are a lot of other great actors here, too.

I love the portrayal of the Robin gang. They are having fun, playing, laughing, you really get a feel of the camaraderie between them, the closeness that comes from a tight bound group such as this. Those bonding scenes are so important.

I think that it being UK produced with British actors really made it better, compared to for example the -92 feature film version with Kevin Costner, that just feels fake, fake, fake. (Christian Slater as Will Scarlet, come on..) The cast being able to speak English with British accent makes it more believable, and I get the feeling that the actors, as well as the director and writers, behind the series can put themselves much more into the shoes of the Robin Hood gang than an American crew could have. The music is wonderful, Clannad is perfect for the feel of the series. The music is another of those things they just nailed.

An exciting addition also is the fantasy and magic spice that is put in there. It's not over the top, but believable and just makes the whole thing better and more interesting. I also love how nicely the mix of comedy, adventure and drama is blended.

Those are a few of the things that makes this series so alive and so genuine. It's by far the best Robin Hood version I have ever seen. I won't wrap up with the ""Nothing's forgotten"" quote. But one thing that never will be forgotten, for me, is this fantastic Robin Hood retelling. See it.",1 -"Worth the entertainment value of a rental, especially if you like action movies. This one features the usual car chases, fights with the great Van Damme kick style, shooting battles with the 40 shell load shotgun, and even terrorist style bombs. All of this is entertaining and competently handled but there is nothing that really blows you away if you've seen your share before.

The plot is made interesting by the inclusion of a rabbit, which is clever but hardly profound. Many of the characters are heavily stereotyped -- the angry veterans, the terrified illegal aliens, the crooked cops, the indifferent feds, the bitchy tough lady station head, the crooked politician, the fat federale who looks like he was typecast as the Mexican in a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. All passably acted but again nothing special.

I thought the main villains were pretty well done and fairly well acted. By the end of the movie you certainly knew who the good guys were and weren't. There was an emotional lift as the really bad ones got their just deserts. Very simplistic, but then you weren't expecting Hamlet, right? The only thing I found really annoying was the constant cuts to VDs daughter during the last fight scene.

Not bad. Not good. Passable 4.",0 -"Gosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... ""how"".

Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the ""rich"" and ""famous"" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.

Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the ""teddy bear"" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice ""chick"" flick!",1 -"Personally, I didn't really gain a whole lot from THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. I've noticed a lot of really highly rated reviews on here for the film, and I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I missed something that other reviewers felt ""moved"" by but I found the film pretty tedious and basically pointless.

The ""action"" of the film is a bunch of autopsy footage that is filmed in an ""art-house"" style - lots of extreme close-ups, weird editing, etc...and with no sound or dialogue.

I guess THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES could be considered a study of human anatomy, or maybe (if you really wanna dig a little) some sort of comment on the fragility of humanity or whatever - but I personally found it to be a bunch of semi-interesting but ultimately dull autopsy footage. If that's your thing, then this will be a winner for you. As for me - I've seen more interesting ER footage. Not a ""bad"" film, as it isn't really a ""film"" in any traditional sense - I just found nothing really notable about it - 4/10.",0 -"Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar ""artist's model's tragic fate"" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset…with Ines and Goya following along behind………Can't Milos Forman do better than that?",0 -"Gerard is a writer with a somewhat overactive imagination. He is also homosexual and Catholic prone to Catholic guilt and something of a clairvoyant, or so it seems. On a trip to Flushing he is 'seduced' by Christine. When he discovers that Christine's new boyfriend is the bit of rough trade he's been fancying from afar he decides to stick around. After all, enforced heterosexuality has its compensations. Then he realizes that Christine's previous three husbands have all died violent deaths. Did Christine murder them and is he or the boyfriend, Herman, going to be 'the fourth man'? Verhoeven's overheated, over-egged melodrama is a delicious blend of Hitchcock and David Lynch, full of OTT eroticism and religious imagery and an awful lot of the colour red. A lot of the time it looks and feels like a dream and we can never be sure that what we are seeing is real or a figment of Gerard's imagination. The fun is in figuring it out. Also the fact that Christine is an infinitely more likable character that either the priggish Gerard or the bullish Herman means we are hardly like to root for either of the men over her. In fact, it's fair to say Gerard's comeuppance can't come soon enough. Super performances, too, from Jeroen Krabbe and Renee Soutendijk and easily Verhoeven's best film up to his wonderfully subversive piece of sci-fi ""Starship Troopers"".",1 -"""Fly Me To The Moon"" has to be the worst animated film I've seen in a LONG TIME. That's saying something since I have taken my son to see every animated release for the last 4 years now. The story is to be generous...trite. The voice acting is atrocious, Too cute sounding. The humor is of the Romper Room variety. The animation is passable for a Nickolodeon type of cartoon but this is being released on the big screen not cable television.

It gets a 2 only because of it's OK 3-D visuals. Some of the scenes had a mildly stimulating image but We've seen much better in the past. I also question the insistence of the filmmakers to have characters fly away from the screen rather than into it in most of the scenes. While that is interesting at first it became tiresome after the 3rd or 4th time. It seemed to smack of indifference to me on the part of the creators.

I will say this though, It had a pretty cool soundtrack. And for the record my son wasn't too crazy about it either. Bad movie.",0 -"'Renaissance (2006)' was created over a period of six years, co-funded by France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom at a cost of around €14 million. The final result is a staggering accomplishment of comic-book style animation, aesthetically similar to what Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller achieved with 'Sin City (2005),' but this film employed motion capture with live-actors to translate their faces and movements into an entirely animated format. Presented in stark black-and-white, the film looks as though it has been hoisted from the very pages of the graphic novel on which it was based, and the futuristic city of Paris looms ominously above us. Directed by French filmmaker Christian Volckman, in his feature-length debut, 'Renaissance' draws significantly from other films in the science-fiction genre, and the tech-noir storyline isn't something we haven't seen before, but, from a technical standpoint, it is faultless.

The year is 2054. The city of Paris is a crumbling metropolis filled with dark alleys and deserted footpaths, the recent installation of modern technology merely offering a thin mask to the pitiable degradation of the darkened buildings. The city's largest corporation, Avalon, achieved wealth through offering citizens the promise of beauty and youth, and the company's research department is continually striving to invent greater means of eliminating the aging process. Ilona Tasuiev (voiced by Romola Garai in the English-language version, which I watched) , a brilliant young scientist, is mysteriously kidnapped on her return from work, and so it falls to legendary detective Barthélémy Karas (Daniel Craig) to uncover her current whereabouts. Possibly holding the key to the woman's disappearance is Bislane (Catherine McCormack), Ilona's hardened elder sister, whose trustworthiness is in question, and Jonas Muller (Ian Holm), the dedicated medical doctor who adored Ilona as his own daughter.

The eerie, dimly-lit city of Paris is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner (1982),' and some of the technology looks as though it might have been borrowed from Tom Cruise in 'Minority Report (2002)' {which was, coincidentally, also set in the year 2054}. However, despite this familiarity, Volckman has created an exciting world for his characters to inhabit. Blending classic film-noir and science-fiction, the result is an eye-catching collage of harsh lighting and dark shadows, which, I should warn, occasionally becomes difficult on the viewer's eyes. The dialogue is a little banal at times, and the story, though engaging, doesn't offer anything strikingly original {except for the ending, which I thought was a bold twist on the usual formula}, but 'Renaissance' is intended to work best as a visual treat, and that it succeeds in this regard cannot be denied.",1 -"I wanted to dog this movie, but somehow I can't find it in myself to do that.

Exhibiting a duality of fighting styles, it's Li vs. Li in a somewhat decent battle for supremacy.

This is one of those movies where the story carries the performances. Li's acting is extremely amateurish, hesitant, and stiff for most of this movie...right up to the very end. At first I tricked myself into believing he was just doing that for one of his two characters. You know, to show a difference in personalities. But it appeared to be inexperience or a lack of talent. It did get a bit better, more relaxed, toward the end. But that wasn't enough to save his performance. Jet Li's acting does improve as his career moves forward. I don't hate his acting. I just hated him in this.

I also have to say that the effects were very ""B"" class effects. What effects there are.

The story itself had great potential. It was uniquely creative, daring, and fresh. Unfortunately, either the budget was not ample enough to accommodate better lighting, effects, film quality, and some acting lessons, or the director just did not care enough to bother with these little details. He also did not bother with the SCIENCE in the science-fiction. A fact which was a great detractor to this film.

The fight sequences were a bit one sided, as he seemed to give more to one character and little to the other. But all in all the story line made for a very enjoyable attempt.

As enjoyable as this was, I couldn't help but think, all the way through, that this was just one of those movies that you can't help but watch it for what it SHOULD'VE been, rather than what it is.

It rates a 6.0/10 on the ""B"" scale.

That's a 4.2/10 (on the ""A"" scale) for having a good plot, from...

the Fiend :.",0 -"I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).

It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense.",0 -"Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)",0 -"Bad, bad, and did I mention bad? Aside from the comical monster terrorizing the workers the funniest part of the movie was when surveyors are in the desert and one comments that they have an hour of daylight left, but you can clearly see by their shadows, and the bright sky, that it's probably only 2 or 2:30 in the afternoon. Talk about consistency. READ THE SCRIPT director!

The only cool part of this movie, besides the rack on Clara Bryant of course (as another reviewer mentioned), is the phantom skeleton horse that the Bone Eater rides on. That thing was pretty cool as it chased the surveyors on their motorcycles.",0 -"Yes, The Southern Star features a pretty forgettable title tune sung by that heavy set crooner Matt Monro. It pretty much establishes the tone for this bloated and rather dull feature, stunningly miscast with George Segal and Ursula Andress as an adventurous couple in search of a large diamond. Add in Harry Andrews (with a strange accent, no less) chasing an ostrich, tons of stock footage of wildlife, and poorly composed and dull photography by Raoul Coutard, and you end up with a thoroughly unexciting romp through the jungles of Senegal.",0 -"Whether you're a fan of the series which inspired it or not, there's no denying this is a patchy piece of work. But in the best possible sense. Keen to get away from the trappings of old sitcoms which made an uneasy transition to the big screen, Messrs Pemberton, Dyson, Shearmsith and Gatiss have gone down a different road, addressing the problems of dealing with their success along with adding other creations and, inevitably, rehashing some of their best-loved characters. It's a pity they didn't stick to just a more consistent League of Gents movie because as inventive as including themselves in the screenplay is, it weakens the finished movie. Well worth renting though.",1 -"In Iran, the Islamic Revolution has shaped all parts of life, including everyday things. But people still go on living their lives, generally just doing the things you'd expect, like go to soccer matches to cheer on the national team as it's in the running to qualify for the World Cup. Except women aren't allowed to go to the soccer stadium to watch the game.

A frequently funny little film follows the small group of women that were caught sneaking into the soccer stadium and the little group of bored soldiers assigned to guard them in a holding pen just outside the stadium. The absurdity of the situation, the simple wish of these women to cheer on the team (nothing subversive there), and little human touches about the lives of everyone adds up to quite a fine comment on humanity versus the ideology.

Amateurish acting, good script and dialogue, a really enjoyable film. Bend It Like Beckham, sort of - a warm heart and a joy in the daily interests and pleasures of people.",1 -"This movie was a fantastic comedy. It had a lot of comedians star in it like Akshay Kumar,Rajpal Yadav,Paresh Raval and John Abraham.

Rimi Sen was good at playing Akshay Kumars wife and so were all the air hostesses. Mr Hot as Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Mr cool as Sam (John Abraham) are two fashion photographers who like the same girl Maggie (Neha Dupia). When John Abraham cheats on his work he becomes Akshay Kumars senior and Akshay Kumar gets really jealous because his flat has to be given to John Abraham and Neha Dupia starts liking John more. Akshay Kumar wants to be better than John Abraham so he finds a flat and he is going out with three different girls (Nitu Chandra,Nargis Bagheri,Daisy Boppana).",1 -"CHE! is a bad movie and deserves it reputation as an unintentionally funny film. It takes a serious subject and presents it like the Cliff Notes version or Classic Comics because there isn't much emotion or a proper narrative--just episodic segments stitched together with mostly stupid ""true stories"" relayed by a variety of yutzes.

This is a deservedly derided film, as it is poorly written and acted. However, what I have found most interesting about the film is its apparent gay subtext. Instead of Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro working towards a Communist Cuba, they seem to be more of a gay couple--with Che behaving coy and aloof and Fidel as the ardent suitor! Again and again, the film abounds with great lines such as when Fidel implores Che ""Cuba needs you....I NEED YOU!!"". I am not sure if the studio intended this homosexual undercurrent, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize it! I am very surprised that the other reviewers didn't point this out. However, if you remember this when you watch the film, it makes viewing much more exciting and even funnier.

A final note. In recent years, Che has been very chic--even a fashion statement with hoards of brain-dead teens, who have no idea who he was, wearing shirts emblazoned with his face. Considering he was a cold-blooded killer and nihilist (an odd combination for a doctor), this new reverence for the man is gross. What will they do next, put Hitler or Dr. Mengele on T-shirts and posters?!!? Even Communists with consciences should be appalled by the bloodshed Guevara was responsible for and I find it ironic that people with computers are championing a man who might likely have killed them given half a chance!

Considering how stupid and unintentionally funny this movie was, it does nothing to further the message that Guevara was no hero. I would love to see a realistic film done of his life--with the good and the bad but also with dialog and a plot that weren't apparently created by chimps!",0 -"Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!!",1 -"I rented ""New Best Friend"" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as ""Gossip"" and ""The Curve"". Instead, ""New Best Friend"" is much more like ""The In Crowd"", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. ""New Best Friend"" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.",0 -"This movie is a laugh and a half. From the first scene, where we have an appearance of Mel Torme as a big, bad Jaguar drivin' stud muffin gang leader(and that's a giggle-fest in itself), to the final image of Mamie Van Doren, now a rehabilitated angelic teen strolling out of the prison(errr..loving girl's home run by iron fisted nuns), you can't stop shaking your head. The cast of this movie is a cheesy list from Mel and Mamie to the talentless Paul Anka(all I wanted through most of this movie was for him to just STOP SINGING!) and the King of Forty Year Old Teens, Dick Contino. Gloria Talbot, playing a humorless teen girl with more than a few chops(judo, not acting) I last saw in the horrible misogynist 50's romp Leech Woman, with a hairstyle so bad it looked like a dead woodchuck that had been squashed by a Mac truck.

Mamie is a bad, bad girl-she smokes, swears, runs wild, hits teachers, and runs around with gang leaders. She dumps her idiot Jaguar driving boyfriend Chip(who we see in the first scene trying to rape a blonde girl, before he falls off a cliff-nice guy), and proceeds to take up with Dick Contino instead. Whether this is a step up for her is anybody's guess. Mel shows up at a party she's at with her new beau, and accuses her of pushing the nasty Chip off the cliff. While I'm sure that she would have liked to, she wasn't there. A stupid fight scene between Contino and his gang and Mel and his jazz freaks ensues, with some hilariously bad moves on both sides.

Mamie ends up being sent to girls town, a reform school..errr...loving home for erring girls..run by Sister Iron Pants and her fellow sisters of correction. She annoys the nuns(and us) by scatting, tossing off sullen one-liners, and just generally showing how bad she is. She quickly runs into Gloria Talbot, playing one of the misbehaving girls, who gives her a chop sockey so that she knows her place. She meets a limp noodle of a girl who's obsessed with Paul Anka's character(why?). This little drip becomes her 'henchman'.

There's a long bit of movie where nothing much happens, except St. Paul of Anka keeps showing up and proving how saintly he is. He sings way too much in this interval, until you want to smack him in his huge snozz to just make him be quiet! And Mamie's little sister, played by Princess of Father Know's Best fame, calls her to tell her she's in trouble. Turns out it was sis who went out with the Chipster, and now Mel's blackmailing her because he found out. The girls all break out to go save her, with a hysterical fight scene between the girls and Mel and his boys. this is after a race between Mel and Dick that is just so stupid that it boggles the mind. The overage teenagers in this corny movie have a fabulous good time romping through what is basically a silly, badly written and morally preachy film that accomplishes none if its aims-unless its aim was to make you laugh out loud.",0 -"That distinction has to go to THE DUNGEON OF HARROW. At least Ed Wood's misguided attempt at making a quality science fiction film had the dubious ""star"" power of Bela Lugusi, Vampira, Tor Johnson, Criswell and Lyle Talbot. THE DUNGEON OF HARROW has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What could have been an interesting and suspenseful plot about a marooned aristocrat on a leper colony, perhaps in the style of THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU or MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, is trashed by the heavy dialog and mono tonal acting of amateurs whose lines sink like lead weights into a sea of stupidity. The ""special effects"", which took place in someone's bathtub, further doom this film to the dung heap. Even the treatment of leprosy is something out of a Victorian interpretation of the Bible. The fact that leprosy can not be contracted from an individual in its last stages belies the plot line that the aristocrat Fallon and his lady, Cassandra contract the disease and end up as the original occupants of the Castle De Sade, doomed to insanity and inhuman cruelty. It is interesting to note that not one member of the cast made another film. No wonder, talent begets talent; lack of talent begets oblivion, which is where this film should find its deplorable end.",0 -"Mindless dribble about the second coming of Christ in the form of a hippie and albino looking Sandra Locke. You have no idea what's happening on the screen with the irritating theme song ""Suzanne"" being played over and over throughout the movie until when ""The Second Coming of Suzanne"" is over you already know it by hard no matter how hard you try to forget the whole thing.

This off-the-wall armature movie maker Logan,Jared Martin, is out to make the movie of the century but is so rude and obnoxious that none in the banking world is willing to finance his project. Planning to go on his own Logan then spots this couple at a seaside café and is fascinated with the young woman Suzanne, Sandra Locke, who reminds him of someone he knew in another life: Jesus Christ.

With Logan's assistant and all around gofer Clavius, Richard Dreyfuss,somehow getting a $740,000.00 loan from the bank to finance Logan's masterpiece he starts to work on Suzanne by flattering her about her talent as an actress in order to get her interested to be in his film. This leads to Suzanne not only leaving her boyfriend artist Simon, Paul Sand, but later Simon being so depressed and feeling all alone takes a gun to his mouth and blows his brains out.

The movie also has two somewhat unrelated sub-plots in it that has to do with a young autistic girl Dorothy, Kari Avalos, who's cured of her autism by Suzanne after everyone else, at the psychiatric hospital that she was committed to,failed. It's not really known what exactly Suzanne was doing at the hospital but she seemed to be some kind of orderly or volunteer there; was this supposed to show us in the audience that she, like Jesus, could miraculously heal the sick?

There's also this newspaper columnist and big time businessman tycoon Jackson Sinclair, Gene Barry, who seems to be either going through a very difficult mid-life crisis or has seen a biblical-like vision that changed his life forever. Sinclair had been searching for the meaning of life as well as what it's all about all through the movie and wanted to know why there's all this suffering in the world, like this movie that he's in, and seemed to have found the answer when he first laid his eyes on Suzanne. Sinclair also got some sense knocked into his head when his private chauffeur David, Mark Rasmusser, who's gotten sick and tired of his weird and crazy hallucinations almost running him off a cliff in a kamikaze like drive along the Pacific Coast.

The movie ""The Second Coming of Suzanne"" goes on with a number of unrelated sequences, probably to fill or pad in some time by it's director and film editor, and then goes to it's final scene in a Christ-like crucification on a hill as Logan has all the cameras rolling. It turns out that the crazed Logan got so carried away with his masterpiece as he tried to replicate, on the helpless and tied up Suzanne, the actual crucification of Jesus Christ some 2,000 years ago.

Hard to sit through and almost impossible to follow ""The Second Coming of Suzanne"" puts you through the same kind torture that Suzanne is put through by Logan and the makers of the film. The movie tries to be arty but that's just an excuse to cover up it's brainless and non-existent storyline and even worse the terrible and amateurish acting by everyone in it.",0 -"A series of shorts spoofing dumb TV shows, Groove Tube hits and misses a lot. Overall, I do really like this movie. Unfortunately, a couple of the segments are totally boring. A few really great clips make up for this. A predecessor to such classics like Kentucky Fried Movie.",1 -"Now I've always been a fan of Full Moon's puppet work. But I have to say that Robot Jox is one of there better projects. Yes, you heard me. The story works wonderful, the atmosphere really works and the actors do a first rate job. Gary Graham who really makes his mark on TV in shows like ALIEN NATION THE SERIES and STAR TREK ENTERPRISE shows that he can be an action star who kicks ass and takes name. The stop motion effects could have been a tiny bit better. The color was wrong, they look plastic to me instead of the metal they were suppose to be. But that is a minor complaint compared to the whole that is the Robot Jox, if you like Gary Graham or other Full Moon movies, then you will like this movie. 9 STARS OUT OF 10.",1 -"Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problems—and the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.

One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to them—they are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocre—no redemption there.

It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad ""I was dying, and then the famine came"" has more content.

The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.

Skip this one.",0 -"This is one of my favorite sports movies. Dennis Quaid is moving and convincing in the part of a man who gave up his dream of being a baseball pitcher when his arm gave out on him. As a high school coach, he challenges his players to win the division championship by telling them he'll try out for a baseball team if they do. They win (partly because of all the batting practice they take with a coach who can pitch over 90 miles an hour), and he keeps his side of the bargain--and is signed!

If you have ever decided to try something new and terrifying as an adult, Jim Morris's story will resonate with you. It is moving and inspiring, and the man's relationships ring true.

Inspiration is not the only reason I rent this one, though. Dennis Quaid is just downright purdy in the part, and a baseball movie with a good-looking man changing a diaper is my idea of heaven. Ladies, if you feel the way I do, check this one out.",1 -"Almost too well done... ""John Carpenter's Vampires"" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the ""From Dusk Till Dawn""-audience. ""Vampires: Los Muertos"" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in ""Vampires: Los Muertos"" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing ""It' my life"" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: ""...just because he's a rockstar..."". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in ""Ghosts of Mars""). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's ""Nosferatu"". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: ""Vampires:Los Muertos"" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the ""From Dusk Till Dawn""-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, ""Vampires:Los Muertos"" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. ""Vampires: Los Muertos"" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)",1 -"Farrah Fawcett gives an award nominated performance as an attempted rape victim who turns the tables on her attacker. This movie not only makes you examine your own morals, it proves that Fawcett can excel as a serious actress both as a victim and victor.",1 -"Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.",1 -"Yet another ""son who won't grow up"" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than ""Failure To Launch"". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!",0 -ba ba ba boring...... this is next to battlefield earth in science fiction slumberness. genie francis (aka general hospital's laura) has a small role as a reporter and that in itself should tell you that this movie must be bad.... there is ben kingsley (an academy award winning actor) in this stinker and a few others decent actors. You have to wonder what possessed them to decide to do this awful movie. The music dramatically goes up and down like it's a major dramatic story. Even if you pay attention the plot is impossible to follow. The effects are mediocre as well and seem really dated. All of the actors speak in a monotone voice and have no realism to their dialogue. I could go on and on on how this is a bad movie. At least with Battlefield Earth it's so bad it's funny but this is just b o r i n g. Avoid unless you want to be lulled to sleep.,0 -"I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, ""Something like BROADCAST NEWS."" That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work.

",1 -"Best of the Zorro serials and one of my favorite serials, period. This is a period serial set right after the birth of Mexico. The new nation is counting on the gold produced by this one town to keep the republic solvent. However a gold god, Don del Oro is stirring up the Indians and stealing the gold for himself. Its Zorro and his band of men to the rescue. Reed Hadley is a winning Zorro and he cuts a dashing figure as he gets into a nice selection of scraps (most all of which were reused by the later Zorro serials as well as other serials as well).The story moves and its nicely not clear who the real bad guy is. There is a reason that I've seen this the most of any serial I've seen, its simply a great action adventure film. The only thing I can compare it to is the Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power or one of the other swashbucklers of the period. Its super and highly recommended.",1 -"A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)

I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues.

Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act.

On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film.

In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame.

In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.",0 -"""Cinderella"" is a film about a young girl whose mother passed away and her father remarried. Once her father died, Cinderella's stepmother became very mean to her and made her do all of the chores around the house, like cleaning up after her two evil stepsisters. One day the King sent out a message to all of the single women to attend the Royal Ball in honor of his son, to find a wife. Of course, Cinderella didn't get to go, but her stepsisters did. Cinderella was very upset and thought that there was no way she could attend the Royal Ball, until her fairy godmother appeared. So she did some magic and made Cinderella into a beautiful woman, but she had to be back by midnight because that is when the magic changes back. While at the Royal Ball, Cinderella loses track of time and the clock strikes midnight, so she runs out of the palace and loses her glass slipper. Then the King orders the duke to find the women who wore that slipper. The duke searched every house, but finally found the women who it belonged to, Cinderella.

Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske directed one of the best animated Disney films in 1950. This film is about a magical fairytale. In the beginning of the film Cinderella was a servant to her own family and had nobody to love her, but with a little bit of magic her whole life changed around and finally found love.

My favorite thing about ""Cinderella"" is the music. When Cinderella's fairy godmother appeared doing her magic, she sang the song Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. When I was a child, it was one of my favorite songs to sing around my house, so I will never forget it. I also loved the part when Cinderella and the Prince were singing the song So This is Love while they were dancing because they realized that they are in love. Overall this film was my favorite film when I was a little child because every little girl wants to live a fairy tale life.",1 -"It's unbelievable but the fourth is better than the second and the third. After the third that was awful, it's incredible how they could have an unexpected sequel with new ideas. Chuck is the same nasty doll of the previous movies. Interesting the final that lets know that a fifth can be done....",1 -"This movie is really special. It's a very beautiful movie. Which starts with three orphans, Sho, his brother Shinji and their friend Toshi, They're poor children's, living on the street, but one day they succeeded to steal a bag full of money, and then their able to live on, to buy a house, and their life seems to become much better. They're making new friend, life-friends. But something went wrong and they're becoming enemies and it all ends up with them killing each other.

I was negative about this movie in the beginning, because when singers (Gackt - Solo, ex-singer in Malice Mizer, Hyde - Solo, singer in L'Arc~en~Ciel, both very famous in Japan and Wang Lee-Hom - Taiwanese singer) trying to become actors, but this isn't like the other singers-going-actors-movies. They're doing a great job, and with no earlier experience in movies (except for Lee-Hom, who had been in two movies before).

This is absolutely one of my favorite movies. Maybe that's a little because I'm a very big fan of Hyde, but - it was this movie who made me discover him.

Well, Gackt (playing the main character - the orphan Sho) was a part of the group who wrote the script, and it was he who insisted that Hyde should play Sho's friend, the vampire Kei. At that time they didn't know each other, at least not like friends. But after the movie they became really good friend, and that shows us too that they really worked hard on this movie and that they had good cooperation.

The movie have many different feelings running trough the story, Love, Hate, Sadness, Pain, Loneliness, Happiness and so on. I think the first hour are the best, it's so beautiful. After that people are dying, Kei's leaving and it all changes so much. But still it's a great movie, it's the only movie who has ever made me cry, it ends up so sad, but still beautiful.

So if you haven't seen this movie, you really should. Because it's wonderful, but sad. You won't regret it. ^^",1 -Like I said its a hidden surprise. It well written well acted and well cast. I liked everything in this movie. Look its Hollywood all right but the brighter side. Angelina Jolie is great in this and I'm totally watching every movie with her in that I can get my hands on. Well worth a look.,1 -"This is available on a ""Drive In Double Feature"" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up ""Barracuda"", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.

We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.

It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.

Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the ""young 'uns"" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these ""kindly folk"" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.

But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.

The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.

So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre.",0 -"I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of this movie on television the other night and can agree that this is by far the worst of the series. Not any of it is funny, even Randy Quaid can't save this mess. Eric Idle wasn't funny in N.L. Euro. Vacation, and he's even worse here. The only funny scene is where they're at the airport and some guy dressed as Santa walks by the camera yelling ""Did anybody lose this?"" as he holds up a prosthetic leg...

1/2 a star out of ****",0 -"Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.

This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.

It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.

Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.

Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.

This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.

While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.

Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009",0 -"A fantastic show and an unrealized classic; The League of Gentlemen remains as one of the greatest modern comedies of recent times.

With a dark and bizarre style of humor that towers over the tired, formulaic approach of it's inferior, yet unfortunately far more acknowledged successor, Little Britain, The League of Gentlemen was truly something special during a rather quiet era in British comedy.

Up until it's arrival on the scene, there had never really been anything like The League of Gentlemen before. On the surface, a seemingly simplistic sketch show, the show soon unfolds as a vivid, sinister but incredibly hilarious universe populated with all manner of brilliant comedic creations. What really sets the show apart from it's rivals, is it's approach to telling us it's story. Rather than serve us re-hashed sketches, barely distinguishable from the next, here we see each individual or group of characters go through their various journeys and story lines. No visit to them is the same, and each time they offer us up with a surprise.

Gradually, over three series' and a Christmas special, the fictional town of Royston Vasey is heaving with a grotesque yet hilarious populace. And that's probably the main reason why the show is such a joy to watch (and also the reason why the show would easily merit more series') Unlike other current shows like The Catherine Tate Show or more importantly Little Britain, the League both know when a character has run it's course, and have the opportunity to deal with that. Several fan favorite's, who could have easily been kept on to entertain further, bowed out before the series came to a close, giving room for fellow characters to grow more, or allow for the introduction of newer residents of Royston Vasey to make their mark.

Another thing that sets this show above others is that the writing team approach the script process with care and intelligence. As mentioned before, all four members of the League have a sound mind when it comes to judging the longevity of their creations, and when it's time to call it quits in respect to certain characters. This awareness has also meant The League of Gentlemen undergoes a bold evolution, not usually seen in a show of this nature. The narrative driven, and far darker third series is a brave step away from the more sketch based first two series' and this bold move by the League really pays off. With the third series, there's less of an urgency for them to please an audience, and like the Christmas special, they pursue individual stories with a clear narrative, unlike the more sketch-based previous series' that (succesfully) binded together various sets of sketches into a series' long story arc.

The third series is both a refreshing change of pace of style, as well as a real treat for fans who've already seen the first two. Despite some polarized opinion on the third series, any real fan of the League will appreciate what the third series has to offer, as well as really enjoy the more character based episodes, that only delve deeper into fan favorite's, but pair up and inter-wine characters that might not have crossed paths previously.

It might take a little trying to get into the change in style, but it's definitely worth it, and in my opinion, the third series is the best and also provides a firm conclusion to the series.

The show's not without it's drawbacks, and very occasionally certain characters and set pieces appear somewhat out of place, but for the most part, the genius writing, dark nature of the show and the host of brilliant characters (that are often all too close to real life) make for a real treat and prove what comedy should be about and puts much of the more recent, catch phrase driven and often desperate attempts at comedy to shame",1 -"The series finally hits rock-bottom with this lousy fourth installment, which was (thank God) the last one. None of the three sequels did justice to the highly entertaining original, but this particular film is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit the name of the ""Magnificent Seven"" and Bernstein's rousing music theme. The production values resemble those of a made-for-TV movie and the characters are forgettable and indistinguishable: in parts ""II"" and ""III"" you couldn't remember their names, here you can't even remember their faces. Lee Van Cleef was an inappropriate choice for the role of Chris, but nobody could have replaced Yul Brynner in our minds anyway. Don't waste your time.",0 -"Being a self confessed slasher addict means that it's very rare that I get the chance to review many bigger budgeted movies with creditable casts. Aside from James Mangold's successful box office draw Identity; there have not been any big name entries since the Scream trilogy once again put Wes Craven's name back on the Hollywood map. That's why Mark Malone's The Last Stop – a mystery thriller with blatant slasher overtones, instantly intrigued me. With a decent line-up including Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow and an intriguing soundtrack that even finds space for Lynn Anderson's Rose Garden, I must admit that the initial signs were very positive for this claustrophobic feature. To the best of my knowledge there have only ever been three other snow-bound slashers, unless of course you consider Demon Possessed to fit in the category. The first slice and dice on the ice was the bone-dry Satan's Blade, then came the Lisa Loring cheese-feast that was Blizzard of Blood and the enjoyable Shredder followed some fourteen years later.

During an extreme blizzard, state trooper Jason (Adam Beach) battles through the snow to reach a remote lodge in the Colorado Mountains. His task is to inform the guests that the road is closed and they must stay for at least one more night until a path can be cleared through the hazardous conditions. This news doesn't go down to well with the suspicious bunch, which includes two troublemaking brothers (Callum Keith Rennie and Peter Flemming), a truck driver that really doesn't want to hang around (William S. Taylor), a randy couple of lovers (Winston Rekert and Amy Adamson) and Jason's ex-girlfriend Nancy (Rose McGowan). The motel owners (Jurgen Prochnow and P. Lynn Johnson) aren't overjoyed by the news either, but they offer rooms to the stranded guests and attempt to calm the tense situation. Things take a turn for the worse when Jason finds a mutilated body and a bag full of stolen cash lying in the snow behind the cafe. Just like a chapter out of an Agatha Christie mystery, the lodgers begin dieing at the hands of a masked assailant that seems intent to re-claim the money. With so many dodgy characters to choose from and no way of leaving the crime scene, Jason has to attempt to stop the maniac before he kills again…

A good mystery needs at least a handful of shady suspects who each have a credible motive, a remote location that no one can escape from and a smart protagonist to help unravel the clues. Fortunately The Last Stop provides each of those essential ingredients in a thriller that has its equal moments of brilliance and downright stupidity. The film kicks off superbly as the dubious personalities clash in a claustrophobic environment that manages to keep the tension running high throughout the runtime. Malone keeps the interest levels raised as each character unveils their own reasons to attract some of the suspicion, and to be fair the essential twist isn't one that you'll guess easily. In fact I found myself watching the movie through once again to see if I could pick up on any hints that I missed first time around. Unfortunately when the maniac is revealed to be an over the top psycho that wisecracks like a comic book bad guy, The Last Stop forfeits a huge amount of credibility. Thankfully all is not lost when an unexpected and brilliantly orchestrated plot twist salvages the film's finale.

Similarities can be drawn with the excellent Identity, as the two plots are almost interchangeable. James Mangold's effort has to be the better of the two mainly because of the star billing of John Cusack and the ever-reliable Ray Liotta. With that said though Adam Beach does a good enough job in the lead, while Jurgen Prochnow, Amy Adamson and the brilliant Callum Keith Rennie add some credible support. Rose McGowan acts as conceitedly in this role as she probably does from day to day in reality and Winston Rekert started fantastically before going completely overboard with the film's climax. If you're a die-hard slasher fan that's watching this for some bloody killings then you're going to be disappointed. The balaclava-wearing psychopath only pops up once and the rest of the murders are committed off-screen. But as I said earlier Malone's directorial talent means that the suspense is never too far off the boil and you can forgive the few flaws because the positives just about triumph.

The Last Stop is well worth a look for slasher addicts and movie fans alike. Yes there are a handful of negatives, but overall this is a solid example of emerging Hollywood talents. If you liked Identity then certainly give this a try…",1 -"I was surprised and impressed to find out this movie was released in 1940, before the United States entered World War II. On the surface, satirizing something as solemn and horrible as Nazi Germany could be misconstrued as rash. But Chaplin's brilliance isn't limited to making a joke out of everything. In fact, the seriousness of his message wouldn't have been nearly as valid if not for the excellent use of humor in this movie along with the moments of stark drama blended in. Drama alone wouldn't have had the bite and resonance that this film did. Laughing at someone (Adenoid Hynkel) can be the best way to attack them, while laughing with someone (the Jewish Barber) can be the best way to love them. In the Jewish Barber's final speech, I forgot for a moment that the war he was talking about happened more than half a century ago. They are words that have meaning now, and in any time of war. For this reason I believe the film did far greater good than harm, as it still has the same profound effect today.",1 -"""Crossfire"" is ostensibly a murder mystery but what distinguishes it from other similar movies of the period is the killer's motive, which is anti-Semitism. The story highlights examples of the kind of ignorance which fuels bigotry and contains references to a ""hillbilly"" and an Irish immigrant who also suffered maltreatment because of their ethnicity.

The movie's plot is based on Richard Brooks' novel called ""The Brick Foxhole"" which is about a hate crime where the victim was gay. It's ironic that this story about a form of intolerance should be met with intolerance by the censors who stipulated that, for the screen version, the type of bigotry involved should be changed to anti-Semitism. Another irony is the behaviour of a soldier who seems fiercely proud of having served in a war against the Nazis and yet embraces their hatred of Jews. The director and producer of this movie also suffered another type of intolerance when they were blacklisted after being called to appear before the ""House Un-American Activities Committee"". All these points just seem to underline the deeply entrenched and intractable nature of the whole problem of bigotry as depicted in this movie.

When Police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) investigates the murder of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), he discovers that on the night when he was killed, Samuels had been socialising with a group of soldiers and one of these, Corporal Arthur ""Mitch"" Mitchell (George Cooper) is quickly identified as the prime suspect. Further information is also gathered from Montgomery (Robert Ryan) who is another of the soldiers who was present that night and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum) who's a friend of Mitchell. Keeley, with the help of some other soldiers, then searches for Mitchell and when he finds him, hears his account of what he did on the night of the murder including his meeting with a dance hall hostess called Ginny Tremaine (Gloria Grahame).

Keeley helps Michell to avoid being arrested and tries to identify the murderer. Ginny Tremaine is questioned but her information is insufficient to prove Mitchell's innocence but Finlay's investigations lead him to recognise the motive for the crime and subsequently, he sets up an elaborate trap which leads the real culprit into exposing his own guilt.

""Crossfire"" is a movie with a message and the identity of the murderer is revealed at a very early stage in the story. The ""message"" is conveyed in a way which was, no doubt, appropriate for the period in which it was made but by today's standards seems rather heavy handed. The cinematography by J Roy Hunt is just wonderful with low key lighting and creative use of numerous strategically placed table lamps combining to evoke a look which is perfectly compatible with the drama being played out on screen.

Despite it being a low budget production, ""Crossfire"" was a great box office success and benefited from having an absorbing and very relevant story with a marvellous cast, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame). The additional nominations for Edward Dmytryk (Best Director), producer Adrian Scott (Best Picture) and John Paxton (Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay) are just further evidence of the positive recognition which this movie justifiably received.",1 -I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.,0 -"Okay, so writer/director Larry Bishop obviously has some important connections and knows the right people in Hollywood in order to produce his own film and fill up the cast with eye-catching names. Good for him! Now what he really still needs is inspiration and talent in order to come up with an actually worthwhile scenario rather than the overly pretentious and wannabe convoluted crap he penned down here. ""Hell Ride"" isn't a movie; it's a hectic and hopelessly inept fan-boy endeavor to bring homage to the notorious biker-flicks of the 60's and to the recently revived Grindhouse cinema formula in general. With ""Hell Ride"", Larry Bishop embarrassingly fails in his set-up and there are many obvious reasons for this. He hasn't got a story to tell – or at least not a very interesting one – but gravely tries to cover this up through numerous redundant plot twists, loads of gratuitous and very women-unfriendly sleaze, overlong and piteous dialogs aspiring to be cool and giant amounts of senseless violence. The plot looks complex but can actually be summarized in one sentence. The ancient vendetta between two rivaling biker gangs flares up again with the arrival of a new member; a boy who may or not be the long lost son of a double-crossing wench that got executed back in 1976. That's it, seriously! All the rest, going from betraying gang members over to the recruitment of old timer members over to toying with his nymphomaniac informant girl, is all completely pointless and confusing padding material. Another major problem in ""Hell Ride"" is Larry Bishop's very own tremendous and seemingly insatiable ego. He definitely shouldn't have rewarded himself with the role of tough and relentless gang leader, as that only comes across as incredibly pretentious and narrow-minded; especially when there are so many other and more experienced stars in the movie. Granted, Bishop starred in a couple of genuine 60's biker exploitation movies (like ""The Savage Seven"" and ""Angel Unchained""), but that was a long time ago and he honestly isn't any good as an actor. Maybe it simply was Bishop's life-long dream to play a character that always outsmarts his enemies and for which every hot babe sexually craves, and just wrote a whole screenplay around it. The veterans in the cast, like Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen, don't really bother to leave a plausible impression and I can't say I blame them. This whole production is lame and pathetic and I can't bring myself to recommending it to anyone, regardless of many beautiful babes parade around with bare breasts and naked butts.",0 -"Like many people on this site, I saw this movie only once, when it was first televised in 1971. Certain scenes linger in my memory and an overall feeling of disquiet is how I remember being affected by it. I would be fascinated to see it again, if it was ever made available for home video.

Possible spoiler: I wonder if anyone else would agree that the basic plot setup and characters might have been derived from a 1960 British movie, originally titled City of the Dead, retitled Horror Hotel for the American release? There are some similarities also to a later British film The Wicker Man.

One detail remains with me years after seeing the film. It's a small but significant moment near the beginning of the film. As I recall, a minister and his wife have stopped to aid some people by the side of the road, circa 1870, somewhere out West. The friendly seeming Ray Milland introduces himself and his ( daughter?), Yvette Mimieux, a beautiful young mute woman. While the preacher is helping Ray Milland with the wagon, a rattlesnake slithers into view and coils menacingly, unobserved by any of the characters except Yvette Mimieux. She doesn't look scared at all, but stares at the snake with silent concentration, until it goes away. With this strange little moment, we already realize there's something highly unusual about these seemingly normal folks, though the possible danger to the minister and his wife remains vague and uncertain for a long time.

That one little scene stays with me vividly after all these years, along with many others. The film has a haunting quality about it that won't let go, and it's not surprising that people remember it so vividly. Someone ought to make this available for home video!",1 -"This is an incredible film. I can't remember the last time I saw a Swedish movie this layered. It's funny, it's tragic, it's compelling, and most of all it's a slice of Swedish small town life. It crushes the clichés, and dwells deeper. It makes you feel connected, not only to the main characters, but to all the characters.

Big city girl tracing back to her roots, her small hometown, to celebrate her father's 70th birthday, crossing paths with people she hasn't met in several years. Although the story itself isn't unique, it offers a fresh approach. The center of the story is the relationship between three sisters (on different stages in life), who aren't very close. Or at least don't realize how close they are.

One key reason that makes it so easy to connect to the people in this film is the immaculate cast. First, I'm more than pleased about the fact that there are absolutely no so-called 'A-list' Swedish actors in this film. Usually there is a handful of actors that has the ability to find their way into almost every major production in Sweden. This time the production company managed to keep it real by casting actors who actually seem to love their profession. Sofia Helin is probably the first Swedish actress since Eva Röse to prove that you don't need words to convey an emotion.

The writing is also very appealing. The dialogue is more than believable, and compared with other Swedish films from the past year or two, it's ahead by miles. Maria Blom controls everything from the beginning, and if you didn't know, you would never guess that this is her first time writing AND directing a feature length film. I can't wait for her next one.

Once you start watching this, you really want to see it through.",1 -"I'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.

It could have been much better.

2/10",0 -"First of all this was not a three hour movie - Two hours, ten minutes... last time i checked commercials aren't actually part of a movie! Perhaps, though, it should've been a two parter for a total of about 3 hours? Yeah, would have gotten more in, been able to explore some more emotion. Overall, though, it was an interesting look into the lives of Lucy and Desi. I watch I Love Lucy from time to time and love it but never have I read or seen a biography, never knew anything about their lives off the screen. Because of this movie I do now but I'm not so sure that's a good thing. Everything here no one really needed to know. This was essentially a movie that didn't need to be made. But it was made and the reason is because Lucy & Desi are still such huge stars and certain people in American society feel that the rest of society needs to know ALL about our tv and movie stars. That is definitely so not true and very, very sad.

Anyway, what was shown here in Lucy was pretty good. Two complaints - the actress who played Viv Vance - not great casting at all. And the switch from Madeline Zima to Rachel York.... uhhh, like Lucy had plastic surgery and all of a sudden she's a whole new person!? That wasn't too great. But the story went on and focused on the rocky relationship between Lucy & Desi. No, the kids were not shown very much at all and that wasn't necessarily a drawback to this movie because like I said, this focused mainly just on Lucy & Desi. Had there been more time, had the story been more about Lucy's entire life, then maybe the kids woulda been there more. But they weren't so we got to see the likes of Gable & Lombard, Red Skelton and Buster Keaton very briefly instead. Wow, that was one thing about this story that I thought was really cool: his presence and influence in Lucy's life. Really neat and it's too bad that wasn't explored more. Oh well. What was explored was done well, for the most part. Honestly, I don't think I'll ever watch this again and I don't think this movie'll be that memorable. For someone who digs I Love Lucy but isn't an enormous Lucille Ball fan, this should be an interesting watch. My grade for this: B",1 -"Is torture ever right? No The answer is simple and absolute with no qualifications possible. The reason as this film showed is the effect torture has on a society. The values that have been hard fought for in Western society through centuries of revolution and struggle are for ALL men and women to be allowed to live in a free and open society. One where individuals are treated equally and with respect to their essential rights as humans. To protect this society institutions have been developed to deal with wrongdoing openly, fairly and honestly. These institutions have been adapted and honed through generations of hard work. One could argue that these are the true bedrock of democracy as they belong to us all, allow us all to be heard. If we allow undemocratic, inhumane acts to be committed in our name, if we split our society into those who have rights and those who don't then we undo the work of our ancestors. Moreover we are all complicit and all guilty and tainted. Whether those that we accuse are guilty or not is of no importance. We are defined by our attitudes and our responses.",1 -"The creative team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker had their roots in improvisational theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, I believe it was. They had a group called 'Kentucky Fried Theatre'(or something similar.) They put a bunch of their set pieces onto celluloid as'KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE'(1977), which was long, irreverent, sophomoric and really funny.

They followed up with the very popular, AIRPLANE! (1980), which really put them on the map. In it, they took some rather well known veteran actors in Robert Stack and (especially) Leslie Nielsen, and putting them in prominent roles, proceeded to parody every cliché of every aviation film since the days of John Wayne's (Batjac)Production of THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954).* Pockets stuffed with cash and now having been noticed, the trio worked out a deal with Pramount Television and the American Broadcasting Company TV Network to do a half hour comedy spoof of the nearly countless Police Crime Drama show that have come and gone on our television screens over the years. Remembering the fine job that Mr. Leslie Nielsen had turned in on AIRPLANE!, he was cast in the lead.

As Sgt/Lt./Captain Frank Drebbin (the rank designation switch being one of their comic bits),he presided over a great series of successive puns, sight gags, non sequitors, and overblown police/crime clichés.All of these strung together by some,seemingly standard scripts. Added to this is overly dramatic opening narration, voiced over information contradicting the visual printed info. They always used this in giving the title of the episode titles, where voice and printed titles never matched.

They had a great musical score, which even though being somewhat exaggerated, would have passed as theme and incidental music in a straight drama.The musical score, the opening titles and format of having the episodes divided into Act I, Act II, Epilogue, etc., were all part of obvious, but affectionate, ribbing of Q.M. (Quinn Martin) Productions. (They even had the same announcer as did the real Q.M.'s.)

One thing that this all too short of a series did not have was a technically augmented audience laughter. And, boy they sure didn't need any phony tract. The nature of the spoof was such that it demanded the viewer's close, almost undivided attention, and that proved to be the ultimate reason behind POLICE SQUAD's downfall.

In regards to the series cancellation,an ABC Executive explained that the episodes ""...called for too much attention on the part of the viewer."" So, isn't that what one would want?

So, after only 6 wonderfully wacky, hilarious episodes,off to the afterlife of series cancellation went POLICE SQUAD!, only to be reborn in THE NAKED GUN trilogy, made for the big screen in movie houses. Once again, they did quite well at the Box Office. Oh well, TV's loss is Cinema's gain, thanks to you Mr. Idiot TV Exec!

* THE HIGH AND MIGHTY was produced by the Duke's own Batjac Productions and released by Warner Brothers. It was unavailable for quite a number of years and finally, Mr. Wayne's family made arrangements to release it to television and to video.",1 -"Actually, I have more a question, than a comment. I loved Z-Boys, and The Lords of Dogtown. Saw Lords first, then the doc, and while I loved the story, I am curious as to why in the movie, Sid was an important character, but in the documentary, he wasn't part of the team, and only merely mentioned as just some kid they knew. Does anyone know the story on that? The story of these boys was amazing. I never experienced the skateboarding craze where I grew up, but my kids have enjoyed it. What I have seen in local skate parks is what these boys had invented. I never knew that. When the film showed the competition, and Z-Boys did their thing, they put to shame the others in competition.",1 -"the most ""spiritual"" film I have seen in a long long time. maybe ever. also one scene around the dining room table a piece of comic perfection. I understand a release date is coming up in the fall. if it comes to your town and you want to see a movie that makes you think this is it. Aviva is great in it and she is most certainly a future star - (Superbad is out now which she is in) - also all the actors seem perfectly calibrated. There is a tone set by this movie that is used to surprise through out. i would not know what to call it - it is comedy but the undergirding message is so fierce and direct that ""comedy"" is not a big enough word for it. I love this film. It is a thinking man's comedy. but even that phrase is not really good enough. FTF does have a message and that message needs to be heard right now",1 -"This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.

Next comes his ""down fall"" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy ""B"" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...

From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.

That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.

I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse.",0 -"This is no doubt one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time. I was expecting alot more from the actors. It started alright, then things go from idiotic to absolutely ridiculous. Definitely not worth renting except if its a free rental.",0 -"This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.",0 -"I was pretty young when this came out in the US, but I recorded it from TV and watched it over and over again until I had the whole thing memorized. To this day I still catch myself quoting it. The show itself was hilarious and had many famous characters, from Frank Sinatra, to Sylvester Stallone, to Mr. T. The voices were great, and sounded just like the characters they were portraying. The puppets were also well done, although a little creepy. I was surprised to find out just recently that it was written by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor of Red Dwarf, a show that I also enjoy very much. Like another person had written in a comment earlier, I too was robbed of this great show by a ""friend"" who borrowed it and never returned it. I sure wish there was enough demand for this show to warrant a DVD release, but I don't think enough people have heard of it. Oh well, maybe I'll try e-bay...",1 -"Many people have commented that this movie was nowhere near as good as the first. Well, maybe it isn't - to you. However, how does your child react to it? Well, mine loved it more than the first.

Disney movies of the past can sometimes be a little harsh for little kids. (For example - Bambi's mother getting shot.) This movie was really great for my sensitive little girl who likes humor and happy endings.

If you want to be snobby about what should be Disney's standards based on the past - skip this movie.

If you have a sweet little girl or soft-hearted little boy you really want to please, buy this movie and treat your small children. This film is great as a bedtime movie for happy dreams instead of nightmares. I'm happy with a movie that pleases my kid & doesn't need to impress the parents all the time.",1 -"The two most noteworthy things about ""I Won't Play"" are: It won an Academy Award as the best two-reel short film of 1944; and it was directed by silent-era leading man Crane Wilbur. The plot of this run-of-the-mill short is inconsequential, the dialogue lacks spark, while the acting is no better and no worse than that found in most war-themed Hollywood movies of the 1940s (in other words, it's awful). Admittedly, there are moments when ""I Won't Play"" is funny -- Janis Paige's totally artificial look and line delivery are precious -- but one laughs AT the picture, not with it.",0 -"All this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.

Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.

2/10",0 -"Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read ""Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!"" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...

*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***

Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say ""Tarka the Otter"" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.

Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not...",0 -"Great acting, great movie. If you are thinking of building see this movie first. The dollar amounts may have changed but everything else is the same. The humor is true to life and emotions are those that anyone who has built has felt.",1 -"In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.

The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.

The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)",0 -"I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.

Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.

If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.

It almost qualifies as ""so bad, it's good,"" but it's slow-paced and boring.",0 -"Taut, topical political thriller, taking square aim at the controversial US policy of rendition, another appalling Orwell-ian phrase (collateral damage, anyone?) for the illegal interrogation even torture of terrorist suspects by-passing due legal process. The inhuman interrogation is overseen by the Egyptian Chief of Police, himself the target of a fundamentalist suicide - bomb plot, thus entwining the two main plot-lines of the movie. Both work very well, the bombing set-piece graphic and chilling in its realism, with its denouement revealed in a stylish Tarantino-type flashback and the torture scenes on an innocent man also unflinchingly portrayed in all their gory detail. The film scores telling points about the use of torture as a credible means of intelligence - gathering in the war against terrorists and against the unpoliced faceless bureaucracy (here personified by a suitable cold-steeled Meryl Streep, as the CIA boss who casually gives the order for rendition) which can ruin innocent lives. Never mind Kafka's fiction, think more the recent killing of the innocent Brazilian in London in 2005, with the Head of the Metropolitan police still in his job and no-one tried for the poor man's murder. The acting is excellent throughout - the two key roles of the innocent man and terrorist bomber are realistically and tellingly played by the unfamiliar actors Omar Metwally and Moa Khouas. Similarly Yigal Naor as the intimidating Chief of Police and Zineb Ouhach as his idealistic lovelorn daughter ring true with their performances, their lack of familiarity (at least to me) adding to their characters' credibility. Of the bigger Hollywood names present, Gyllenhaal's stature grows with succeeding films, here playing the initially detached but later conscience - stricken and anguished Government man who does the right thing in the end. Witherspoon plays her distraught wife part mainly in one key but is believable all the same, while David Fabrizio and Alan Arkin convincingly show up self-serving senators and their lackeys who'll only go so far to help you until their career prospects are jeopardised. There are a few weaknesses plot-wise; there's little dramatic need to create the ""suspense"" surrounding El-Ibrahimi's escape and Streep's character is perhaps too obvious a bogey-man/woman. Worst of all is the meaningless inclusion of Gyllenhaal's on-the-spot girlfriend, around merely for decoration and a brief gratuitous love-scene. On the whole though, an engrossing thought - provoking cinematic experience.",1 -"I watched the beginning twice, could NOT make sense of it, and it bothered me for the whole movie.

So, work this out with me: Wayne (the GOOD guy) jumps on the stagecoach, disarms the drivers (!), steals the money (?!), and takes off.

Disarmed, one driver is then killed and the other wounded by the bad guys. Thanks to Wayne, who disarmed them, and then watched it happen.

Then Wayne drops the money in the dirt, rescues the girl, rides into town, chuckles it up with Yak (too bad about the dead guy, I guess)...and then later says he ""found"" the money back at the scene. And everyone's okay with that.

And he's the good guy? And I'm pretty sure there weren't small, hand-held flashlights at the time. And Bell did his first phone demo in 1876... were they in houses then? Am I thinking too hard about this one? Normally, I'm happy to suspend judgment to enjoy a movie, but this one bothered me. And that's a sign the move didn't really work for me.",0 -"Normally, I have much better things to do with my time than write reviews but I was so disappointed with this movie that I spent an hour registering with IMDb just to get it off my chest.

You would think a movie with names like Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey would be a bankable bet... well, this movie was just terrible. It is nigh on impossible to ""suspend disbelief""; I tried, really, I wanted to enjoy it but Justin Timberlake just wouldn't let me.

Timberlake should stick to music, what a dreadful performance - NO presence as an actor,NO character. Can't blame everything on Justin: The movie also boast a dreadful plot & badly timed editing; its definitely an ""F"".

After seeing this, I have to wonder what really motivates actors. I mean, surely Morgan actually read the script before taking the part. Did he not see how poor it was? What then could motivate him to take the part? Money? Of course, acting is at times more about who you are seen with rather than really developing quality work.

LL Cool J is a great actor; he gets a lot more screen time than Freeman or Spacey in this movie and really struggles to come to terms with the poor script.

Meanwhile, the audience goes: ""What the hell is going on here? You expect me to believe this crap?""

In short, apart from Justin a great lineup badly executed - very disappointing.",0 -"This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.

The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, ""Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?"" Charming.

And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.",0 -"An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.",0 -"A prequel to the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series, from the same creative team Ronald D. Moore and David Eick as well as new series co-creator Remi Aubuchon. Caprica is set in the twelve colonies some 58 years prior to the events of Battlestar Galactica. The new series in addition to its human drama also chronicles the key steps in the development of what would become the Cylon race.

The pilot and the series are set to follow two families; the Graystone's which include Daniel (Eric Stoltz) a computer genius and corporate tycoon and his equally brilliant but rebellious daughter Zoe (Alessandra Toreson), while the Adama's include Joseph (Esai Morales) a lawyer and his son William the future Admiral of Battlestar Galactica.

Like Battlestar Galactica the series includes some great experienced actors in Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales and Polly Walker as well as some very talented relatively new actors including Alessandra Toreson and Magda Apanowicz.

For fans of Battlestar Gallactica there are similarities and continuities with that series but it is also very different. In the pilot at least the science fiction elements are definitely present but are smaller part of this series. The scenes on Caprica while reflecting a more technologically advanced society also have retro feel, this is achieved through some of the architecture, the costumes and the way it is shot.

While the look and feel of the two series have some substantial differences some of the themes will seem very familiar, religion is again very important here, while the racial theme rarely touched on in BG is far more important. We also touch on terrorism the existence of a soul and whether or not a machine can have one, as well as issues related to crime and government.

The pilot has been released direct to DVD in an extended and unrated version prior to airing on TV, the series is set to start in 2010.

Like Battlestar Galactica this series is filmed in Vancouver",1 -"This woman never stops talking throughout the movie. She memorized every line, and delivered all without a bit of natural emotion. She also has a most uncharming lisp, and the pitch of her voice sounds like nails on a blackboard. This film has WAY too much Betsy Drake, and not enough Cary Grant, who carried what little was left of the film entirely on his own.",0 -"I've seen this movie about 6 times now. And each time I view it, I'm more impressed by the story and the acting. Its like watching a train wreck being set in motion. Its subtle in its approach, but very effective in reaching its goal.

Spoilers-> At the center of the story is a very nice dichotomy. On the one hand we have Deputy major, Eddy Calhoun (Cusack) unknowingly tearing at the old boys network that forms the hart of major of New York's Administration and on the other hand we have the mob boss Zappati who's deliberately trying to maintain the status quo through all means necessary. This situation nicely culminates in the end when Zappati orders Alselmo to make it easy on himself by killing himself and Calhoun ordering Pappas to do the same, politically speaking.

The movie also contains some really great one-liners such as (a personal weakness of mine): - You don't sum up a man's life in one moment - The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know

All in all, a great movie that deserves a much higher rating.",1 -"Just like most people, I couldn't wait to see this Ocean's 11 sequel but it really stinks, I must say. It stinks because there's simply no good screenplay,it was just cheap. I hope the producers donate all the money this movie has made (or will make) to the tsunami-victims in Asia so this movie will have at least one good reason to exist. It is so bad I even can't write a decent comment about it but....i still advise the creators of this thing to make ""Ocean's 13"". Ocean's 13 will be about the same thieves who are trying to steal a screenplay well hidden somewhere in Hollywood. The 13th member will be a foreign (maybe,Russian) screenplay-writer who knows all tricks to write a copy of this well hidden screenplay, so they can replace the original they'll have to steal. Or they need to find at least 13 people to write a decent screenplay for a movie in which not only Julia Roberts plays herself but even all other star-members of the Ocean's-films. 13 People because it's the lucky number of Andy Garcia's character.",0 -"My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.",0 -"Brutal, emotionless Michael Myers stabs his sister to death at age six on Halloween night in 1963; on October 30, 1978, he escapes from a mental institution and institutes a new reign of terror in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois. He is pursued the whole time by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence) who knows just how evil this young man is.

It opens with a bang, and sets up a genuinely suspenseful and atmospheric chiller that is actually superior to the many slasher pictures it helped to inspire. It's subtle compared to the nasty bloodbaths many of those subsequent movies were; subtle, and scary. It retains the ability to make me jump even after repeated viewings. How many movies are there, really, that can continue to be frightening even after one has seen them before? Not very many.

Pleasence is great in what was probably the definitive role of his career; Jamie Lee Curtis, in her motion picture debut, became a bona fide scream queen after acting in ""Halloween"" as well as a few subsequent slasher pictures, and she is an intended victim worth rooting for.

Co-writer / director John Carpenter knows what works in this movie, making excellent use of shadows and dark skies; notice how most of the movie is set after nightfall. With this picture, he and his former collaborator Debra Hill created a franchise that has spawned seven sequels, many imitators, and an upcoming ""re-imagining"".

It's very quotable - who could ever forget Dr. Loomis' (Pleasence) speech in which he describes Michael Myers to the sheriff (Charles Cyphers, a reliable repertory player in several of Carpenter's earlier works)?

It's fantastic, and worth seeking out. This is my favorite John Carpenter movie of all time.

It's not totally infallible - there are script holes, after all - but overall it makes a solid impact.

9/10",1 -"Don't listen to the many acerbic and derisory comments heaped upon this film.....simply put, as regards ninja movies, this my friends is about as good as it gets!

Yes it's silly, yes the acting and script are admittedly absolutely atrocious, but by gum - it's so much bloody fun! In fact, as is often the case with B-Movies, the horrendous 'acting' (which in the case of the movie in question, is truly amongst the worst I have ever had the joy to behold!) and ridiculous 'plot' actually only serve to elevate the enjoyment level ten fold.

Obviously the fight scenes are the main attraction in this though and for the most part I'm pleased to say, they're very well choreographed, especially the final showdown (during which we witness that ninja are not ostensibly constrained by the normal laws of gravity....)

Trust me on this, if you are a fan of ninja movies and you have not yet seen Sakura Killers, then you are truly missing out on what is in my opinion, one of the true jewels in the crown of the genre.",1 -"Without ""mental anachronism"", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the ""disenchantment of the world"". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of ""primitive thought"". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance.",1 -"Boston legal has turned its tail and is headed for the barn door and th pig slop it has created! When this show first aired almost four season back it was a humorous slap at the legal system which all actors seem to take pride in portraying. It was funny, diversified, and to some extent factual. The characters portrayed were acceptable and to an extent real in their portrayals. The sexual comment and activity were limited and humorous. Julie Bowen is and was beautiful as in other series she participated but is now dragged to the lower depths of Media programming of sex and violence. Julie is an excellent actress and needs a more stable platform than this ""production"". Rene Adjurdubois Is an excellent actor who has from the days of ""Benson"" to this production held his own in the field of entertainment, always showing the humor and respectful acting of the production. Captain Kirk ""is"". Funny and humorous is Candace Bergan and is to be admired for her continuing in this production and is a good actress. James Spader, there is no doubt in his acting ability, however he should go back to his XXX origins such as ""Crash"" as it appears he has much talent and inclination in that direction. We ask that this series be trashed as it already is and its really starting to smell!!!",0 -"This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the ""Jeanette MacDonald picture;"" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good.

The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..",0 -"The cinematic interests in the British monarchy continues with The Young Victoria (1837 to 1901), after having seen in recent years, the efforts with Keira Knightley's The Duchess, Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth films, and Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman's take on the Boleyn sisters with The Other Boleyn Girl. More contemporary stories would include Helen Mirren's award winning portrayal of The Queen on the current reign of Queen Elizabeth II at the turn of Princess Diana's death.

Each of the films mentioned featured stunning actresses with acting gravitas (ok, so some may dispute Johansson) or were the flavour of their moment, and each film had a definitive moment in their historical character's legacy that it becomes a no brainer to have those events featured, and in fact Elizabeth had enough to span two films. However, The Young Victoria, as the title already suggests, is a lite-version of the young queen's life, and if you're looking for that definitive event, or the staple political intrigue that plague all royal households and their dealings with shady, self-serving politicians, unfortunately there's nothing of depth here.

That's not to say The Young Victoria is without. Directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallee (best known for CRAZY) and written by Julian Fellowes, this film chronicles in very plain terms, ,the life and times of Victoria (Emily Blunt, soon becoming the new It girl) when she was a child, the troubles she faced before Coronation such as the eagerness of her mom The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her adviser Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) to appoint themselves as joint-Regent to her throne, as already planned for by reigning King William (Jim Broadbent). As if that wasn't enough, the political power play enters the picture with Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) being a Prime Minister-in-waiting trying to gain the trust of the new Queen, and subtly plants his own trusted allies into positions within the palace. On one hand you'd understand the need for a young, and new Queen to have trusted people in key positions, but on the other, are they really acting in her interests, or in the interests of others?

Even this angle of intrigue creeps into her romantic story with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), where their relationship forms the bulk of the second half of the film, and pretty much everything already included in the trailers. For both, they've been brought up under the influence of others, and told each step of the way exactly what to do. Even their union may seem like a firm registration of an alliance, if not for both lovers recognizing their common need to establish their own grounding, and to do so with the help of each other. Instead of being pawns, there's this constant search and probing of opportunities to break out of stifling, and at times absurd, rules and regulations. Trust also becomes a much valued commodity, and loyalty too can be traded for wanting to set the slate clean.

However, all these themes become but a breeze through the narrative, from childhood to romance, marriage and children. In fact, there's so much fast-forwarding here, especially the last few minutes filled with inter-titles, that it actually leaves the audience wanting for more, and room of course for another movie, which I suspect would probably not see the light of day, but perhaps a television series might pick up on the film's response, and come out with a mini-series or such. It's a pity that all the effort here in ensuring the gorgeous costumes, sets and art direction would be confined to a film that's quite lightweight in theme and brief mention of issues, that they don't really challenge the protagonists in order to allow for some overcoming of character-defining adversary.

With its star-studded cast, one would expect more, but one would be left wanting more instead. Recommended for those who are ever curious about Kings and Queens in the British Monarchy, only as a complement to other more engaging stories available in the other films already mentioned.",1 -"De Palma's technique had hit its high maturity by the time of this film, which is a wonderful showcase of his classic techniques, though unfortunately, as with many of the films written by De Palma himself, the story serves the meta more than the interests of putting forth an emotionally compelling tale.

The story opens with a CRAZY scene in which Angie Dickinson masturbates in a shower while she looks at her husband. She is then grabbed and raped while he husband stands obliviously near—-and the whole thing is revealed to be Angie's fantasy as he husband is pumping mindlessly away at her in bed. She has a short scene with her son, a dead ringer for Harry Potter, which concludes with a joke that ""she'll tell grandma that he is playing with his peter."" She then goes to her therapy session, where she complains about her dead marriage, before attempting to seduce her therapist, Michael Caine. He refuses, and she is hurt and feeling unattractive and unfulfilled.

Then begins a bravura 22-minute nearly wordless sequence that is perhaps the highlight of the film. Among the many things De Palma gleaned from Hitchcock is the understanding of film as a purely visual medium of telling stories… and in typical De Palma fashion, he turns this into a way to show off his formidable skill. The problem, for me, is that in this instance one begins to feel that scenes are being needlessly protracted simply to further show off the director's skill.

The sequence begins with Angie at an art museum. She watches strangers, all involved in sexual or family activities, then begins to get turned on to a man sitting next to her. De Palma very skillfully tells an extremely complicated narrative without a single word about Angie's attraction, embarrassment, retreating, and finally finding and submitting to the stranger in the back of a taxi cab, all set to a wonderfully lush score by Pino Donaggio, who also scored Carrie.

In the second part of the sequence Angie has slept with the guy, and gets up to return to her husband. Again De Palma crams a ton of narrative in without a word of dialogue uttered, as Angie realizes that she doesn't have her panties, that her husband is already home and no doubt wondering where she is, that she has probably contracted a venereal disease, and that she has lost her engagement ring somewhere in the shuffle. It's all very admirable, but one begins to feel a little strung along as we are forced to do things like take a long elevator ride down from the seventh floor, then up again, almost in real time.

...Spoilers from here on out! When Angie reaches the seventh floor again, she is killed by a big woman with blond hair. The woman hacks away at her until she reaches the ground floor, when the door opens and Nancy Allen sees her there. There is a wonderful slow-motion sequence as Nancy reaches into the elevator, Angie reaches up toward her, and the killer's blade is held poised to slash Nancy's hands. Then follow some electrifying shots as Nancy looks up and sees the killer in the elevators convex mirror. It's all good, and by the time we have some dialogue again, you think; ""Woah, that was just 22 straight minutes of purely visual narrative!"" Or maybe you don't, but I do.

A younger Dennis Franz has a great part as a sleazy and tough New York detective who would rather that everyone else do his work for him. He Interviews Michael Caine, making the outrageous implication (though it passes as commonplace) that Angie WANTED to be killed. Angie's son is there as well, and he hooks up with Nancy, and they set about to spy on Caine's therapist and find out who the killer is.

Once again there is a strong tie to a Hitchcock film, in this case Psycho (just as Obsession is a re-working of Vertigo). You have a woman who we are supposed to understand is secretly a slut, who gets killed in the first 30 minutes in an enclosed space, in this case an elevator rather than a shower. Then the relatives of the deceased conduct an investigation, which reveals that the killer is a man who dresses as a woman to kill. De Palma even throws in a doctor at the end who explains the psychology of the whole thing.

It is very interesting, but at the same time a viewer can begin to feel a bit jerked around, and that is my primary reservation about this film. It is definitely essential viewing and showcases some of De Palma's greatest setpieces, but that feeling that the story is running a solid third behind the need for De Palma to show off and his somewhat unseemly sexual fantasies makes it hard to look back on this one with whole-hearted affection.

--- Check out other reviews on my website of bad and cheesy movies, Cinema de Merde, cinemademerde.com",1 -"The film largely focuses on a bullying Robert Taylor as a ruthless buffalo hunter and the people who have to put up with him. Set amidst a hunt for dwindling numbers of buffalo, it portrays the end of a tragic era of senseless slaughter and is full of drama and remorse for both the buffalo and the Native Americans. Taylor is blinded by his hatred of Indians and his naivete that the buffalo herds will never disappear. In one scene, he shoots animal after animal, while in another he murders Indians and then eats the food they had cooking on their fire. Under this ruthless exterior lies an insecure person who is reduced to begging his comrades (Stewart Granger, Lloyd Nolan, and Russ Tamblyn) not to leave him. It's not the most pleasant of films and is weighed down by the drama it creates, leading to a dismal and very fitting conclusion in a blizzard.",1 -"Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty ""let's get this over with"" This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there.",0 -I was shocked at how bad it was and unable to turn away from the disaster. This made 'Major League II' and 'Blues Brothers 2000' Oscar-worthy in comparison.

I have tried to remember watching anything as bad as this in my life and was unable to come up with anything even close.,0 -"Overall this movie is dreadful, and should have never been made. One of the problems with this movie is that there is no link to the audience and the characters, for example, if she is about to be attacked, you want to feel, ""Oh My God, No!"", but you don't in this case, you don't care because there is no link that has been made to know the character. In the trailer, it seemed as though the movie would be great, yet there is no suspense what so ever really. There could have been maybe some mystery but there is not. ""All she has is a toolbox."" was said on the DVD's back, you would think that it was carefully planned this movie, and cleverly made, but it is not, The ending, was just awful, very straight forward, and pointless too. The acting is either average or below average, maybe even lower. In my opinion it was a waste of an hour of my life. The ""Special Effects"" and sets were average too, nothing special what so ever. There is not much gore, or bloody violence, not much blood is shown. This movie was advertised to make it sound quite amazing, yet really, its not even worth looking for, I do not recommend this to anyone, unless they are easily satisfied, by a few fights and a boring story.",0 -"Things that are only just now ""news"" were taken as a given in this shocking documentary. I fear that as the investigation proceeds, the producers of this film will be vindicated in spades.

The producers show us the Davidians, the government agents, the investigators, with all their faults and all their humanity. Nothing any reviewer can say could approach the impact of watching and listening for yourself. Pieces of evidence -- Congressional testimony, 911 tapes, news footage, expert commentary, interviews, photos and home videos -- are seamlessly woven together and tell a disturbing tale.

Do not wait. See this film and tell your friends.",1 -"It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.",0 -"Walt Disney's 20th animated feature was the last one to be greenlighted by the great man himself (he died in late 1966) and is not generally considered to be among their very best output. The main problem is that, on the surface, the film seems merely to be the feline version of either LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) or 101 DALMATIONS (1961) both of which are certainly more beloved by fans Even so, being both an animation and cat lover, I dug this reasonably bouncy concoction in which a pampered female cat (voiced by Eva Gabor) and her three little kittens are thrown out onto the streets of Paris by a wealthy lady (Hermione Baddeley)'s greedy butler. Luckily, they meet a streetwise alley cat (Phil Harris) who guides them on the journey back and are further aided along the way by a feline jazz band (led by Scatman Crothers) and two helpful and amiably dopey dogs; meanwhile at home, Edgar the butler celebrates his supposed inheritance and the mouse and the horse do their bit to help their fellow feline pets. Legendary entertainer Maurice Chevalier was whisked back from retirement to sing the title song (which includes a verse in French) and Scatman's band indulge in a breezy number ""Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat"".",1 -"Oz is set in Oswald State Correctional Facility. It tells the story of confrontation, cruelty, violence, hate and survival at any cost. in a place like Oz, you have to have eyes in the back of your head.

This completely original, intelligent and compelling drama tells of how warped life becomes as soon as you step through the gates of Emerald City.

What is supposed to be a state of art correctional facility is in fact far from being such. The show brings to light some of the many flaws in the prison system, the underestimating of the humanity that cold hard killers are capable of still retaining, and the one true fact: The prisoners are the one's who control the prison.

This magnificent and somewhat surreal show teaches about the importance of every life and helps give an understanding to the reasons that most of the prisoners are there. This show may seem shocking at first but to truly tell it like it is, such a thing is necessary.

Oz is a great depiction of hell on earth and how such a place teaches you some of the most important lessons you will ever learn.",1 -"so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.",0 -"I remember catching this movie on one of the Showtime channels. What stood out for me is that this movie takes place entirely in Phoenix, Arizona. I'm from there so I spot the locales easily.

Regardless, a ninja kills a scientist, because they wear yellow sweaters and golf, who is pursued by the police. It takes about half the police force to take him down and when they do eventually kill him, there are no discernible bullet wounds. His spirit lives on however when a woman finds her and touches his katana.

From then on, she periodically gets possessed and kills the police officers who killed the original ninja. Then another ninja from Japan comes to kill the evil ninja. This might be a plot device from the previous two films, or perhaps a plot hole. All I know is that this movie is very campy, bad and entertaining. This is something to watch with a tub of popcorn, and several friends and give it the MST3K treatment.",0 -"Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.",0 -"Horrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the ""things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark"" that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of ""The Shining"" and most notably ""The Others"", the weak-plotted ""Darkness"" is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars)",0 -"Most of the Atomic Age monster movies I saw on television as a kid- and some of them, THE BLOB included, scared the daylights outta me. Movies like INVADERS FROM MARS made it all too clear to us ""small fry"" that kids just weren't to be trusted when it came to things like things invading the Homeworld; THE BLOB just reiterated that fact. I recall, fondly, late evenings spent stretched on the floor watching as Body Snatchers and Martian Invaders and Blobs seeped into an unsuspecting society. There was a summer, in the early 1980s, when a local science museum (in Richmond, Virginia) ran an Atomic Age classic every weekend. These were 16mm films, and most were black and white (and the projector was noisy), and the ""color"" print of THE BLOB had faded to a faint pink- but, man, was it fun. I dragged my mother along, and she enjoyed it as much as I did. It was there, at that science museum, that I truly fell in love with THE BLOB. The filmmaker's intent was, of course, to make money- but it was the sincerity of all involved, from the filmmakers to the ""talent"" (the players), that made me fall in love with this movie. Corny? You bet. Cheesy? They don't get any cheesier. But, man, what a movie!",1 -"What a clunker!

It MUST have been made for TV or Cable.

Look: forget the screenplay - forget the bunch of forgettable actors. Excuse me? Continuity? The NSA/NIA/whatever or whoever he is (an agent) takes-off in an F16 - is shown in an F18 chucking his guts up and, later, the aircraft shown taxiing is an F4 Phantom! Oooh, wish that I could be so cavalier.

Apart from the male actors(!?) The women are WASPS: blue-eyed and long-legged and, eventually, get to cry about the heroes who save them. Even when a solid weld could save most of the cosmo- astro-nauts, the blond drops the welding tool. Duh!

As an SF movie one out of ten. As a movie per se: 1/2 (that's a half point). They should have ditched the space station and headed for Mars.

Major raspberries.",0 -"This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.

Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers.

(Possible spoiler warning)

The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic ""caveman meets fluffball"" yarn, where a ""charming"" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's ""wit"" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance.

I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it.

In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive!

Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10",0 -"With all of the films of recent,dealing with the British Monarchy,is it really time for another? Answer:YOU BET! The Young Victoria is another contribution to the wave of cinema from Britain dealing with the Royal family. In this case,it deals with the early life of Princess Victoria,and events leading up to the Coronation of her becoming Queen of all England,as well as her romance & eventual wedding to Prince Albert. The film also deals with the tempestuous lives & careers of both England's Queen & Prince,as well as several other events that transpire (political turmoil,etc.). Emily Blunt plays a radiant Victoria in her youth,while Rupert Friend is her beloved & best friend,Prince Albert. The rest of the cast is rounded out with the likes of Miranda Richardson,as the Dutchess of Kent,and the always welcome on screen,Jim Broadbent as King William,as well as a cast of others that shine on screen. Jean Marc Vallee (C.R.A.Z.Y.,Loser Love),directs from a winning screenplay by Jullian Fellowes (Vanity Fair,Gosford Park,Separate Lies). I absolutely went out of my head over the film's visual look (by cinematographer Hagen Bogdansker),who gave each frame of film a painterly look (with the help of production designer,Patrice Vermette),as well as some tight editing (by Jill Bilcock & Matt Garner). What I also appreciated in Fellowes' script is the use of a game of Chess,as a metaphor for some of the film's political motivation (the characters in the film move about like the pieces on a Chess board). This is smart,well written,directed,filmed,edited & acted entertainment (and enlightenment)that makes for a well spent evening at the cinema. Rated PG by the MPAA for a few scenes of sensuality,some brief violence ( a little bloody,although nothing too gory),a rude outburst of language,and some on screen smoking",1 -"The first point that calls the attention in ""For Ever Mozart"" is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews.

My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): ""Para Sempre Mozart"" (""Forever Mozart"")",0 -"She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' ""Big,"" though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.",0 -"This show is just annoying!!! I feel sorry for the actors for having to attempt to be funny (especially Bob Saget), the laugh track tries to cover up the sad jokes and the ""Awwww"" track comes up at the most unnecessary times. The over-dramatic kids are no exception, especially the Olsen twins. Also, this show is cliché city. If you were to look up the word cliché, it would read ""Full House"" Every story line has a ""life lesson"" to be learned at the end. A sappy speech makes everything better and even has the ability to make the most bratty child have a sudden realization of goodness GASP too bad this couldn't be possible in real life. I don't know how someone could watch this show without bad mouthing the behavior of the characters or the laugh track. i find myself yelling at the TV saying, ""THAT Isn't FUNNY/SAD/CUTE"" If life were really like this, the world would fall apart.",0 -"First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.

Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.",0 -"I first encountered this show when I was staying in Japan for six months last year. I found it in the internet when I was looking for sub-titled dramas to help me with my Japanese. My host mother warned me to stay away from it because she thought it was weird, but I found it delightful! Koyuki showed such conflicting character traits and Matsujun's spirit made my day every time I tuned in! I first saw him on ""Hana Yori Dango"", but I liked him much better in this!

Although the characters are interesting and well-developed, I was disappointed to find that they didn't change very much throughout the show. Their relationship grew, but they didn't really. Still, a fun time had by all (Even for Fukushima!).",1 -"My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.

I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to

If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE

MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10

RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!",0 -"This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money.

On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.

Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.

In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.

The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.

BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.",1 -"After sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called ""When Will I Be Loved"", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.

I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.

Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.

Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)

There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...

I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.",0 -"This was a pretty good episode. Though no ""Trapped in the Closet"" or ""Cartoon Wars,"" it had a lot of things going for it. The character of Al Gore and that bizarre-as-hell ""super cereal"" thing was pretty darn funny. But, the scene that made me adore this episode was one I'm sure everyone will agree was one of the greatest Cartman/Kyle moments ever. When Cartman is superstitious of Kyle that he'll be stealing his gold(which of course is fake!), and he comes within inches of his face. Suddenly, Kyle wakes up, and they have that crazy conversation where Cartman tries to act like everything is completely fine. Cartman crapping out the treasure at the end, though predictable, was pretty funny.",1 -"The idea of young girl, who gets pregnant at the age of 16 is nothing new to the drama genre. But it is pretty new if you take a look at the comedy genre. There is this basic plot of Lorelai and Rory, mother and daughter. Lorelai comes from a wealthy background, got pregnant with 16 and ran away from her parents' house at 17. But this series does not start there, it starts when Rory is 16 and everything is just about the problems of a single mother, who has terrible problems with her parents and about all those problems you have when you are 16.

Okay, now again this sounds pretty normal, but there is this little thing called joke. The Gilmore Girls talk incredibly fast and they make like 60 jokes a minute. Even if you don't understand all of the jokes, since they contain hundreds of references to films, music, gossip, history, literature and politics. Sometimes you even get confused, but that really is the fun. And not only it is fast, it's smart and wonderfully sarcastic. In addition to that it is not only funny, it has great drama parts in it and you can take some lessons from it even home. Which is a thing that does not go for every single TV- Series.

So watch it! It'll lighten your mood and help you through hard decisions!",1 -"Awful! Awful! Awful! Drab, unimaginative, predictable - and with all the usual suspects. Exactly the sort of film the Irish Film industry shouldn't be making. And with the added bonus of a treacle-coated ending. A sickening example of how talent & originality is by-passed in favour of an almost aggressive mediocrity. Yes - the children are sweet. Yes - it almost looks like it's done professionally. But this is film making by numbers, a direct smash and grab on what the director obviously thinks is 'success' - a film which patronises and despises the audience. It's quite amazing that Working Title would pour £3m into this rubbish. But then, they paid for Love Actually. Don't waste your money.",0 -"This cheap and rubbish film is about a NASA test rocket that is sent into space with a cargo of animals. It vanishes for a while then unexpectedly returns, crash landing in a forest, unleashing a vicious mutant creature.

Like many films of this type, Night Fright, features dumb teenagers boogieing on down to 60's surf music before being killed. None of the murders, however, are even remotely memorable, as we don't really see anything. One thing we do see, however, is that one of the teenagers appears to be about 40 years old and sports a quite impressively silly haircut.

For a creature feature to work, it really has to present its monster to the viewer properly. In this film, however, we only get the briefest glimpses of the monster. It seems to sort of resemble the alien from Robot Monster. But I'm not sure; as the photography was so dark I simply couldn't make out what the hell was going on a lot of the time. Although, my gut feeling was that I probably wasn't missing very much.",0 -"Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are ""cool dudes"". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.

One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.

Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.",0 -"The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****",0 -"I've just purchased the restored version of a film that I remember with much affection from childhood and it's certainly made for a curious afternoon's entertainment. Bedknobs definitely makes more sense in its complete form, the deleted scenes (especially those with McDowall) link events together quite neatly. What is a little disconcerting is the way the scenes have been remastered. Clearly, the soundtrack to this footage had been lost or damaged, so some bright spark at Disney decided to dub the scenes with new dialogue. Which would have been great except that half the cast weren't around to do it (some for better reasons than others) and the whole thing has a rather shoddy quality to it. Some of the lip-synching is pretty poor, and David Tomlinson's voice has been dubbed by a bloke who sounds absolutely nothing like David Tomlinson (there's actually a hint of German in it, I think). However, good to hear the full versions of all the songs (although 'Step in the right Direction' is still absent) and the moments of magic in this film still shine through. And I challenge you not to giggle when young Paul gazes so innocently at Angela Lansbury and coos ""but what's that got to do with my knob??""",1 -"'The Dresser' is one of those films which are so perfect you really struggle to find something not to like about them. Written by Ronald Harwood (himself a former dresser to the legendary Donald Wolfit), it sparkles with energy and true love of life behind the footlights.

As 'Sir', the overbearing actor and main focus of the play, Albert Finney is a joy to watch - whether complaining about the lack of a storm during the 'blow, winds ...' bit of 'King Lear' or chatting to his faithful stage manager, Madge (Eileen Atkins, good as ever) about the old times. As Norman, his camp dresser, Tom Courtenay gives a fabulous performance, wiggling around at the beck and call of 'Lear', collecting a bottle to go at the pub, or bitchily disparaging the former Fool, Mr Davenport-Scott (often mentioned, but never seen!).

In an engaging support cast, there's Edward Fox as Oxenby (a typical arrogant second lead), Zena Walker as her Ladyship, Lockwood West as the replacement Fool, and many others.

This film has great energy, bringing with it some of the greasepaint of its stage origins, it is true, but being so well-acted you don't notice. Very well done indeed.",1 -"There is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.",0 -"""Godzilla vs King Ghidorah"" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about ""Japan is great"" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.",0 -"In post civil war America the President, (Van Johnson), travels to Dallas and is assassinated by corrupt officials and businessman interested in installing the vice President whom they can blackmail due to incriminating documents. A gunman (Guiliano Gemma) convinced that his black friend is wrongly accused of the assassination aims to uncover the truth. Tonino Valeri directed this fascinating, if flawed film which obviously is an allegory for the Kennedy assassination. The film may wrongly present blacks as slaves working on plantations in Texas but the film is nonetheless enjoyable and presents an interesting interpretation - that Kennedy's death was the result of a coup de tat- which many Americans could not accept at the time. Oswald's murder is replayed here as the black accused of the assassination is murdered by the men responsible, on route to Fort Worth prison. This moment in the film is more melodramatic than Oswald's death with his various escorts shot down before his over the top death scene. Nonetheless this is definitely one of the more interesting and worthwhile spaghetti westerns. Worth a look!",1 -"The thing I remember most about this film is that it used to air on local KTLA TV (Ch. 5) during every Christmas season during the mid to late 70s, mainly due to the fact that the true story took place on or near Christmas Eve. It was always a bit disturbing to see the hell that this girl goes through, being the lone survivor of a plane crash in the Peruvian jungle. The graphic scene of this young girl pulling leeches out of her infected leg made quite an impression on this young viewer. Not quite the kind of Christmas cheer I was used to seeing at the time. Definitely not a Rankin-Bass production.",1 -"This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends ""Friends"" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends"" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of ""Seinfeld"" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of ""Frasier"". The characters in ""Friends"" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.

The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of ""Friends"".)",0 -"Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) is a successful dentist, who shares his practice with other business partners. Alan also has an loving wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) and he has two daughter (Camille LaChe Smith & Imani Hakim). He also let his parents stay in his huge apartment in New York City. But somehow, he feels that his life is somewhat empty. One ordinary day in the city, he sees his old college roommate Charlie Fireman (Adam Sandler). Which Alan hasn't seen Charlie in years. When Alan tries to befriends with Charlie again. Charlie is a lonely depressed man, who hides his true feelings from people who cares for him. Since Charlie unexpectedly loses his family in a plane crash, they were on one of the planes of September 11, 2001. When Alan nearly feels comfortable with Charlie. When Alan mentions things of his past, Charlie turns violent towards Alan or anyone who mentions his deceased family. Now Alan tries to help Charlie and tries to make his life a little easier for himself. But Alan finds out making Charlie talking about his true feelings is more difficult than expected.

Written and Directed by Mike Bender (Blankman, Indian Summer, The Upside of Anger) made an wonderfully touching human drama that moments of sadness, truth and comedy as well. Sandler offers an impressive dramatic performance, which Sandler offers more in his dramatic role than he did on Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love. Cheadle is excellent as usual. Pinkett Smith is fine as Alan's supportive wife, Liv Tyler is also good as the young psychiatrist and Saffron Burrows is quite good as the beautiful odd lonely woman, who has a wild crush on Alan. This film was sadly an box office disappointment, despite it had some great reviews. The cast are first-rate here, the writing & director is wonderful and Russ T. Alsobrook's terrific Widescreen Cinematography. The movie has great NYC locations, which the film makes New York a beautiful city to look at in the picture.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an good-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD also an jam session with Sandler & Cheadle, an featurette, photo montage and previews. I was expecting more for the DVD features like an audio commentary track by the director and deleted scenes. ""Reign Over Me"" is certainly one of the best films that came out this year. I am sure, this movie looked great in the big screen. Which sadly, i haven't had a chance to see it in a theater. But it is also the kind of movie that plays well on DVD. The film has an good soundtrack as well and it has plenty of familiar faces in supporting roles and bit-parts. Even the director has a bit-part as Byran Sugarman, who's an actor himself. ""Reign Over Me"" is one of the most underrated pictures of this year. It is also the best Sandler film in my taste since ""The Wedding Singer"". Don't miss it. HD Widescreen. (**** 1/2 out of *****).",1 -"Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film...",0 -"I have not read the novel, or anything other by Kurt Vonnegut, but I am now intending to start. This grips you from the very first frame, and does not let go until the end credits start rolling. Taking you places you don't expect, the plot is interesting throughout. The pacing is spot-on, nothing lasts too long, and this does a perfect job of balancing between unexpected twists and allowing the viewer to process what we've seen. It is well-told and well-thought out. I've never watched a film that I feel I could particularly compare this to. It is intense and exciting, as well as funny and sad. The acting is excellent, Nolte absolutely shines, Goodman again proves that he doesn't have to go for laughs, and Lee and Arkin are spellbinding. I could go on, really... no role is treated to a less than stellar performance. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and all of the visuals are great, with a couple of unforgettable and astonishing ones. I am going to go for other movies directed by Keith Gordon, as well as the other two apparently related to this, through the author of the books. There is one scene of sexuality, and a lot disturbing and unsettling content in this. I recommend this to anyone who can appreciate it; it is not pleasant. 8/10",1 -"Overall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.

It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.

Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.

A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.

Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.

In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.",0 -"This is a good movie. Something fun about watching money be blown at a super rate, especially from a kid's point of view. Take it for what it is, a fun little movie about a kid's dream coming true, and what a kid might do with $1 million dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. They make movies for the watchers, not the people that have nothing better to do then complain in their lives.",1 -"Bellocchio refers to this as a mainly political movie, a description of the revolutionary movement in Italy, but that seems more metaphor than reality. Well, almost everything in the movie seems like metaphor. The revolutionaries, of whom we see and about whom we learn very little, might as well be mafiosi. Out with the old and in with the new.

Andrea's Papa, a psychoanalyst, seems to stand for the usual traditional bourgeois values -- morally upright, unperturbed, clean and tidy, thoroughly ritualized.

Giullia, the girlfriend of a revolutionary, seems to represent what can happen to someone who needs very badly a cause to support but is unable to muster up the kind of devotion such a commitment demands. (I'm guessing here.) Andrea, the adolescent boy, seems to be the only guy in the movie who is not in some unquiet way ""upatz."" He's respectful of his father but disobedient too. He loves Giullia, or so we assume, although he's not really old enough to have learned how to manage his reflexes optimally, but he leaves her in order to show up at school and complete his final exams. His course between these contradictory lifestyles could be described as ""media."" He's the man in between, who knows the meaning of gradualism, who can keep his cool while those about him are screaming.

Most of this is summed up during the oral part of his finals when he is asked to translate and comment on an excerpt from ""Antigone,"" which contrasts the traditional authority of the gods with the notion of secularity and free will.

That brings us -- by no particular course that I'm aware of -- to Marushka Detmars. She brings to mind a New Yorker cartoon of a few years ago. Two hippos are neck-deep in the river, staring at a gazelle drinking from the bank, and one hippo says to the other, ""I hate her."" She's a good actress. (Let me get that out of the way.) But so is everyone else in the film. She carries with her, in her speech and manner, the rich glitter of outright lunacy. And it all comes from the actress too, not from directorial aid. Detmars isn't nuts the way Catherine DeNeuve was nuts in ""Repulsion."" The walls don't turn to rubber and grow hands. Instead, we see her animated -- sometimes TOO animated. And she gives us shocking jolts when her mood abruptly changes and becomes threatening the way a looming thunderstorm is threatening.

A critic described her as sultry, but that's probably not the word he was searching for. She's compellingly beautiful with her fluffy brown hair, her wide white ready grin, her impulsive giggles. And her eyes are like the eyes in the paintings on the walls of ancient Egyptian tombs. The sexy parts are pretty erotic, not so much because one of them is explicit, but because we've gotten to know the characters involved. (It's more interesting to spy on the honeymoon couple next door than go to a skin flick.) Actually there isn't THAT much sex. There is only one scene of simulated intercourse but the director lets it play out in what seems to be real time. At least real time for an eighteen-year-old boy.

The young man who plays Andrea is fine too, which is a necessary thing, because the film depends almost entirely on him and Giullia. They have to carry it and they do. If it were not for their performances, I'm not sure this would be as interesting or as admirable flick as it is. It could easily have been turned into a rather slow, boring romance.

Worth it.",1 -"this movie may not have seemed like much to some people but it had everything i look for in a comedy. fall down funny moments accompanied by a moment or two of seriously moving scenes, great actors, and pretty much everything a good movie is supposed to be like. despite David spade playing his usual snobby character he made this role into an unusual performance which i don't think he had ever exceeded until he hit the screen with Joe dirt. regardless of whether or not some people were not Chris Farley fans i saw this film when it came out and my friends and i still talk about it... 11 years later. this movie was what finally told me that Chris Farley was the real deal. he is the best comedian i have seen in my life. in the words of some he could be clumsy, clever, funny, serious, crazy, sober, and moving or depressing at the same time. not the same words but the message is all that counts. one of the true great actors of our time, and one of the true great comedy's of all time. along with good acting, good story, hilarious moments, serious scenes that at times brought me to tears. this movie stands atop the hordes as a movie that marked the beginning of a brief reign at the top of the comedy world by the late great Chris Farley. no actor before or since has captured my interests in a movie since. because no actor before or since has put so much into his movies. this movie is worth the time, if you haven't taken the time to see it do so the next time you rent a movie.",1 -"Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a ""Bomb"" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!

Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the ""Worst Movie I've Ever Seen"", but I'm sure that's nothing unique.",0 -"*Minor Spoiler*

Inhabited isn't scary, but it is creepy. It is an interesting 'little' story with good acting and great special effects makeup.

Basic plot: A little girl blames the strange things going on at her family's new house and accompanying playhouse on her faerie friends.

The movie doesn't waste time getting moving, though the ending could have been more involved.

I don't recommend this movie to those expecting/wanting hardcore horror, but I do recommend it to those who want a chiller and not necessarily a thriller.",1 -"This is an early one from the boys, but some people may not be satisfied with this one like all the others. I found it to be different somehow than the your average Stooge slapstick. It was more funny for it's jokes rather than the poke in the eye or slap. Watch for a hilarious part when Larry grabs the stethoscope from Moe and sings into it. Moe gives him a good smack. That part made me crack up for a good ten minutes. Another hit for the Stooges.",1 -"A young ( only 21 ) director with great talent, a powerful scenario, young and ambitious cast with all theatrical background...

One of the first tries of a thriller in Turkish cinema, which seems in the future we'll have some more based on the success...

Shot on high definition video, the movie is perhaps effected on world thrillers, especially the American thrillers. The technical and cinematographic character is quite well done, the scenes are all well worked on. Not too much blood but sufficient enough to make you think you're in a blood bath too...

The scenario is quite wise but with certain clues, a clever audience can easily predict what's going on and at the end when everything settles down you're getting somehow weird to conclude the result.

Well done Tiglon, one of the biggest DVD distributors in Turkey, it is not easy to decide for such a movie in their first try as a production company...",1 -"""Ninja III"" is not quite as bad as ""Enter The Ninja"", the first part of this ""trilogy"", but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic ""The Exorcist"" rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the ""dominated"" heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else.",0 -"I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point ""I'm gay, not corny."" And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.",0 -"Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with!",1 -"Karloff and Lugosi - Together again! This is one of those films that casual fans will pass over and tend not to appreciate as much. It's not an all-out horror film like the duo's previous two hits, The Black Cat and The Raven. But, it is very worthy of both's talents and is a fun film when re-visited.

The Invisible Ray was directed by Lambert Hillyer, a director who mainly made westerns, but curiously in these final days of the Laemmles' reign at Universal, he found himself helming this and the Laemmles' final horror film, Dracula's Daughter. Both are crisp, clean-cut fantasies that are very light on horror content despite the fantastic elements.

Just as Lugosi went wild in The Raven, much needs to be said of Karloff's hamming in The Invisible Ray. The one aspect of the story that is particularly unsatisfying is that Karloff's character, Rukh, acts so madly before he is poisoned by Radium X, that there really isn't much of a change once he starts glowing. This is very similar to the complaint people have about Jack Nicholson in The Shining - He's basically a loony right from the start. There isn't any real transformation. Same here. Halfway through Karloff simply has an added purpose for revenge in his mind. I still enjoyed his performance, though, just as I did Lugosi's over-the-top antics in The Raven.

Meanwhile, Lugosi completely surprises you and gives a restrained, and thoughtful turn as Rukh's rival in science, Dr. Benet. Lugosi also has some of the best lines in the film, including a memorable warning to the police trying to catch Rukh, of which I am in alignment with horror film writer John Soister on - ""And if he (Rukh) touches anyone?"" the inspector inquires. Lugosi hesitatingly replies, in a way that only Lugosi could deliver, ""They die"". Just as Lugosi could be so off, he could also be more perfect than any actor. This is one of those moments.

Therefore, Karloff and Lugosi's interactions are all very good as we get the mad antics of Karloff pared off against the cool logic of Lugosi. Karloff would go on to play similar mad scientists many times, however, one wishes Lugosi would have gotten to play more straight roles like this one. He only had one more chance (Ninotchka).

The Invisible Ray is a fun film, and a real treat to the true Karloff and Lugosi fans. It is one of those films that improves on each viewing, not because it is a masterpiece, but because of the charisma and talent of its' stars and how this story complements the darker, more horrific pairings they had. The special effects, by the always innovative John Fulton, are terrific and the supporting actors are all adequate. Frances Drake looks as beautiful as she did in Mad Love and plays a strong woman, something seldom seen in classic horror films. The scene in the end when Karloff stalks her and she doesn't scream is one of the most haunting moments of the film. A terrific, fun film!",1 -"Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the ""glad it was short"" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.",0 -"I'm sorry but i don't understand how the studio get's away with this. The movie is just not worth it. Maybe as a theater-play but certainly not as a movie! And why do they call it a thriller??? Offcource the acting is good but i did'n't expect anything less from these perfect actors. Robert Redford plays very well and Willem Dafoe is convincing enough as the softy ""bad guy"". Helen Mirren can play almost any role and always (still) looks beautiful to me ;). I'm also a fan of her British detectives. Still they just can't save this ow so boring movie, i'm sorry. I hope we don't get to many movies anymore from this director ""Pieter Jan Brugge"" cause he obviously doesn't now the meaning of the words ""suspence and thriller"".",0 -"Okay, so Ghoulies 4 is kind of bad. And it doesn't really even have the ghoulies in it. And the acting is bad. The storyline is stupid. But I forget to mention how funny this film is. It is so campy, and so ridiculous it is too fun not to enjoy. There are only 2 ghoulies in the movie, and they don't really seem to be in relation with the Ghoulies in the other film. But they are pretty funny. And funny thing, that Jonathon Graves returns for this one. If you saw the first, he was a character in that. In my opinion, this is better than the first. There are some classic scenes and some classic lines, one which is in a grocery store. ""Attention K-Mart Shoppers!"" Watch this if you enjoy bad movies. It's so bad it is good. And did I mention Barbara Alyn Woods is hot?",1 -"Kalifornia came out in 1993, just as 3 of the 4 lead characters were up and coming to the levels of fame they now possess in 2006. This is a nice psycho-thriller that should appeal to all David Duchovny fans because of his dry and intelligent narratives that find their ways into his work, like with most of his episodes of the X-Files, Playing God, and Red Shoe Diaries.

People who were put off by the heavy southern accent from Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis' characters obviously have never spent much time in the south. For every ""Brian and Carrie"" in the south, there is an ""Adele and Early"" and in 2006, that's the real horror of this flick.

Aside from that, I think the film was written with a cult film intention - like with Carrie's photography, it's not suitable for mass consumption. But if you have a copy of this in your personal library, I think it says something positive about your tastes for freaky movies.",1 -"I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of ""One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"".",1 -"First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? Trainspotting. Masturbation? Hmm. Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Pie, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says ""it's none of my business but . ..."" and 30 seconds later Mia says ""why is this any of your business?"" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots.
It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see Boomerang. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for The Tao Of Steve. But anyone who thinks Whipped is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.",0 -"After working on 7 movies with director Mickael Curtiz (The Adventures of Robin Hood are their best achievement), Errol Flynn got tired of his dictatorial direction and decided to work with the great Raoul Walsh. This reunion is a happy thing for cinematography. THE DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is their first and best film together. Raoul Walsh portrays the General George Armstrong Custer (Errol Flynn) from his debuts at West Point, to the Civil War and finally at the battle of Little Big Horn. It's true the film shows a too heroic portrait of Custer, but that's not important. What is important, is the fact that we are transported with the passion and glory carried by the characters. Who can forget California Joe, the great ""Queen's Own Buttler"" with his song ""Garryowen"", the touching Mrs Custer (Olivia de Havilland), the diabolic Sharp well played by Arthur Kennedy ?

An eternal blow remains on this epic and tragic freso.",1 -"Epic early film, directed by D.W. Griffith. Mae Marsh, her little sister, and their dogs are orphaned - they must go to live with an uncle. Aboard their coach is young couple Lillian Gish and Robert Harron, celebrating the birth of their first child. The coach arrives in Elderbush Gluch. Marsh's uncle tells her she can't keep the dogs, and they are put out. There are Indians (Native Americans) nearby; and, Indians love to eat dog meat (no kidding?). These Indians are hungry! Lionel Barrymore is sympathetic to Ms. Marsh, desiring to help her recover the runaway dogs. While rescuing the puppies, an Indian is shot - resulting in a ""Cowboys vs. Indians"" confrontation.

This ""Saga of the American West"" is certainly an important film; however, the reliable Griffith performers begin to overplay their hands, and the story is too contrived. Many of the Griffith elements are in place - some good, and a few bad. ""The Battle at Elderbush Gluch"" foreshadows the later epic, ""Birth of a Nation"".

******* The Battle at Elderbush Gulch (3/28/14) D.W. Griffith ~ Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Lillian Gish",1 -"This movie gives Daniel Wu his chance to do a great action movie, but I really find Emil Chow's character really great, gutsy but determined to righting wrongs. Plus the main terrorist, it gets me wondering his revolution, makes me wonder if he is doing this for good or bad.

A movie that tells us about Todd, an amnesiac terrorist being tricked as an undercover until he learns who he really is. The consequences that he makes from his terrorist family, gives him a the choice of redemption.

Purple Storm was one of the best ones that I have seen this year. The movie really stands out when it is filled with tremendous action scenes set-up by Stephen Tung Wai, which won the best action sequences in the Hong Kong Awards. (9/10)",1 -"Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier.

A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills.

The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers.

While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10",0 -"This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This ""largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles"" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting in the film.",0 -"I hate to admit it, but they were right to sack Schrader. The opportunity is here to build an atmosphere, to draw an audience into a movie. It wasn't done. The characters are weak. The story was weak. The directing was very poor. Schrader was out of his depth and it shows. I've watched it several times now in the hope that there will be at least one redeeming feature. But no, nothing. The next stage will probably be a remake of the original or hopefully it will be left well alone. Anyone wanting to know what the best sequel to The Exorcist was should read 'Legion', penned by Blatty it has to be the best follow up to an original piece to be committed to print. Sadly, it did not translate to to screen very well and I doubt if it ever could be. As for Dominion, Beginning. Avoid at all costs.",0 -"Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named ""baby"" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.",0 -"

This is the best mock documentary of a dog show that I have seen in a long time. A very long time. Well lets face it,ever. Isn't that part of the charm ? The idea of actually going to the trouble to make a movie mocking a documentary about an event that most people would find odd in the first place. Even if there were no big laughs, one would still be smirking at the thought. Any movie that attempts something new scores highly in my proverbial book. I loved the dogs too !",1 -"I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.

Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.

The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap.",0 -"This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible.

There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them)

Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix.

Examples

>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader.

>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????

>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....

There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's????

There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either.

Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money.",0 -"I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. ""I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?""

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(",0 -"I know Jesse Franco is responsible for a wide variety of films, and I mainly go for his horror films, as lousy as they are at times. I guess it was morbid curiousity that drew me to this, and I wasn't even curious enough to finish it. Maybe it got better towards the end but unless you're into lesbian sex scenes (of which there's plenty) then you may want to take a pass. So what exactly can you say about a movie that features a woman that pees in a bowl on the kitchen counter (while standing up)? Just never you mind what that's used for later, you probably don't want to know. If this sounds intriguing to you, then that's your problem but then again you might just like this movie. I myself, am no prude, I've seen plenty of disgusting movies in my day but at least they were done well, and this isn't. Sometimes too much is just too much. Bleah.",0 -"This movie was rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available.",0 -"The Youth In Us is a pitch-perfect gem. I saw this stunning short at this year's 2005 Sundance Festival. The story took me on a profoundly transforming journey. The directing by Joshua Leonard, the acting of Kelli Garner and Lukas Haas, the art direction, the cinematography, the score -- every element was true to the bone. One can only hope that this exquisite and excruciating film is prelude to more great work from this gifted director.

Just as a short film is shown before a feature at Sundance, commercial movie theatres used a similar format in times past. It would be wonderful if miniature masterpieces like The Youth In Us could reach a wider audience this way.",1 -"On rare occasions a film comes along that has the power to expand the mind, warm the heart and touch the very soul. ""LOU"" is such a film. I got ""LOU"" from my wife who got it from a neighbor who is in the film business. She watched it for a second time with me. We were both enthralled. Her as if for the first time again.

""LOU"" is a magical piece designed to send you back to the moment at which all of your dramas started taking place. It does this while being relentlessly entertaining. Bret Carr's acting and pacing as a director do not let you look away from the screen. He crafts a character which disarms with a bugs bunny like, stuttering innocence, but warmly carried with such underplayed sincerity that you forget you're watching a movie. When the epiphany hits during the brilliant climax, I saw my wife in tears for the second time.

As a life coach, I facilitate individual growth and transformation, and this film is a ""must see"" for life coaches and anyone seeking their own personal growth and transformation. It is a brilliant, creative masterpiece with the power to change lives!",1 -"The cult of personality has elevated the status of Roger Corman, Sam Arkoff, Lloyd Kaufman etc. as kings of the B's. Because the folks at Crown International were so key, they haven't been elevated to the status they richly deserve. A film like THE VAN may now seem like a disposable piece of Drive-in esoteria, but it was a sizable hit when it was released (not to mention subsequent re-releases as a double feature with other Crown hits).

THE VAN was a perfect example of Crown's hit strategy of seizing upon the mood of movie-goers at the time of a film's release. Here, it was sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and the brief ""Custom Van"" fad. As others have noted, it is ironic that the ""hit"" song in the film refers to a Chevy when the title vehicle is a Dodge in the film itself. I had a town Selectman where I was at the time even declare these vans to be ""dens of sin on wheels!"" A perfect ad line for the film!

There are the usual assortment of ""good"" and ""bad"" girls, muscle-heads and low-brow hijinks (including a supporting bit by Danny DeVito). In many ways this isn't much different from the old Beach Party movies of the 60's, but now spiced up with Nudity and Drug use. Obviously done on a limited budget and a limited schedule, the film coasts along pleasantly enough with a breezy charm that compensates for some, by today's standards certainly, un-PC views of women.

The classic touch is a Toaster for Bobby's den of sin on wheels. Yes, a Toaster! Hey, you gotta have something hot for those munchies!

Grindhouse Fest.",0 -"This movie is excellent. I found it very interesting. I thought the Wendigo legend was pretty cool. The acting was also great, as well as the costumes, production, photography, directing and script.

A very happy family, on vacation gets stranded in the middle of nowhere after they hit a deer. A huntsman then appears and is very angry and outraged over the fact that one of the deer's antler's is broken. He then starts to stalk the family and weird things start to happen to them.

See this movie. It's worth it. Kudos to the cast, crew and filmmakers. Two Thumbs Way Up!",1 -"This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.

All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: ""Why you seem so careless?"" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.

It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters",0 -"While the movie has its flaws, it brings to light some of the problems that come with living in a country that has no democracy. It makes you empathize with the people under such a government and makes you want to learn more about their lives, their struggles and a potential leader Aung San Suu Kyi. It makes one wonder why our government will interfere places we are not wanted yet ignore those who ask our help.",1 -"Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio.

Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the ""phantom."" He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as ""hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat,"" etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.

We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the ""little guy.""

These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.",0 -"An unusual movie, which starts off with the classic premise of a hooligan who marries a girl who loves him in order to escape the country. But a twist soon turns the tale upside down. Most of the film hits the right buttons: the story develops smoothly, acting is solid (Sienna Miller's drawl is priceless, she really can act!), chemistry between both leads works, and rolling American rural scapes and quirky side characters really make for a good time. The mood, which starts off as light and romantic soon moves into something darker and downright eery at times.

At times though the pace slows just a tad more than we would like, but don't let this stop you watching this unusual little cinematic treat. Alexandre Montin, Paris",1 -"I'm not the type of person to watch T.V. shows because the acting normally sucks or it's unrealistic or TOO dramatic! But this show is perfect. Everyone can act, and you can relate to the characters and their situations. Everyone has their own personality and Lorelai Gilmore is the best for her sarcastic comments that can make any bad situation seem a little funny. Rory Gilmore is a good role model for all girls. She takes pride in wanting to attend Harvard and boys/boyfriends always come second in her book. She's a loyal friend and always the peace maker. There's subtle romance which is what I like, personally. Not the mushy gushy romance that not many people get to have in their lives, but a realistic type of romance. Every character eventually gets it, and they don't find their prince charming at first glance and they don't just ""fall in love"" with every guy that comes their way. It's a realistic show but when you watch it, you better brush up on your movies, pop culture, and random facts because Lorelai Gilmore is always making references. I fell in love with this show and if you give it a chance, so will you.",1 -"The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.

While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called ""Cinemagic"". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.

While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.

PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the ""Jonny Quest"" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.",0 -"""Fido"" is to be commended for taking a tired genre, zombies, and turning it into a most original film experience. The early 50s atmosphere is stunning, the acting terrific, and the entire production shows a lot of careful planning. Suddenly the viewer is immersed in a world of beautiful classic cars, ""Eisenhower era"" dress, art deco furniture, and zombie servants. It would be very easy to dismiss ""Fido"" as cartoon-like fluff, similar to ""Tank Girl"", but the two movies are vastly different. ""Fido has structure, a script that tells a story, and acting that is superior. Make no mistake, this is a daring black comedy that succeeds where so many others have failed. Highly recommended. - MERK",1 -"The Detonator is set in Bucharest where some sort of ex CIA Government agent named Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) has tracked down a arms dealer named Dimitru (Matthew Leitch), things go wrong though & Dimitru finds out that Sonni is working for the US Government. After a big shoot-out most of Dimitru's men have been killed by Sonni which the local Romanian police force are unhappy about, top man Flint (Michael Brandon) decides to send Sonni back to the US & at the same time protect a woman named Nadia Cominski (Silvia Colloca) who is also being sent back to the US. However it turns out that Nadia is wanted by Dimitru & his football club owning boss Jozef (Tim Dutton) who need her in order to complete a deal for a nerve gas bomb which they intend to set off in Washington killing millions of people...

This American & Romanian co-production was directed by Po-Chih Leong & The Detonator confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that Wesely Snipes has joined the washed up action film stars club who are relegated to making generic action films in Eastern European locations, yep Snipes has joined such luminaries as Jean-Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Dolph Lundgren, Rutger Hauer & Chuck Norris. I give Snipes a bit of credit since he held on a little longer than the rest with the excellent Blade: Trinity (2004) still fresh in a lot of cinema goers minds (every film he has made since has gone straight-to-DVD) but it had to happen sooner or later, like a lot of the names I've mentioned Snipes has lived off the reputation of a few great films & if you look at his career he's been in more bad films that good ones. Like the recent films of JCVD & Seagal The Detonator is pretty awful. The script by Martin Wheeler is as predictable, boring & by-the-numbers as anything out there. The Detonator is the sort of film you expect to see on an obscure cable TV channel playing at 2 O'clock in the morning. The Detonator is chock full of clichés, Snipes is forced into a situation where he has to protect a woman & at first they dislike each other but by the end they are in love, his closest friend at the CIA turns out to be a traitor while the obnoxious by the book boss no-one likes actually turns out to be a pretty decent guy, Snipes character is allowed to run around Bucharest shooting, killing & blowing people up like it doesn't matter & he never gets arrested, the action is dull & forgettable, the bad guy own a football club so there are lots of annoying football terminology & there aren't even any funny one-liners.

Director Leong doesn't do anything anything to liven things up, The Detonator looks cheap with a car chase in which the two cars never seem to get over the 30mph mark. OK the action scenes are relatively well staged but they are few & far between & utterly forgettable in a 'bad guy shoots at Snipes & misses, in return Snipes shoots at bad guy & kills him' sort of way. There's a half decent car crash & explosion but very little else. It seems some of The Detonator was shot in a Romanian football stadium, I think I'd rather have watched the game for 90 minutes rather than this film.

With a supposed budget of about $15,000,000 The Detonator is reasonably well made but not that much really happens. Set & filmed in Bucharest in Romania. The acting isn't that great, Snipes just doesn't seem interested & feels like he is just there for the money which I don't blame him for at all.

The Detonator is yet another poor clichéd action film starring a has been actor & set in Eastern Europe. Why do Sony keep making these things? Not recommend, there are much better action fare out there.",0 -"Seldom is seen a film sequel that surpasses or even equalls the greatness of it's original predecessor. Such a film is VIrtual Encounters 2.

It's about a couple guys in college who sell virtual sex to the entire campus. If you like seeing naked chicks, this one delivers. Six-foot tall Chrissy Styler is an amazing specimen and you will be dreaming about her for days if you ever have the good fortune to catch the unrated version. She wears just the right amount of body glitter in her multiple nude scenes and her giant cans appear to be real. ( = Giddyup!!

W/the exception of James Cameron's ""Aliens,"" Francis For Coppola's ""The Godfather Part II"" and - of course - the Zuckers' ""Airplane 2,"" this is the only sequel in movie history that takes a classic film and improves upon it.

It's criminal the way this film was ignored by the academy. Nikki Fritz and that broad who gets tied up in the beginning (as well as the brunette who gets a rubdown towards the end) all deserved Best Supporting Actress nods.

Shame on you, Hollywood!!!",1 -"This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.",0 -"I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him.

The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport.

Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay.",1 -"In the '60's/'70's, David Jason was renowned for his many supporting roles in television comedies such as 'Do Not Adjust Your Set!', 'Hark At Barker' and the 'Doctor' series. It was in 1974 that he landed his first leading role, in London Weekend Television's 'The Top Secret Life Of Edgar Briggs', written by Richard Laing & Bernard McKenna.

Edgar Briggs is a secret agent of the 'S.I.S' ('Secret Intelligence Service'). He genuinely tries to do his job well but always seems to mess things up. Astonishingly enough, though, he always succeeds in getting to the bottom of cases, much to the amazement of his colleagues- 'Buxton' (Michael Stainton), 'Spencer' (Mark Eden) and 'Cathy' (the lovely Elisabeth Counsell), all of which answer to 'The Commander' (Noel Coleman).

Briggs is married to 'Jennifer' (Barbara Angell), a woman who, much like Michele Dotrice's 'Betty' from 'Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em!', has the patience of a saint and stands by her hare-brained (but well-meaning) husband, no matter what.

Like 'Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em' and 'The Baldy Man', 'T.T.S.L.O.E.B' was laced completely with slapstick. Each episode saw Jason perform stunts such as plummeting from a high window sill or falling from the top of a ladder while decorating his flat. It was 'custard pie in the face' stuff really.

'Edgar Briggs' was not a big hit, due to poor scheduling from I.T.V. A shame as it was an amusing and enjoyable show, well served by its star and the fine support cast. The leading man, though, did not seem to enjoy the experience of the show. David Jason vetoed repeat screenings of the show because he felt his acting in it was non-refined. Granted, the David Jason who played 'Del Boy', 'Inspector Frost' and 'Pop Larkin' is way different to the one that played Briggs but by no means was his acting unrefined. Most actors would have turned Briggs into a ridiculous caricature but Jason's performance made Briggs a credible, realistic figure. Odd perhaps, but not unimaginable.

Jason's next vehicle was 'Lucky Feller', in which he played mummy's boy 'Shorty Mempstead'. It too failed to make the ratings. His lucky break came in the shape of A.T.V's 'A Sharp Intake Of Breath', in which he played walking disaster area 'Peter Barnes' for four series between 1977-1981. So, while not outstanding as such, 'Briggs' is an easy and worthwhile watch. Nice 'James Bond' style theme tune, too!",1 -"This is another one of those films that I remember staying up late to watch on TV, scaring the crap out of myself at the impressionable age of 12 or so and dooming myself thereafter to a life of horror movie obsession. This is a GREAT movie, and stands as living proof that there were indeed realistic effects before CGI.

Set on an isolated base in Antarctica, this version seems almost to pick up where the original version (The Thing From Another World) left off. The American scientists discover a decimated Norwegian base some miles distant. Everyone is dead, and only the half charred remains of some unidentifiable thing left to smolder outside the compound might offer any answers to what may have happened. The Thing is brought back to the American base and, too late, the scientists realize that it is alive and lethal. The Thing thaws out and is off, not only killing anyone and anything that crosses Its path, but also absorbing them, making Itself into whoever and whatever it wants. The film then turns into a brilliant paranoia piece. Everyone is suspect, anyone can be The Thing, and no one trusts anyone anymore. Gone is the strength and security found when human beings band together in spite of their differences to battle a monster. The group splinters and fear rules supreme. Who is the Thing?

The gore effects here are absolutely amazing and messily realistic. I could have done without the dogs head splitting open like a banana peel, but that's just the animal lover in me being picky: kill all the humans you want, but leave the kitties and puppies alone. Sanity and reason disintegrate rapidly as, one by one, the humans are taken over by the shapeshifting alien. The power of this film lies in its paranoia, and although I liked the original version, I prefer this one; the real threat lies within, and is scarier for the fact that it cannot be seen or easily detected. When it is forced out of hiding, it's wrath is huge and the results are horrific.

This is one of Carpenters best films, right up there with The Fog and Halloween. All of the actors give strong, realistic performances and the special effects are so powerful that they stand as their own main character. This film has something for any lover of the horror genre. Don't miss it.",1 -"Five years after she teamed up with James Cagney in ""The Public Enemy"", Mae Clarke makes another appearance, this time as his fiancée with Cagney's character on the other side of the law. It seems like she was calling more of the shots in their relationship as well, trying to get Johnny Cave to be a little more practical with his money and his career. You had to figure they'd get back together after she gave him the boot for challenging her crooked boss; those things have a way of working out in pictures.

I got a kick out of watching Cagney in this one. I usually do, and here he looked like he might have auditioned that characteristic shoulder shrug move that he used to good effect in ""Angels With Dirty Faces"" portraying Rocky Sullivan. It was right after he threw Cavanaugh (Robert Gleckler) out of his office during the first attempt at bribing the new Weights and Measures boss. He turns to the camera and hitches up as if entirely pleased with his response to the crook - very cool.

It's my understanding that this wasn't one of Cagney's Warner films, but it might as well have been. Warner's often took up the cause for the common man, and the expose of crooked merchants and the politicians who protected them would have been right up their alley. You also have those great New York City street scenes depicting cars and shops of the era, with home made signs pricing flour at eighteen cents a pound. Hey, how about the furniture store selling the living room set for a hundred eighty nine dollars, you might get a single stick chair for that price today.

Best part of the picture just might be that meat counter scene when Cagney, James Burke (Aloysius) and the butchers play catch with an underweight chicken. One of the film's lighter moments, but you get an idea how tense people can get when they're caught cheating. Same with the truck driver who's pressured by Johnny into signing for an accurate delivery; he just wasn't used to doing that.

All in all, a nice diversion from Cagney's more typical gangster presence, even if not up to the standard of his feature films. It's easy enough to obtain as one of a handful of public domain Cagney pictures out there, and often found in relatively inexpensive compilations.",1 -"Additionally titled BURNING MAN and FLASH FIRE for its various releases, this Australian made film, shot in New South Wales is problematic for its producers from its outset due to several personality conflicts and extended shooting time that prematurely uses up its allocated budget, and although the storyline is at times nicely detailed, below standard post-production finishing and overmuch cutting jettisons the affair. Tom Skerritt plays as Howard Anderson, an American entrepreneur with a ""passion for building"" who is in process of erecting a tourist hotel in the Blue Mountains region, all the while unaware that his business partner, Julian Fane (Guy Doleman) has insured the incomplete structure for ten million dollars, far more than its actual worth, and plans its destruction as corollary to normal summer brush fires in order to collect a handsome sum through fraud. In line with this illicit scheme, Fane arranges for an arsonist to perform the incendiary deed, a young man who also happens to be the boyfriend of Anderson's daughter, and due to the future resort's being in the midst of a critical fire hazard sector (one of the many unexplained elements of the screenplay) Julian has every expectation that his dastardly design will come about without serious hindrance. As the local insurance firm victimized by the crime is majority owned by Fane, the policy's naturally skeptical underwriters, Lloyd's of London, deploy senior investigator George Engels (James Mason) to probe into the nature of the felony, made more sinister because of the death, possibly a homicide, of an insurance investigator (Wendy Hughes) who, in following clues was apparently coming close to the cause of the arson. The setting for the film is the week before Christmas, capstone of summer in the Antipodes, a dramatic background, but the links within the story are not smoothly compounded, resulting in the presentation of events that are rather difficult for a viewer to follow, a problem heightened by erratic editing, the mentioned heavy cutting, and poor sound and picture quality. Skerritt's semi-comatose and droning style is fatally invalidated by this dim sound processing but Mason is very effective, as ever, and enjoys the best dialogue with Hughes impressive as the too early written-out investigator; Doleman wins acting laurels with his performance as the malevolent Julian Fane.",0 -"Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.

The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this,

On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.

But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.

Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back.",0 -"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?

Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.

Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.

Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence

I don't think so

I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)

",0 -"This miserable film is a remake of a 1927 film. They should have let it remain that way.

What a colossal bomb! Douglas Fairbanks displays absolutely no charisma here. Cesar Romero is subjected to a role as a real jerk and Bette Grable sings with a chorus- What I'll Do to that Hungarian!

The ridiculous plot deals with a picture of a woman in a castle in 1561 Rome that saved the day by killing a conqueror. (Fairbanks) Now, let's fast forward to 300 years later, where Grable, just married to the Count Romero, faces a similar situation, when on her wedding night, there is an invasion by Hungarian soldiers.

Romero acts cowardly and flees before the army arrives. He disguises himself as a gypsy and is made to remain at the castle when his violin playing pleases Fairbanks. The ending is worse than the entire wretched film when Grable meets Fairbanks to tell him the good news-an enraged Romero has annulled the marriage.

This poor imitation of a movie was made in 1948. As Harry Davenport, a veteran supporting player who is in it, died in 1949; this must have been his last film. What a bomb to go out with after such a distinguished career.

Walter Abel co-stars but he can do little with such poor writing. The costumes look more like those that would come out of the stone age. I can't fathom what Fairbanks was wearing.",0 -"I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason).",1 -"Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.

Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, ""The Projected Man"", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.

Ooops, sorry. Yes, ""The Projected Man"". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, ""The Projected Man"" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for ""The Projected Man"":

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8.",0 -"seriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.

david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.",0 -"(You'll know what I mean after you've seen Red Eye...)

Overall, Red Eye was a better-than-expected thriller. It gets off to a slow start, and slowly builds. But by the time it was over, it's a thumper!

It's hard to exactly define what makes this thriller as... thrilling as I found it. Except that, simply put, the director did a creditable job of pulling you into the action of what would otherwise have been a run-of-the-mill plot. I rather tended to forget I was watching a movie. That says a lot.

Other factors, I think, are the ""closeness"" of victim and bad guy... and that over time, you begin to really relate to the victim. A scant 8 out of 10, more like a 7.5... but that's pretty good!",1 -"There are many illnesses born in the mind of man which have been given life in modern times. Constant vigilance or accrued information in the realm of Pyschosis, have kept psychologists, counselors and psychiatrists busy with enough work to last them decades. Occasionally, some of these mental phenomenon are discover by those with no knowledge of their remedy or even of their existence. That is the premise of the film entitled "" The Night Listner."" It tells the story of a popular radio host called Gabriel Noon (Robin Williams) who spends his evenings enthralling his audiences with vivid stories about Gay lifestyles. Perhaps its because his show is losing it's authentic veneer which causes Noon to admit he is no longer himself. Feeling abandoned by both his lover Jess (Bobby Cannavale) and his and best friend (Joe Morton), he seeks shelter in his deepening despair and isolation. It is here, a mysterious voice in the night asks him for help. Noon needs to feel useful and reaches out to the desperate voice which belongs to a 14 year old boy called Peter (Rory Culkin). In reading the boy's harrowing manuscript which depicts the early life and sexual abuse at the hands of his brutal parents, Noon is captivated and wants to help. However, things are not what they seem and Noon soon finds himself en-wrapped in an elusive and bizarre tale torn right out of a medical nightmare. This movie is pure Robin Williams and were it not for Toni Collette who plays Donna D. Logand, Sandra Oh as Anna and John Cullum as pop, this might be comical. Instead, this may prove to be one of William's more serious performances. ***",1 -"An old man who lives in the mountains wakes up one morning and loses his cat. He wanders the woods to witness a murder but did he see the murder or is he losing his mind? Is he just getting old? The movie so great because the viewer has to make up their own mind on what is going on. There is very little dialog in this movie but it doesn't need words, the whole movie speaks for itself. You knew what was going on and I liked it.

The other part that I liked were the shots of the woods in late fall and winter. Those were pretty but the only thing I didn't like was the view of the old man in his underwear. He could have tied the robe a little tighter but other than that, it was a pretty deep movie.",1 -"Yes, a true classic! This is what British drama is all about,realism and the minimal use of special effects (and over inflated budgets). I last saw this drama when it was last screened on British terrestial TV in 1994. It truly should be viewed by everyone who likes a scary plot,no big names but non-the-less great acting.Sadly the copywrite is now owned by someone unknown and as such this great drama is unlikely to be aired anytime soon.I myself recently acquired The Woman In Black on VHS,so now once again I shall be able to enjoy this truly great British drama. You should try and enjoy it too!

Mark R. Horobin",1 -"The first half of this movie is a pure delight. Novel. Funny. Wonderful performances. A close knit brother and sister living in Manhattan fall for the same woman! Adult. Bright. Witty. What more could you ask. As a romantic comedy this starts refreshing. It heads into unexplored territory. And then it falls apart.

It goes from being a universal adult comedy to a coming-of-age coming-out-of-the-closet story that has been done many times before. What a disappointment. As a people film it begins with such promise. Why does it need to turn into such a pedestrian ""I am who I am"" film. The freeze-frame ending shot of Heather Graham's jumping in the air to celebrate ""her happiness at finding herself"" underlines the banality of the last part of the film.

It could have been different. It could have been magical. It ended up being the same old same old.",0 -"

eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's other works just a little bit, you'll love this one...",1 -"Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.",0 -"Assault on Precinct 13: 3/10: Let us forget for a moment that Assault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a classic action movie. Taken completely on its own merits Assault is a debacle.

Lets start with the Rio Bravo style scenario. About a dozen people are trapped in a decaying police station in Detroit (If the Detroit location is giving you Robocop warm and fuzzies stop right now. It could have easily said Topeka in the opening credits and nothing would have changed. In fact the last bit in the forest would have made more sense.) Surrounding them are our bad guys; corrupt cops.

Now I know what your thinking. Corrupt cops? Were the Nazis and drug cartels busy that weekend? Of course these are no ordinary cops. These guys are right of the cover of the latest Tom Clancy video game. Yup we have body armor; helicopters; laser sights; night vision goggles the works. So we have thirty S.W.A.T. members/Special Forces armed to the teeth verses 4 cops (drunk mind you it's new years eve), 2 girls in party dresses and half a dozen criminals.

So how do our heroes defend themselves? Truth is they can't. They all should be dead within ten minutes tops. (Not to mention the characters inside have an annoying habit of walking past the windows.) Now an illogical scenario is no reason to completely pan a movie esp. a B style action film. However with the exception of Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke all the other characters seemed to be comic relief. (At least I hope they were)

While Ja-Rules and Leguizamo's characters are bad enough. It's Aisha Hind's minstrel show that takes the cake. Rarely has a more stereotypical African American character appeared on the modern screen. Her performance resembles a frat boy in blackface and drag acting ghetto.

In the original Assault a gang member takes over an Ice-Cream truck and drives around the neighborhood shooting little girls in the head. I have had an irrational fear of ice-cream trucks ever since. After this Assault I have a perfectly rational fear of remakes.",0 -"I hadn't planned on leaving a review, but seeing some of the other dreadful reviews for this movie, I had to say something.

I'm not going to give away the ending or anything, but I do give away some important plot points in this review, so you should be aware of that. The short (non-spoiler) version of my review - Samuel L. Jackson and Geena Davis both kick butt in this movie, and it's a lot of fun. Watch it.

This movie is one of my favorites of all time. Geena Davis is perfect as the action heroine, torn between her existing life as a housewife and mother, and the memories that are resurfacing of her former life as a CIA Assassin. Her performance is superb as she plays both facets of this relatively complex character perfectly.

Samuel L. Jackson's performance is, as always, also excellent, as the Private Investigator that Geena Davis' character hired to look into her forgotten past. He does a great job of playing the unwitting sidekick to Geena Davis' tough character. Some of the lines he utters in this movie are the best he's ever used in any movie he's been in.

Seriously, if you haven't seen it, do. It's a fantastic story with lots of unexpected twists and turns, and it's extremely well directed and acted.",1 -"It is a risky business to film such a lavish production of ""The Merchant of Venice"". It could be a stodgy, wooden, period piece, or it could be laughable for its excesses. This version is neither. While I am not completely sold by Al Pancino's very restrained Shylock, he does give a competent and honorable performance. Jeremy Iron's Antonio, is as always with his tortured-self roles, riveting. Some of the lesser roles seemed to be a little to much in the spirit of boisterous fun, ""a boy's own Venician adventure story"", but the central plot is efficiently and sympathetically moved forward through the film.

It goes without saying, that the location shots, costumes, and interiors were breathtaking, almost to the point of distraction.

One thing, on which I do not wish to comment on, is the anti-semetic content of the play. The film is as sympathetic to the predicament of the Jews as possible while still portraying Shylock as the instrument of his own self-destruction. It is a sad comment that four centuries later, the director of this film found it necessary to comment on his nuanced view before the premiere screening at the Toronto film fest.

This is a beautiful film, and I look forward to several viewings.",1 -"This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.

EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.

INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.

STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.

ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.

With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.

4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.",0 -"Wow, this movie is bad. Think ""Flashdance"" with ninjas. The worst part is when a sword is supposed to be floating in midair, but you can see the strings. Or maybe the worst part is the gigantic eye patch (that looks like a coaster) that the good ninja wears. Actually, there are so many bad parts, I can't make up my mind which is the worst. I can't believe anyone actually put up the money to have this thing made. The only redeeming value is that it is good to laugh at.",0 -"""ASTONISHING"" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...

You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an ""underground cult director"". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.

Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10",0 -"Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.

What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.

Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.

This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris.",0 -"Eight Simple rules started as a very entertaining series. I love John Ritter and his character Paul Hennessey and the relationship he had with his children was the best part of the show.

I have always preferred Kerry to Bridget, Bridget has been done before, Kerry is quite unique and i can relate to her in many ways, although i'm not sure i like the direction her character went in later series.

Early episodes were fun, good simple teenage plots about Paul and Cate disciplining the kids, however i think the show lost it's sparkle when John Ritter died. I admired the cast and crew for wishing to continue the series but when he died, i felt the programme did to. To me the whole point of the show was based around the guide of the '8 simple rules of dating my teenage daughter' it was written by a real man with teenage daughters and the relevance and the angle of the show had changed without the Hennessey dad.

Bridget seemed to get more annoying, Rory stayed the same and Cate was always giving her offspring life's lessons which before seemed funnier when it was all left to Paul. I think the Granddad is funny (Especially when he's watching Great escape) but feel C.J is unnecessary to the show. He is funny in parts but I felt the story lines at the time of his arrival were very similar to other American comedy series. Over all the newer ones aren't bad just missing excitement and does anyone else find it irritating that Cate works at the school and C.J and Granddad's always there too? I would always recommend this show to friends as it was very strong at the beginning and well worth watching for Paul and Kerry, but later ones were about average at best.",1 -"When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state – which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes – jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.

The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect… because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit – which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.

The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately – rather, realistically – his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director… or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie – ANY other movie.",0 -"With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.",0 -"It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.",0 -"I have one word to someup this movie, WOW! I saw ""Darius Goes West"" at the Tribeca Film Festival. People in the theater were sobbing. This movie shows the hardships that Darius sufferes with Muscular Dystrophy. The movie was very well done and really made you part of the movie, I WAS SO emotionally moved by the movie because it made us remember that we are very fortunate to be perfectly healthy, some people in this world are less fortuate then us. And sometimes we should give them a had and help them, to the very end. I would give them ten stars, they gave Darius a had when they weren't asked to, they did't do it for the money they did it for a friend in need, Darius, the world should know, Darius went west.",1 -"Despite its low-key release in this country, and its apparent disregard in other countries (the 'R' rating in the States can't have helped - honestly, just because HBC uses the C-word!), this is actually a fine piece of work. The sentimentality does occasionally threaten to choke it, but it's overcome by the playing of the two leads.

It's easy to win plaudits just because you're playing a physical or mental cripple (Daniel Day-Lewis, Geoffrey Rush, Dustin Hoffman, etc.), and Helena Bonham-Carter may not quite capture the physical degradation of MND, but her vocal stretching and ruthless emotional drive compensate entirely. In fact, almost all her performance is conducted through her eyes (and what eyes!). This is an intelligent turn from an actress who is rapidly undoing her English Rose reputation, and emerging as a figure of some stature. Awards must surely follow, though not, alas, for this fine performance.

Branagh, one feels, has never quite given his best on film (except possibly 'Hamlet', and there his playing was diluted by the large cast). Here, though, he tops his other appearances, playing to the hilt a self-loathing, unstable, ultimately lovable guy with a subtlety he hasn't always displayed, and exhibiting both intelligence and depth. In short, we believe him, just as much as we could NOT believe him as Frankenstein, as the priest in 'The Proposition', as the lawyer in 'The Gingerbread Man', even as Andrew in 'Peter's Friends'. This is surely his finest performance yet - so why could he not produce the goods much earlier?

As a film, it looks more like a television offering, and without its stars it probably wouldn't amount to very much. But it's been a pleasure to see this pair perform their socks off like this, and I eagerly await more from them (though not 'Love's Labour's Lost'...). 8 out of 10, but Branagh and HBC get 10 out of 10.",1 -"I would like to say something different about this movie. I saw comments how beautiful is Russia and the views from Russia have been great. Hey guys this is not Russia it's Bulgaria more specific the capital Sofia. So this is not Russia it's my country. About the movie - well in Bulgaria, maybe except the Grey Zone - all movies from American directors are in one word awful like this one of course. It's a shame that Patrick Swayze has to play in such a low budget movies. Most of the actors are Bulgarians but really this movie has no plot twist has no energy what can i say-weak and boring movie a cliché not more. Hey people remember it's not Russia in reality it's Bulgaria.",0 -"(Warning: May Contain Spoilers) Let Rosalina help Mario lead the way and smile because this game will brighten your day.

120 stars will require luck and skill, but 60 will bring you as much of a thrill!

Blasting through stars show Mario and Luigi and what travelers they now are!

Walking upside down has never been more fun, especially a final battle with Koopa near the Sun!

This is truly a super awesome game and it absolutely deserves a place in Nintendo's Hall of Fame!",1 -"Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.

The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....

There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.

I wasted my time.",0 -"If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.

The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..

Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.

Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. ""Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.

Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.",0 -"May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.

Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.

The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.

The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.

What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.

And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.

/hjm",0 -"L'Appartement is, I think, a very purposeful Hitchcockian film. The plot was rife with symbolism (ie the white and red roses) and plot twists which wrapped themselves up neatly. The look was very Parisian and pulled you closer to the story. I saw it in London and very much regret that it is not out on video in the states",1 -"Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!

I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.",0 -"I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.

The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. ""Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you"" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.

The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. ""This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly"", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...

See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.

3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.",0 -"Whilst reading through the comments left for this show, I couldn't help but notice that a large percentage of the reviewers had either not actually watched any episodes of the show either all the way through or of their own free will. The thing about Kerching! is that it's a children's show, FOR CHILDREN so obviously if your older it is going to seem cheesy, forced, and probably stupid. I even found one person saying the sets were stupid, but I remember as an eight year old wondering why Taj had ikea icecube moulds on his wall, and also wondering if my parents would let me stick some on mine (they didn't). Yeah, it can be annoying, the acting could be better and some of the characters do really weird things with their hair, but as a kids show, I rate it 10/10. Compared to the stuff they air in its place today, well, lets just say I wish it'd be re-aired. DVD release, anyone?",1 -"...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.

Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely ""Hey, kids, let's make a movie!"" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.

It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.

Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to ""The Notorious Bettie Page."" This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.

Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.",0 -"I was very impressed with this small, independently made picture. The story, about a pair of social outcasts who meet, become friends, and provide each other with a support system both seemed to lack as children, is at times hilarious, at times sad, but always provocative. Music, mostly by underground bands, was used to great effect, as was the experimentation with camera angles, filters, and slow or fast motion techniques. The performances (the leads are played by the writers and directors of the film) are some of the best I've seen in the last couple of years. If you ever felt like a square peg being forced into a round slot, I really believe you'll appreciate ""By Hook or By Crook"".",1 -"I first saw this film when I was in the 8th grade and I remember that it had a profound affect on me then. I saw in again about a year ago (I am now 29) and it still moved me in similar ways. This is a great movie that personifies the struggle of ""principle vs. pragmistism"". Voight's character is the idealist teacher that won't give in to any psuedo-racist leanings of the Superintendent, Mr. Skeffington. That story also personifies the struggle of how older people often resist change, and more specifically, cultural change. Often at the expense of children. When these battles finally come to a boil, Pat Conroy loses and pragmatism reigns triumphant. Or does it? The children that he has to leave are better off for knowing him, more exposed to the ""real"" world and to classical music. The other teacher at the school gained respect for him and he learned much about himself. A great film with a heart-breaking ending. I recomend that anyone who enjoyed the film to read the book, ""The Water is Wide"", by Pat Conroy. It will stay with you!",1 -"EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.

Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.

On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.

Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner.",1 -"The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's ""Death Wish II"" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. ""D.W. II"" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). ""10 to Midnight"" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like ""The Evil that Men Do"" and the remaining ""Death Wish"" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.

""Kinjite"" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).

What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like ""The Mechanic"", ""Death Wish"", ""From Noon til 3"", ""Once Upon a Time in the West"", ""Red Sun"", ""The Great Escape"", ""The Magnificent Seven"", ""Rider on the Rain"", etc., etc....",0 -"It's great to see Jorja Fox in a role where she gets to smile a lot. Also loved hearing her sing. Nice change to see her out of her CSI/West Wing/ER roles. The movie itself was entertaining, but it seemed skip some explanation in a lot of parts. Several of the characters seemed to be miserable one minute and happy the next and it was left up to your imagination to figure out why. Each character was quirky though and in some cases, I couldn't wait to see what they would do next or hear what they would say next. This movie wasn't full of squeaky clean people, but rather complicated realistic people who could make mistakes, feel bad about them and then find a way to fix them.",1 -"One of the best musicals ever made, this is an example of where the producers and director were not afraid to pick actors for their talent, rather than for what people might expect. The lighting and set are unique, giving it a very interesting effect (this has a special name that I cannot think of). The dialog is also unique in that no contractions are used. The movie is well paced, beautifully acted and interesting from start to finish. A real joy is the MUSIC. Such an array of first-rate songs, from beginning to end, that are perfectly performed and orchestrated. Also, the music is very original and very memorable, and I think superior to many musicals from the thirties through the sixties. It certainly has more original and beautiful songs than most musicals, that might have only two or three. Not bad for a director with no experience in this type of movie. Another quality is that it is fresh each time one sees it.",1 -"This all-but-ignored masterpiece is about the Monkees becoming aware that they are fictional characters in a movie (Head), and that everything they do or say had already been written in an (unseen) script they seem to be following. Head was written by Jack Nicholson, Rafelson, and Peter Tork during a three-day LSD trip in a suite at an expensive Hollywood hotel. The other three Monkees only acted in it.

They fight this every way they can by doing things not in the script. They deliberately flub their lines, walk off sets, tear up scenery, punch other actors for no reason; and ultimately, commit suicide by jumping off a bridge.

For instance, in the rapid flashes of a psychedelic party scene, if you watch frame-by-frame, you can see Rafelson sitting next to the camera and cameraman, very deliberately shooting into a mirror. He is revealing that the party is actually fake and is being shot in a studio with actors who suddenly drop out of character and walk away in the middle of a conversation when the Director yells ""cut!""

The Monkees, however, never drop out of character because those characters are also who they really are. That ends up being the core of the Revelation soon to come.

At every turn, they realize their increasingly-bizarre actions were exactly what they were supposed to do in the scripted film they can't escape being in. You say they went crazy and walked through the sky (which turns out to be painted on paper and hung from the ceiling as the set's background)? No problem! Hey, hey, they're the Monkees, and those wacky guys just keep monkeying around!

In the end, even their deaths did not set them free. That was how the movie was supposed to end, and their motionless, waterlogged bodies are fished out of the river, put in another box, and stacked in a film studio warehouse until the characters are needed again for another studio production.

This is made all the more poignant by the fact that the Monkees really ARE fictional characters who forced themselves into the real world. They did it through the power of their music.

Ironically, near the end, Peter Tork has what he rightly sees as a hugely profound revelation that solves their problem, but unfortunately, no one listens.

Peter realizes: ""It doesn't MATTER if we're in the box (the film)"". He means that it doesn't matter if will is free or illusory, and that ""the only important thing is that you just let the present moment occur and occur... You need to just let 'now' HAPPEN, as it happens"", without analyzing or evaluating or judging whether the experience is ""valid"" by some abstract definition.

When you can't even tell the difference, will being free or not doesn't matter--tying to figure out if you are the ""real"" you is just a pointless waste of time.

I saw this film at a very important time in my life. I was trying to figure out how to escape being just ""that geeky, creepy nerd girl"" by thinking about it intensely instead of just having fun (i.e., sex) like everyone else did. But the revelation in Head broke my self-imposed recursive trap and helped me more than Rafelson or Nicholson or Tork will ever know.

For decades, I've watched ""Head"" and wished I could thank Pete.

Was this a good movie?

Uhh, how about, like...

==< YES >==",1 -"This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.

Well worth a look, as is its sequel.",1 -"This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business.",0 -"What I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of this movie.",0 -"No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.

Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses

My Grade: D

Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for ""Beyond the Door"", ""Dead Pit"", ""the Farmer"", ""obsessed Ones"", ""Power Play"", ""Sole Survivor"", & ""Wacky Taxi""",0 -"In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of ""Sympathy for the Devil"" in the classic album ""Beggar's Banquet"" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones – Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones – plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements – the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: ""The Stones Rolling; ""Outside Black Novel""; ""Sight and Sound""; ""All About Eve""; ""The Heart of Occident""; ""Inside Black Syntax""; and, ""Under the Stones the Beach"".

""Sympathy for the Devil"" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and ""Sympathy for the Devil"" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): ""Sympathy for the Devil""",0 -"...and this movie easily exceeded my expectations. The fact that it is written and directed by Peter Dalle led me to believe it was in style with other films I'm used to (and bored with) seeing him in. Anyway, I grudgingly went along to see this flick and that I'm glad for. This stuff has humour and depth. 9 out of 10. See it!",1 -"Fantastic Russian WWII movie. Like most Russian WWII movies, The Ascent is incredibly harrowing. It's also dense in its symbolism. The story follows two partisans, Sotnikov and Rybak (Boris Plotnikov and Vladimir Gostyukhin), who go on a mission to search for food. On their trip, they are spotted by German soldiers, who wound Sotnikov. Sotnikov, in turn, kills one of the Germans, which leads to trouble for the two partisans and everyone else they later run into. The greatest success of the film is its vivid sense of place. Russia is frozen and snowy, and it's hard not to feel that cold go straight to your own bones. Shepitko keeps her shot close to the characters, examining every crag of their faces. It was probably not the choice, but the film is framed 1.33:1, which gives the film a sense of claustrophobia. While the entire film is quite an achievement, I did feel that the first half was stronger than the second. My main complaint about the movie is that it develops into a very unsubtle Christian allegory by its climax. I just don't think the symbolism adds much to the proceedings, especially when I was already intrigued by the debate between the two partisans. It's not quite fair. I was weighing the pros and cons of their argument. I began to lean toward the point of view of a certain character, and then the director pops up and tells me that he's Judas! Despite some heavy-handedness, this is still a must-see.",1 -"What a waste! This movie could have really been something decent, but the writing, in particular, is crap, and the main characters are rather shallow and uninteresting. Mike Meyers was good, and the historical recreation of late 70s decadence was well crafted, but overall, this movie was a big waste of time. Instead, the movie to watch, that deals with similar themes and the same basic time frame, is the great BOOGIE NIGHTS.",0 -"I've seen this movie after watching Paltrow's version. I've found that one a very good one, and I thought this would not be as good... but I was wrong: British version was far better and enjoyable! I found Jeremy Northam more ""agreeable"" than Mark Strong, but I can say that Strong catches much better Austen's Knightley. Anyway, both versions are good,but anyone that loved Austen's books, should watch this movie. I agree with *caalling*: Andrew Davies changed a few things, but still remains faithful to the original.

10 out of 10

My 2 cents!",1 -"Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, ""You can't paint that! But I want to!"" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.

The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she ""paints for herself!"" yet falls for the first person she sees.

Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P",0 -"One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.

Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.

20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.

Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.

Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?).",0 -"If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.

This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.

The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him.

I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply ""watch""-- this story.

If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did.",1 -"I had the opportunity to see this last evening at a local film festival. Herzog introduced the film and did an hour long Q&A afterward.

This is a brilliantly done ""documentary""; Herzog explained afterward that he does not consider his films to be true documentary since facts sometimes camouflage the truth. Instead he scripts some scenes and ad-libs some to introduce a new element that may have been missed if he followed the original story outline.

Little Dieter, unlike Timothy Treadwell, is a real person that you fall in love with; you cheer for him, you feel the anguish that he feels. You admire the sense of humor and joy for life that he exhibited here 30 years after he was taken into captivity by the Viet Cong. You are disappointed to hear afterward that Dieter passed on not too long ago.

As in most Herzog films, the imagery is breathtakingly beautiful with a wonderful choice of background music. Especially a scene of battle taken from archives of the Viet Nam war but fitting the story line of Dieter.

The core of the film has Dieter return to the hellish jungle where he was a POW and he re-enacts his journey with some locals. Harrowing for us to watch, I can't imagine what he felt as he was bound again.

One of the better films to depict and discuss the nightmare of the Viet Nam war. It should serve as a lesson to us all.",1 -"Using footage pillaged from Planet of Dinosaurs this shot on video (except for the stolen footage) concerns a bunch of people shot into space who land on a dinosaur planet that is...don't wait for it, is really earth. Its a five minute sketch stretched to 90 minutes. Slightly better than Chickboxer (another in the Bad Movie Police series)-having a nostalgic home movie feel coupled with good stolen effects, this movie is still an impossible slog to get through. I'm left to ponder the question are we becoming so uncreative that we're now pillaging old movies not only for plot but also for mismatched footage? Clearly low budget producers are getting so desperate they really will give us anything to take our money",0 -"Not even Timothy Hutton or David Duchovny could save this dead fish of a film. For starters, the script was definitely written to be made into a B-film, but somehow Duchovny (looking for a star vehicle to elevate himself out of television) and Hutton (looking for the ""two"" of a ""one-two punch"" he had hoped would define his career after ""Ordinary People"") became attached to the picture. Cheesy lines, big bad wipes from scene to scene (Come on--who uses wipes after 12th Grade Telecommunications class?), and plain old bad acting sink this film. Even Duchovny is not immune to the bad acting plague that is this film. Only Timothy Hutton rises above the material at all. I must admit feeling Duchovny's pain as he read the lines that are the voice-over. While I found myself laughing when I'm sure the director wanted me to feel terrified, nothing prepared me for the closing line of Duchonvey's voice-over: ""if you ever need a doctor, be sure to call 911."" If only the studio had called 911, this dog of a motion picture would never have been made. Avoid at all costs.

",0 -"okay, let's cut to the chase - there's no way i can give this anything other then 1 out of 10; and yet you have to see it! The acting is bad, but is nothing like as bad as the script, which itself pales before the production values. Cardboard axes? yup, we've got then. Car floor mats painted silver and used as armour? here it is!

The film itself pretends to be artistic, but is just cheap; the same shots are used repeatedly - especially in the drawn out fight scenes; there is (thankfully!) very little dialogue, and there is much 'artistic' music to ram home the horror!

And yet all this awfulness is compelling - you have to watch it through just so that you can say you've seen it. I've not even got onto the barren sets, the 'plot', or the risible special effects; this really is the 'how not to do it' school of filmmaking. This must be viewed - spread the word, and let the world all join together in puzzling over what on earth is happening at the end

The best thing, though, is that they made a sequel.",0 -"Alright, so maybe the impersonations of Jay Leno and David Letterman are not spot on, but you still get a sense of who these people are and how they operate behind the screen. Bob Balaban and Treat Williams are excellant as Warren Littlefield and Micheal Ovitz.

The movie doesn't go for joke and punchline but it is still funny. Kathy Bates in particular is amazing as Leno's manager.

Funny, amazing, interesting, very watchable, this is a good TV movie.",1 -"I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen ""exorcist: the beginning"" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end.",0 -"This video was my first exposure to Eddie Izzard. We had several friends over one night and for some reason or another had channel-surfed to HBO during the course of the evening. Someone by the name of ""Eddie Izzard"" was on.I tried not to laugh too loudly at the first few jokes. I didn't want to be held ""responsible"" for the rest of the group's enjoyment of something that was obviously killing me. After holding in my laughs for more than was healthful, I let go--as did the others of us(we were not stoned, by the way, nor talking of insurance and pensions...). We were asphyxiated after that. The story lines, the plot, the bizarre yet ingenious connections throughout the sketches are nothing short of brilliance. I have since been addicted to every Eddie-Izzard-piece-of-comedy I can get my hands on. His work is sheer genius. His comedy appears effortless. He seems more like that hysterically funny friend hanging out at your house and rambling on about this or that...It's convulsively funny. He gives you the impression that the joke is between you .. and himself, the only true aficionados of humor, after all. If you are disappointed in this video, you have no sense of the penultimate in humor--or humour, as they say in the UK.",1 -"I loved the movie ""Northfork"". I knew nothing about the movie before watching it. Therefore, I had no outside influence or information to guide me in what I was seeing unfold on the screen. In retrospect I would advise anyone interested in the movie to watch it if for no other reason than the quality actors who appear in it. Do not read anything about the plot, story line, or evaluation of the movie. In fact STOP reading anything further in my comments although I believe they are general and would not spoil the movie for you, I don't want to diminish the value of the movie to you. Find your own path of meaning in this film or it is diminished in its potential.

In general, I found the 3 benign strangers in Northfolk puzzling. As the movie unfolds, they could qualify as three entertaining escapees from a mental hospital or, the dreams and hallucinations of a sick and feverish young boy, or three angels ""sent"" to find the ""lost angel"".

The sick and perhaps dying boy works to convince the three ""strangers"" to abandon the search for the lost angel, become his guardians (mother & father), and take him safely far away from Northfork (no less than 1000 miles). He even declares that he is the lost angel to try to manipulate them all to be his guardian. Only one of the three responds to the boy on a positive basis. The other two have no real enthusiasm or passion for this involvement.

The priest who is nursing the sick boy demonstrates a depth of caring for people and a deep conviction toward his faith. He transcends the desolation and emptiness of Northfork and its people; he is the light of goodness and hope to both Northfork and to the movie viewer.

Near the climax of the movie, the boy and new guardian journey over land to a field where a plane waits. They board to find the other two strangers also on the plane; in fact one is the pilot. The engines start and the plane takes off.

Who are the 3 strangers? If only one stranger was interested in helping the boy why were all three on the plane? Where is the plane going? Did the other two find the ""Lost Angel""? Is there a lost angel and if so who is it? Who are the six men dressed like undertakers? If all of this is just the sick boy's feverish dreams, how did one of the 3 strangers end up reaching out to help one of the men dressed like an undertaker when he jumped and hit his head(neither the boy or strangers had contact with these men)?

One or two sentences written under the title telling people what this movie is about is a tragic mistake (this is not a spoiler, it's statement about advertising only). So if you haven't seen the movie, Northfork, the questions above show only a few of the interesting and fun forks in the road of thought when you view the film Northfork. If you read the advertising summary of the plot of the movie before you watched it previously, maybe you ought to look at some of the questions above and watch it again... I know I will.

Terry",1 -"A strangely enjoyable effort, combining an appropriately far-fetched plot involving Adam and Burt and flashbacks to the original TV series. Most of the flashback scenes were lifted directly from Burt Ward's book ""Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights"" and I imagine his book was the inspiration for making this movie. Like the book, it left fans of the original series hungering for more.

If you missed this broadcast, it is definitely worth the effort to borrow a tape from a friend who may have recorded it. I'm making a copy for my kids right now.",1 -"If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.)",0 -"A boy who adores Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens receives, much to his horror, a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater in the mail. I recently watched this in a class in which few of the students were interested in hockey, but nearly everyone knew about Maurice Richard and the Toronto/Montreal rivalry. Highly entertaining, amusing, and accurate.",1 -"If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.

The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.

The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.

Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.",0 -"Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.

""Snakes On A Train"", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster ""Snakes On A Plane"" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.

Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.

The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.

The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.

And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself.",0 -"Nothing is worse than the genocides of our world's history. This film attempts to describe the horror faced by one particular family - a common narrative device - in the atomic bomb world of Hiroshima. The most memorable parts are the graphic and saddening images that the people of Hiroshima face in the aftermath of war. The story, however, becomes more concerned with the effect on a specific group of people and how they cope with getting on with their lives; in other words, if you don't really care about them, the film grows boring. It's hard not to care, though, when a family's homeland is wrecked. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, because it says very little politically and, honestly, did not keep my interest in the family's troubles.",1 -"I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.

As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.

I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.

I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.

* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them)",0 -"Way too many Christian films become centered around the fear of the Judgment, and as a result come across as condescending and indeliberately cheesy. ""Second Glance"" gets it right. This is a near perfect evangelical tool; it deals with the real reason why so many young people want nothing to do with Christianity. It assures viewers that one must give up their sin--not their fun--to succeed in the Christian lifestyle. ""Second Glance"" even works as a piece of film-making. The filmmakers obviously were working on a very low budget, but they managed to write a script dynamic enough to divert viewers' attention from this obvious fact. This film brought me to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and thanks to Christian stations everywhere which show it, it surely has impacted more people than just me.",1 -"Can Scarcely Imagine a Better Movie Than This

Hey, before you all go ""Chick Flick"" on me. I am a very Large Strong & Masculine, Macho Man, who happens to think this was one of the better movies of the last 20 years.

The acting was Superb and the Story was Marvelous. This is wonderful medicine for the heart and soul. The Acting could not have been better nor the movie better cast.

I have known for a Good while that Mercedes Ruehl, along with Holly Hunter, Joan Plowright, Dame Edith Evans, Sissy Spacek, Judi Dench is among the greatest actresses ever to appear on film. And of course Cloris Leachman (also in this film) in my view may in fact exceed them all in the shear magnum of her talent and varied roles she has appeared in over the years.. At any rate this was an Amazing cast. This film was like a book that you cannot lay down, and when you have reached the last page wish for more...still more. I cannot for the life of me understand why this film here on the IMDb only rates a 3.9

That rating here is utterly Amazing to me. Or perhaps not. Perhaps in fact I do understand it ever so well and that is what makes me really sad. It makes me ever so sad that films like ""American Beauty"" ""Leaving Las Vegas"" ""Sexy Beast"" and ""Fight Club"" ratings skyrocket off the charts in popularity when they in fact at least in this viewers opinion should have received an ""R"" rating...R that is for ""Rubbish"". Hey o.k., I realize there are a lot of different stories in this world for a lot of different audiences, but it is a sad commentary when this lovely, powerful...extraordinarily, Directed, Acted, and written film seems to be over looked.

It obviously was at the Academy Awards as well....How Sad. And How predictable. My summation is that if you want to see a powerful, Happy, Sad, beautiful story? watch ......preferably own this film...",1 -"This obviously was a pretty low budget production, but the cast was pretty decent, the basic premise had promise, and something more could have been done with it, but the script wasn't that great- the plot is incoherent and seems almost random at times and the dialog is stilted and terrible.

Basically, a girl's father gets whacked by fellow gangsters, and later she becomes a robber, and wants to avenge his death, and then it goes into a mob protection racket involving corrupt politicians.

Alan Ladd gets top billing but he really plays a very minor role.

I have to say I found it mildly entertaining in its archaic B-grade hokiness but it really is shoddy and pathetic.",0 -"Big Fat Liar is a great watch for kids of all ages, even adults. I had a great time watching this movie and recommend this to kids of 10 years and under. The laughs never end and the adventurous plot is pretty good too! Frankie Muniz is funny and Marty Wolfe is hilarious! Overall, a nicely made film for kids to enjoy and just have a great time.",1 -"I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie ""Children Of The Corn."" Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you.",0 -"The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.

I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.

Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.",0 -"The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.

Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone ""Godspeed"" this makes it a ""Christian"" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the ""Land of Plenty"" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent ""pink"" are we to think America is a ""Land of Plenty"" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the ""Continent of Plenty"" when it comes to sophistication.

Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the ""Land of Plenty"" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have ""plenty"" of time to waste watching this piece.",0 -"I truly hate and despise this film and the filmmakers behind it.

Sure, I'm all for making a hard hitting and honest film about youth and youth culture.1987's ""River's Edge"" is an excellent example of a well-made teen drama. However, what I take exception to is the infantile, grubby and sensationalist approach that the makers of ""2:37"" took.

A prime example is how it raises so many issues and yet fails in any significant way to comment or reach a resolution on even one of them.

My other major problem with this film, apart from its complete plagiarism of Gus Van Sant's ""Elephant"" (surprised Van Sant didn't sue) is its 'bull loose in a china shop' attitude to quite delicate issues such as incest and particularly suicide.

In short, avoid this film like the plague and anything that this filmmaker ever is involved with subsequently. I've heard that his motivation for making ""2:37"" may or may not be based on lies. Having seen the substandard result, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. This is a glorified student film exercise that has no place whatsoever being in a cinema or on DVD. Pure and simple.",0 -"A movie made for contemporary audience. The masses get to see what they want to see. Action, comedy, drama and of course sensuous scenes as well. This is not exactly a movie that one would feel comfortable watching with entire family. It isn't for eyes of children. I had to fast forward quite a number of scenes.

If it is just entertainment you are looking for, then this movie has it all. The songs are catchy. A lavish production, I must add.

However, the message of the movie is not universal. It emphasizes on the idea of karma. That is, if you do good, you will get good. And if you do evil, you will get evil. The fruit of good deeds is good, while the fruit of evil is evil.

In real life, this is not always true. It is well-known that most people do not get justice in this world. While it is true that some evil people do meet with an evil end, there are many who escape. And then, there are many people who do good, and yet in return they meet with a sorry end.

If you don't care about the message, and all you want is an escape from worldly reality, this movie is an entertainer alright.",1 -"Gregory Peck's brilliant portrayal of Douglas MacArthur from the Battle of Corregidor in the Philippines at the start of the Pacific War largely through to his removal as UN Commander during the Korean War offers reason to believe all three of the above possibilities. Certainly the most controversial American General of the Second World War (and possibly ever) MacArthur is presented here as a man of massive contradictions. He claims that soldiers above all yearn for peace, yet he obviously glories in war; he consistently denies any political ambitions, yet almost everything he does is deliberately used to boost himself as a presidential candidate; he obviously believes that soldiers under his command have to follow his orders to the letter, yet he himself deliberately defies orders from the President of the United States; he shows great respect for other cultures (particularly in the Philippines and Japan) and yet is completely out of touch with his own country. All these things are held in balance throughout this movie, and in the end the viewer is left to draw his or her own conclusions about the man, although one is left with no doubt that MacArthur sincerely and passionately loved his country, and especially the Army he devoted his life to.

Peck's performance was, as I said, brilliant - to the point, actually, of overshadowing virtually everyone else in the film (which is perhaps appropriate, given who he was portraying!) with the possible exception of Ed Flanders. I though he offered a compelling look at Harry Truman and his attitude to MacArthur: sarcastic (repeatedly referring to MacArthur as ""His Majesty,"") angry, frustrated and finally completely fed up with this General who simply won't respect his authority as President. Marj Dusay was also intriguing as MacArhur's wife Jean, devoted to her husband (whom she herself referred to as ""General,"" although their relationship seems to have been a happy enough one.) I very much enjoyed this movie, although perhaps would have liked to have learned a little more about MacArthur's early life. I have always chuckled at MacArthur's reaction to Eisenhower being elected President (""He'll make a fine President - he was the best damn clerk I ever had"" - which seems to sum up what MacArthur thought the role of the President should be, especially to his military commanders during wartime.) Well worth watching. 8/10",1 -"Power Rangers, the completely awful kid's show from the 1990s still continues to disturb young children with it's complete cheesiness, and awful settings.

This show was not entertainment, it was an excuse to teach children violence in showing kids how to fight one another in order to solve their differences.

The toys were further demonstration in how to promote a violent television show and such.

I have never been able to figure out what the purpose of this completely ridiculous show ever was.

As such, it remains one of the worst kids shows ever made.",0 -"Any movie that shows federal PIGs (Persons In Government) to be the power-mad threats they are in real life has a lot to recommend it to me.

Alas, the script supervision and editing and even, at times, the directing are flawed so there will be people who will disparage the whole movie and ignore the good moments.

I saw the original way back when it was new and hated it, despised it, loathed it. Thought it was a terrible, irrational piece of junk.

Now, though, I don't remember why.

I believe the two should not be compared or even connected.

Consider them as two different movies.

Rate them as two different movies.

This ""Vanishing Point"" provides a rallying place, a banner for people who want to encourage individualism, who believe in human rights, who recognize the threat to freedom government can be and is, especially the federal government.

""The Voice"" wears a cap bearing the state motto of New Hampshire: ""Live Free or Die."" At one time it would have been the motto of most Americans.

Despite its obvious flaws, ""Vanishing Point"" is a film to cheer.",1 -"Karen (Sarah Michelle Gellar), an exchange student in Japan who is just beginning to do some social work, is sent to aid an elderly semi-catatonic woman, Emma (Grace Zabriskie), after her previous caretaker, Yoko (Yoko Maki), disappears. Karen soon learns that something is not right in Emma's home, and she attempts to ""see how deep the rabbit hole goes"".

Maybe it's a delayed influence from the success of M. Night Shyamalan's films, but slower-paced, understated horror films are a recent trend. In some cases, such as Hide and Seek (2005), the approach works remarkably well, and in others, such as White Noise (2005), the pacing tends to kill the film. I didn't like The Grudge quite as much as Hide and Seek, but this is still a very good film--it earns a 9 out of 10 from me.

The Grudge has a couple significant differences from other recent examples of that trend, however. One, it is well known that this is a remake based on the Japanese film series that began with Ju-On (2000) (in particular, it's extremely close to the first half of Ju-On: The Grudge, aka Ju-On 3, from 2003). Two, as with many Japanese horror films, the slower pacing here isn't so much in the realm of realist drama as with surrealism. As is also the case with a large percentage of European horror, The Grudge should be looked at more as a filmed nightmare.

Director Takashi Shimizu, also the director of the five Japanese entries in the Ju-On series to date (the fifth is currently in production), and writer Stephen Susco have largely dispensed with linearity and are not overly concerned with logic or plot holes when it comes to the horror behind the story. The idea instead is to present a dreamlike sequence of scenes, with dream logic, where the focus is atmosphere, creepiness, the uncanny, and for many viewers--scares. How well the film works for you will largely depend on how well you can adapt yourself to, or are used to, this different approach to film-making (although admittedly, some of the seeming gaps are filled in by previous entries in the Ju-On series). Traditionally, American audiences consider as flaws leaving plot threads hanging and abandoning ""rules"" for the ""monster"". A more poetic, metaphorical, surreal approach to film isn't yet accepted by the mainstream in the U.S.

However, even if you're not used to it, it's worth trying to suspend your normal preconceptions about films and give The Grudge a shot. This is a well written, well directed, well acted film, filled with unusual properties, such as the story interweaving a large number of ""main characters"" (which is done better here than the more episodic Ju-On 3), good cinematography, subtle production design touches (check out Gellar's clothes, which match the color and texture of the exterior of Emma's house, when Gellar first approaches), and beautifully effective horror material.

Even though it is more slowly paced that your average horror film of the past, the pacing usually enhances the eeriness, and there is no shortage of bizarre events to keep horror fans entertained. The supernatural premise of the film is absorbing, and based on interviews on the DVD with Shimizu, have prodded me to pay more attention to Japanese beliefs and folklore. Although the most interesting subtexts would probably arise with a more intimate knowledge of Japanese culture, it's interesting to ponder why so many Japanese horror films feature scary children and adults who look like scary children.

I subtracted one point for the film slightly veering into clichéd mystery/thriller territory with a ""here's what really happened"" flashback, but even that was fairly well done, and otherwise, this would have been a 10 out of 10.

Now that I've said all of the above, let me finish with a mini-rant: It's not that I'm anti-remake, but it is ridiculous that U.S. distributors and studios feel that we need remakes of foreign films to make them appropriate for consumption. The original versions of these films should just be playing in U.S. theaters in wide release. There is no need to present an almost identical film but just substituting white American actors for non-white or foreign actors. Yes, The Grudge is a fine film, but ultimately, I'd rather see something original using this talent, and be treated to the latest foreign horror films--not just Japanese, but also Indian, Spanish, Chinese, etc.--at my multiplex. In the hope that someone with some pull at the studios reads this, it is also more cost-effective to do this, as (1) you can completely avoid production costs, and simply make domestic distribution deals from which you receive profit, and (2) you can make money off of fans like myself who otherwise pick up the foreign film DVDs in foreign manufactured or even bootleg versions.",1 -"Eisenstien's ""Potempkin"", (Bronenosets Potyomkin), is among the finest films ever made and possibly the best of the silent era. Eisenstien was a pioneer of film form and his use of montage editing has influenced films to this day. The Odessa Steps massacre footage is as powerful today as it was when first seen over 70 years ago. DO NOT pass up the chance to see this film!",1 -"this is seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love Japanese movies, and i think another film by the same director, electric dragon 80,000 v, is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie - asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn't find anything entertaining about it.

the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used - like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion - merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind-bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary - like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn't worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow Japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn't believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this, but sadly i was mistaken.",0 -"This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. ""Stroker Ace"" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.",0 -"Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.

The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.

As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.

Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.

And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.

So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.

So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.",0 -"When I first saw this movie, I thought it was the typical ""love thy neighbour"" stuff....The more the movie was going on, the more I got involved. Acting is magnificent from both actors, direction was great, the story unusual. Cried my eyes off, first time in my life for a movie. A real must have in any serious videoteque. 11 out of 10",1 -"Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country.",0 -"Much of ""Over Her Dead Body"" is so painfully unfunny that I was actually squirming in my seat out of embarrassment for the actors.

Eva Longoria proves that she can't carry a film in this terrible romantic comedy, and further, that she doesn't really even have any comedic timing. She's grating and annoying as a ghost who returns to earth to keep a cooky psychic from dating her widower fiancé. The fiancé is played by Paul Rudd, drippy and charmless, while the psychic is played by Lake Bell, bringing the movie whatever anemic energy it has. I felt most sorry for Bell, as she appears to have some comic abilities and was working overtime in an effort to make the material work. Unfortunately, she is up against the insurmountable task of making any movie that features Jason Biggs tolerable, and she is dragged down with the rest of the cast like Leo DiCaprio at the end of ""Titanic.""

""Over Her Dead Body"" actually pi**ed me off, because of its laziness and utter lack of effort. I started to think of all the interesting projects that can't get funded because vast amounts of money are being funneled into bland crap like this. Seriously, does Hollywood think movies like this are good enough? How stupid do they really think the movie-going public is?

Grade: F",0 -"Renowned Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský, mostly known in North America for his leading role as Jacob in the original Est German/Czech production of Jacob the Liar (Jakob, der Lügner 1974) gives us a last brilliant performance as a 80 year old prankster who refuses to admit that he is about to die.

Jirí Hubac's screenplay is exquisite. Funny, moving and well-developed. It explores well both the subject of advanced old age and the motivations of characters that are precariously strong and fragile, happy and unsettled.

Frantisek (Vlastimil Brodský) and his best friend Eda (Stanislav Zindulka) are up to all types of shenanigans and are making sure to make the best out of their dying days. Meanwhile, Frantisek's wife is preparing for their death, saving up for funeral money and chastising Frantisek for his endless childishness and irresponsible attitude. Their son is about to take their apartment over and put them into a retirement home, but Frantisek doesn't want to hear any of that. He wants to enjoy life and make people around him laugh. He wants to help and love and give... but at what cost?

Sure to captivate adults of all ages, this fine piece of film by talented director Vladimír Michálek is both touching and funny. It makes you think of how we live our lives and why we live our lives. It brings the simple story of a charming stubborn old man to the forefront and allow us to reflect and feel what life is all about.

After an active career lasting more than 40 years, it is somewhat sombre to know that Vlastimil Brodsk died in April 2002, no longer in the grip of terminal cancer. It is however uplifting to think that he had the chance to be a part of such a moving script and to be the catalyst of this ode to joyful old age that has not even started to make the waves it is about to create in North American repertoire cinema.

After the international success of Jan Hrebejk's ""Divided We Fall (2000)"", it is starting to be clear that Czech cinema has indeed something to offer to the world. This film at least is a must see.",1 -"Sports movies have never been my thing, but a small handful of them work for me. The best are the those which focus less on the sport and more on the character, such as Raging Bull, the Wrestler and Girlfight. This is a great directorial debut for Karyn Kusama, and an outstanding first performance for Michelle Rodriguez. Girlfight feels is both realistic and involving, that is enough so to make it a memorable film.

The plot is strait forward enough. Diana Guzman, is in her fourth year of high school, but due to her picking fights in the hallway she is close to expulsion. As a possible means of unleashing her anger, she signs up for Boxing lessons at the club where her brother is training (at the wishes of there father).

In the course of ninety minutes, we the viewers see something extraordinary. Diana almost literally changes from a girl to a woman. We see it in her body as well as her behaviour, especially when one of the boys at the club finds himself drawn to her, and she gets into it. There is not a bad scene or a lame/contrived moment in the film. The only error that I would say could be corrected is that one of the subplots ends on what feels like an unfinished note. Aside from that, Girlfight is a great movie.",1 -"Bled starts as young female artist Sai (Sarah Ferooqui) meets a mysterious yet charming man named Renfield (Jonathan Oldham) & they end up back at her studio apartment where he gives her the bark of some sort of tree which is used as a hallucinogenic drug when melted down. Sai quickly becomes hooked as she is whisked into an alternate fantasy reality which involve Vampiric creatures. Sai's photographer friend Royce (Chris Ivan Cevic) becomes concerned about her as she drifts further from reality as she becomes addicted to the drug, can Royce her kick the drug or will it end up ruining her life & why did the mysterious Renfield get her addicted to the stuff in the first place & do the elaborate fantasy dream like trips have any significance?

Co-produced & directed by Christopher Hutson this anaemic arty Vampire flick is pretty much 95 minutes of tedium & is throughly deserving of all the bad comments. The script was written by the interestingly named Sxv'leithan Essex (how the hell do you even pronounce that anyway?) who is also credited as production designer & his unusual name is actually more interesting than anything that ever happens in Bled, I would guess that the makers set out to make a very serious fantasy based horror film with a strong moral message about the dangers of drugs, drug addiction & date rape drug at it's core. The majority of the film is spent on the drug issue with Sai's initial introduction to the drug, how great the first time was & how she becomes hopelessly addicted which eventually destroys her, her life & her friends lives. It's never explained where she keeps getting this drug from as Renfield only gives her a little bit during their initial meeting but hey, who cares? The first twenty odd minutes of Bled are really boring & dull, the following hour or so aren't much better before a mess of a final ten minutes which involve a Vampiric monster & Renfield making a reappearance. The moral elements are patronising, the fantasy elements seem like an afterthought & the horror is none existent. There's also the dialogue which is awful, every sentence tries to be profound, have loads of hidden depth & just tries to have so much meaning that it becomes tiresome to listen to.

The concept of the film is terrible & so is the execution as there's absolutely no gore or violence to speak of & the entire thing is set inside an apartment that doesn't appear to have any lights. The fantasy setting looks a little better but it's sparsely seen & underused. There are no scares here, no atmosphere & to make matters even worse the makers have decided to used muted very faded colours which I just hate & find annoying, what's wrong with a nice colourful image? It seems to me to be a fad with current filmmakers who seem to think that it automatically makes a film cool or adds atmosphere which it most certainly doesn't, more often than not it just makes your film look dull & drab as evidenced here with Bled.

This probably had a low budget & was shot in Los Angeles & it has reasonable production values but it's all so dull. The acting didn't impress me, I didn't care for or about anyone which is never a good sign.

Bled is a terrible Vampire film that goes for psychological horror as well as physical with all sorts of parallels to real life dug addiction & what it can do to little or no effect because the whole thing is so dull. There might be an audience for a film such as this but considering the other comments not that big a one.",0 -"My first impression when I read the synopsis for the upcoming movie was that it was going to be very, very different from the book. The movie trailer said that the movie is supposed to take place when Vivian is 19 years old after her parents were killed in a fire in America. She meets Aiden, an aspiring graphic novelist. Working in a chocolate shop in the day, she must accept that she will never be normal, because every full moon, she becomes a loup-garou--a thought-to-be mythical creature that can be closely compared to a werewolf.

Most of the little changes didn't sound too bad to me, even though I am a fan of the book with the shared titled by Annette Curtis Klause. I knew it would be different, but I wanted to see it to support the book, thinking that an age change, a setting change, and a few little occupation changes wouldn't impact the storyline as a whole enough to make me want to tear my eyes out of their sockets and leave myself bleeding on the movie theatre ground.

The movie unnecessarily killed off many important characters, one being Esme, Vivan's mother, right off the bat in the fire that was supposed to have killed her father. I pushed that aside and ventured forth into the movie, weary and slightly annoyed. Running through Romania, the camera angles were decent, the scenery was beautiful, and the music was... interesting... but it left me with the impression of, ""Why does Vivian look like that, and why is she wearing a hoodie?"" Jumping to later parts of the movie, I must say that I am surprised that the screenplay writers seemed to support incest in a way and rather than sticking to the character relationship from the book between Vivian and Rafe, the leader of The Five now became her cousin through her (surprise!) Aunt Astrid, who, in the novel, was the bitter and hated rival of Vivan's mother, and, might I add, no way related to either of them.

To top off character distortions, Gabriel had somehow become the leader of the pack and obsessed over Vivian being his mate so they could fulfill some nonexistent prophecy. Not only did his physical appearance take a complete 180 from the description in the book, he was, apparently, also the father of Rafe. Yes, that's right, it's a nice little incestuous knot of wolfies all bundled up tight.

Little things that irked me were scenes like the forest hunts. There was a red-head that stood out from the rest of the crowd, the one who ""kissed their enemy"" before their prey was set free to run and be hunted. Why was she there? Why did she look like Astrid? I suppose my mind is not vast enough to understand why such a character had to exist in the movie without any explanation as to WHY she existed other than to kiss pretty victims.

I loved how the Amoeba was completely cut out of the movie. I loved how legally entwined Aiden's past was, what between the supposedly dramatic scene where he was telling Vivian about how his father wanted him to learn self-defense, and then beat his father up ""in self-defense"" to make him seem like such a tragic character.

Character 180s are a lot of fun when they are completely unnecessary. At the end of the movie, I felt as if some person skimmed over the novel, scribbled down half the list of character names, drew a few connections here and there, mentioned that Gabriel was a bit of a jerk, Vivian fell in love with Aiden, he fears her when he finds out she is a loup-garou of the legends, and ""somebody"" is ""killed by a silver bullet"" and there is some sort of happy ending because Vivian finally feels accepted by somebody who loves her for who she is.

I gave this movie a 2/10 because the camera shots were relatively decent, and the casting could have been worse, but as far as directing goes, why do the loup-garous leap into the air in human form as if they want to fly (with their arched backs and penchant to leap from high places), shimmer briefly, and then fall onto the ground as wolves? The only aspects of this movie that even had me watch it through to the very-sordid, sorry ending were the wolves, the beautiful scenery, and the eye-candy boys.

All-together, I must say that in order to enjoy this film at all, one must be ready for misconceptions, strange happenings that are not always explained, incestuous innuendos, and have either not liked the book, or have not read the book.",0 -"Panic is a sneaky little gem of a film - you think you have it figured out by the first half hour only to realize, with great pleasure, that Henry Bromell is a much better writer/director than that.

The film builds slowly, with one quietly devastating scene after another, all enacted perfectly by William H. Macy, Donald Sutherland, Neve Campbell, Tracey Ullman, John Ritter, and the most remarkable child actor I've seen in a long time, David Dorfman, as Macy's son, who delivers his lines as if they're completely unscripted thoughts being created in his mind. Rich and rewarding, this film will stay with you long after the credits have rolled.",1 -"I've had this movie on tape for years and started watching it again this morning (while waiting for my laundry --- how ironic!) mostly because I wanted to hear Benjamin Frankel's title music again. I ended up sitting through about the first half hour, entranced by how wonderfully assured the direction, writing, and performances are. The movie is like a who's who of 50s British character stars: Cecil Parker, Michael Gough, Miles Malleson, Duncan Lamont, and particularly Ernest Thesiger, great as the dessicated old giant of the textile mills. Not to mention Alec Guinness and Joan Greenwood, not character players as such but charming, charismatic leads. This is science fiction in its purest form and droll comedy as well. An all-time classic, and I hope no one ever tries to remake it!",1 -"The Plainsman is an entertaining western, no doubt a classic, which is actual even today. Gary Cooper is Wild Bill Hickok, ideal for the role, together with John Wayne and James Stewart, they were the best actors that played western heroes in their generation. Jean Arthur is great as Calamity Jane, nobody that I know played it better than her. Even if might not be historically accurate, the film manages to capture the most important about Hickok and about the time it takes place. Sometimes you have to sacrifice History to make your point and that is what DeMille does here. The friendship of Hickok with Buffalo Bill, the selling of rifles to the Indians by a great manufacturer to compensate for the losses he would have because of the end of the civil war, Custer and Little Big Horn, the uneasy relationship between Buffalo Bill's wife, a religious woman, with Hickok a man who had killed plenty, also the unusual love affair between Hickok and Calamity all this makes 'The Plainsman' a non conventional and interesting film. Anthony Quinn has a very short appearance, that already shows what a great actor he was going to become. A lot of care was taken to show the original guns of that time.",1 -"There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This ""dramatic scene"" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either.

Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.

The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question ""why did they even choose to make this in the first place?"". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.",0 -"There are a number of reviews that comment on the cast of this film. Suffice it to say that Alex Cord plays a strong lead opposite Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy. What concerns me is that many of you may not be aware of the (at least) two existing versions of this film. In the U.S. version Clay McCord gains amnesty from Governor Lem Carter and then rides out of town redeemed. I agree that ending is less than satisfying. However, in the original Italian cut Clay McCord rides out of town (weaponless as he has turned in his pistols to the Governor) and is bushwhacked by the bounty hunters that have been slowly depopulating the bandit town of Escondido. The Bounty Killers are excited at the prospect of splitting the $10,000 reward but are disappointed to find McCord's amnesty agreement in the corpses pocket. As they ride away one is heard to comment,""If this amnesty keeps up I'm gonna start hunting buffalo !"" . This alone takes A Minute To Pray...A Second To Die and places it on an even playing field with movies like Keoma and The Big Gundown. As the end credits say in the Italian cut ""FINE"".",1 -"I've heard about this documentary for so long I knew I needed to take the time to watch it. As a documentary it's very well done, in that it takes a neutral observant view of their experience. There are no voice-overs, or interviewing. It is honest. It is true. It is also humbling. Two comments really stayed with me after the film was done. One was how the boys are told to not to become like the American boys who wear the baggy pants, and how in Africa there is time but no money, but in America there is money but no time. The biggest impact was how the boys hungered for education, and how one of the boys totally relocated himself so he could go to school. I watched this film with a high school sophomore who said it upset him to see how the boys were brought to their new life without any real orientation to America. He also said he knew so many American teens who simply cannot appreciate howblessed their lives are in America. I would agree with him on both accounts. A strong film that will leave a person thinking about many things.",1 -"Beautiful story of Wisconsin native, Dan Jansen, and his real life, agonizing struggle to win the 1994 Olympic Gold Medal in Speed Skating, despite his overwhelming emotional loss with the death of his much loved Best Friend and Family Member; his Sister, Jane.

This story's main focus is to sensitively portray the real life emotional turmoil of grief, that one feels in loosing a special Loved One, and the struggle to productively cope and rise above the great loss! It is the incredible story of Dan Jansen's heartbreak in loosing his beloved Sister to Leukemia, his struggle to cope with the intensity of his grief, while still maintaining his Dream to win at the Olympics, and his ultimate triumph in winning the Gold Medal in Speed Skating for America, and in honor of his Sister's memory; thereby fulfilling his childhood promise to Jane!

After Dan Jansen's remarkable Gold Medal performance in the Winter Olympic in Lillihamer, Norway, he established a Foundation in 1994 to help fight Leukemia, which claimed the life of his Sister, and to support youth sports programs, educational and scholarship awards. His Dan Jansen Foundation promotes the philosophy that: ""as his Father always told him at a young age: 'there is more to life than skating around in circles!' Maintaining a proper perspective is key! So, too, is setting goals, and realizing one's Dreams through perseverence, overcoming adversity and never giving up!""

Recommended for anyone who has ever suffered the great loss of someone very special, and dearly loved within your life! And, for anyone who still believes in the Achievement of Dreams, and Never Giving Up!",1 -"This movie is one of the worst comedy movies i have ever seen. I hate these Napoleon Dynamite rip-offs. Just face it people the dumb humor has been mastered already. Make something new for once. All these new comedies are just horrible. And coming out of SNL Andy Samberg is not ready for a lead role yet. I hope he can bounce back from this awful movie. And Will Arnetts character is just plain bad. Hey Will, did you read the script. The plot is truly the worst ever written. Now you tell me if this is weird. (this is the movie) Rod Kimble's step dad Frank is dying and the family needs $50,000 to pay for the heart surgery so Rod is planning this huge jump to raise money for Frank. Only so that Rod can beat Frank in a fight and prove his manliness. Yes thats the movie, you tell me, would u spend $7.00 to see that piece of crap!

3/10 just horrible

-adam",0 -"Watching ""Kroko"" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.",0 -"I would recommend this for anyone who is an admirer of the late John Cassavetes. And for those who have never known of Cassavetes. It is an excellent film. I really don't have the time to go into the details of why this is my opinion, but if you're looking for something gutsy, with lots of scenes to mull over, then this one is for you. The cinematography is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the film, as well as the story itself. This ""review"" does not do the film justice. It is an experience one must view for themselves. LOTS OF CHARACTER. VERY GENUINE.",1 -"This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.

Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.

Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.

10/10",1 -"This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as she was in ""Return of the Living Dead"" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and chaste character before going on to ""Dallas,"" and we are also introduced to Amelia [soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of people compare this movie to ""The Evil Dead,"" but if anything, this movie is a rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is far superior to that one !",1 -"I really wish that when making a comedy, the people actually tried to make it funny. This is a film that you can sit through, but nothing is special about it. After watching it, you will say that it was alright. It was not boring to watch, but gave the audience no jokes to laugh at. Entertainment should mean that you actually get something more than an o.k. story. This movie wanted to be ""Tootsie"", but instead it failed.

I gave it a 1 out of 10.",0 -"A young couple -- father Ben (solid Charles Bateman), wife Nicky (the lovely Ahna Capri) and their daughter KT (the cute Geri Reischl of ""I Dismember Mama"" fame) -- find themselves trapped in a small California desert town populated by hysterical lunatics. Worse yet, there's a pernicious Satanic cult that's been abducting little children for their own diabolical purposes. Director Bernard McEveety, working from an offbeat and inspired script by William Welch and L.Q. Jones (""Devil Times Five"" director Sean MacGregor came up with the bizarre story), relates the compellingly oddball plot at a slow, yet steady pace and ably creates a creepy, edgy, mysterious ooga-booga atmosphere. Strother Martin delivers a wonderfully wicked and robust performance as Doc Duncan, who's the gleefully sinister leader of the evil sect. The top-rate cast of excellent character actors qualifies as a substantial asset: Jones as gruff, no-nonsense Sheriff Hillsboro, Alvy Moore as friendly local Toby, and Charles Robinson as a shrewd, fiercely devout priest Jack. John Arthur Morrill's bright, polished widescreen cinematography, Jamie Mendoza-Nava's spooky score, and the wild, rousing climactic black mass ritual are all likewise up to speed. The idea of having toys come to murderous life is simply ingenious (the opening scene with a toy tank coming real and crushing a family in their car is truly jolting). Nice eerily ambiguous ending, too. A pleasingly idiosyncratic and under-appreciated winner.",1 -"EDDIE MURPHY DELIRIOUS is easily the funniest stand-up concert film I have ever seen. Most stand-up acts usually have lulls at some point, but not this one folks. For 90 min there is not one moment that is not side-splittingly funny. From the moment Eddie does a hilariously dead-on impression of Mr.T, the laughs are non-stop.

Sadly, this was done in 1983, and Eddie hasn't done anything nearly as funny. it's unbelievable that the man who wrote this phenomenally brilliant show, wrote a movie called HARLEM NIGHTS which was not very funny at all.

Eddie, if you're out there, please go back and do a concert film in the vein of DELIRIOUS. Believe me your fans will love you for it. And I think you know that.",1 -"***1/2 Scarlett Johansson, Woody Allen, Hugh Jackman, Ian McShane, Romola Garia. Directed by Woody Allen. Just after his work with Johansson on ""Match Point"" the two return for ""Scoop"" a Corky, zany and fun comic ride. When a student reporter (Johansson) finds out a new scoop from a deceased reporter (McShane) when she enters the materializer of a lame magician (Allen). The scoop being of the new Tarot Card killer in London who might be preppy Peter Lyman (Jackman); while Sondra and Sid are playing detective Sondra falls in love for the handsome would be killer. Allen has finally hit a mark, not as good as ""Match Point"" but definitely more fun. I laughed a lot more than I expected, one of the years must sees",1 -"This movie is one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.",0 -"""The Deadly Look of Love"" is essentially ""Fatal Attraction"" with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.

Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.

Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time ""The Deadly Look of Love"" airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.",0 -"The only reason I came across this movie was that it's on the LITTLE MISS MARKER DVD and I do recommend watching it although you won't like it as well as the better known movie.

We have Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard as a con man and his companion. The film starts out quite light, but becomes more dramatic as Coop first plans on using his daughter to extort a sizable amount of cash from his brother-in-law but upon meeting the girl and seeing the discipline she would be subject to with his brother-in-law elects to keep her. However, he has trouble staying on the straight and narrow path and so the drama develops.

Cooper and Lombard are good and Shirley still manages to steal the scenes she's in. There's little music in this, and Shirley only has one song. However this is entertaining and worth watching along with LITTLE MISS MARKER.",1 -"Knowing what to expect (on the whole) from a Denzel Washington performance - quality, integrity, gravitas, wry humour - will prepare you for what to expect from his directorial debut. Much like Robert De Niro's A Bronx Tale, Antwone Fisher delivers the moving drama of the life of a young man and the effects of key figures in his life. Much as in A Bronx Tale De Niro played one of these key figures to the lead character (himself a character was born to play but was too old too) Washington takes a similar role in this as the fatherly councellor to the titular character - a character that seems like he should be played by a Washington from 20 years ago. Be thankful Washington is too old to play Antwone because if he had we would firstly be deprived of the wonderfully measured and intelligently nuanced performance he gives as the Navy councellor. However more importantly we wouldn't get to see the superb, we can only hope star making, turn from Derek Luke in the title role. Inevitably the character comes across as moulded in Washington's shape, however you get the impression this is not just because Washington directed it, not that Luke was trying to copy him, but that Luke is as genuinely powerful and thought provoking an actor as Washington. It took far too long for Washington to receive the Academy award he deserved for Malcolm X, Philadelphia, Devil In A Blue Dress and The Hurricane, let us hope that Luke does not have to wait so long. Also a great piece of casting was Joy Bryant as Fisher's girlfriend, Cheryl. While the part could have been a forgettable support or a standard 'girlfriend' role Bryant imbues it with life. Tender and intelligent the role transcends stereotyping with Bryant inhabiting it, and she makes the part significant and interesting. It doesn't hurt either that Bryant is possibly the most attractive woman you'll see on celluloid this year - the smile alone could thaw the coldest heart. Acting ability and looks - why isn't this woman in everything being made right now. Providing good support in a small role in Salli Richardson as Washington's wife Berta. Saying more with a silence or look than many Hollywood actresses can manage in an entire film she informs the audience of the entire storylines long before any exposition occurs. As for Washington's directing, as I said, it is the directing equivalent of his acting. Taking the story of a man few viewers will have heard of and making it genuinely interesting is a difficult feat which Washington achieves with aplomb. The film is neither rushed nor showy, but it never feels slow or dull. It is measured and nuanced, balancing the humour and drama perfectly. Antwone Fisher may not blow you away if you like big, explosive, plotless Hollywood films but for those who appreciate a finely crafted character piece, with excellent performances and steady well handled direction, this is for you.",1 -"After a group of young friends experience car trouble whilst travelling off the beaten track, they accept an offer of help from lonely local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors), owner of a nearby museum full of historical wax mannequins. Once at the creepy roadside attraction, the friends are stalked by a mask-wearing lunatic who can bring the museum's dummies to life through the power of the mind.

Tourist Trap's bad guy is a demented cross between The Texas Chain Saw Massacre's Leatherface and Anthony, the scary kid from the classic Twilight Zone episode 'It's a Good Life', whilst the plot is a blend of elements from the aforementioned TCM, Hitchcock's Psycho, and House of Wax. The atmosphere and execution of Tourist Trap, however, is so totally off-kilter that, in this respect, it's virtually impossible to draw comparison with other earlier movies.

Director David Schmoeller's continually inventive and unpredictable treatment of his own script gives the film a distinctly nightmarish quality, and with a brilliant left-field performance from Connors, an impossibly creepy score from Pino Donaggio, a collection of truly unsettling mannequins with detachable jaws, and the presence of super sexy Tanya Roberts, who spends the film in (and briefly out of) tiny denim hot-pants and a figure hugging boob-tube, Tourist Trap is a totally unforgettable and ultimately one-of-a-kind horror experience well deserving of its cult following.",1 -"I saw this movie in September with my mother. I was expecting a good movie, and I saw an excellent one. This is now my most treasured movie. It did not leave me after I left the theater. The situations in this movie reminded me of my late grandmother. Meryl Streep and Renee Zellweger were equally incredible. This movie has made me realize how important family relationships are. Rent it. I can't recommend it enough.",1 -"This was a good film with a powerful message of love and redemption. I loved the transformation of the brother and the repercussions of the horrible disease on the family. Well-acted and well-directed. If there were any flaws, I'd have to say that the story showed the typical suburban family and their difficulties again. What about all people of all cultural backgrounds? I would love to see a movie where all of these cultures are shown - like in real life. Nevertheless, the film soared in terms of its values and its understanding of the how a disease can bring someone closer to his or her maker. Loved the film and it brought tears to my eyes",1 -"Why does everyone feel they have to constantly put this movie down? It is cute and funny (exactly what it is meant to be). Madonna wasn't out to prove herself as an Oscar calliber artist with this movie anyhow! She was just doing what the character called for, and she did it well. I loved her in this movie; it is my second favorite Madonna movie after Evita. The soundtrack is excellent too. It is no better or no worse than any cheesy 80's flick. To all the critics, just don't take it so seriously and you might have fun watching it. Madonna is a goddess!!!",1 -"PLOT SPOILERS!!!! Dr. Boch (George C. Scott) is the chief of medicine at a major NYC hospital. He's left his wife, his children have disowned him, he's impotent, drinks a lot and contemplates suicide. Also there's a killer roaming the hospital. Then he meets VERY strange Barbara (Diana Rigg) and falls in love. She wants him to run away with her--but can he completely give up on his old life and start a new one?

Very strange movie with an Oscar winning script by Paddy Chayefsky. It presents a suicidal main character and shows us a hospital full of overworked nurses and doctors that is run incompetently. It manages (somehow) to actually make this seem pretty funny. It's not laugh out loud humor--it's VERY black humor. Also the acting is right on target--Scott is just great (and Oscar nominated) here. You see him trying to keep his sanity in a totally crazy situation. Riggs character is more than a little odd but her matter of fact manner works and she's also incredibly beautiful. The script is strong and brutal--but never too much. I think it fumbles the ball at the end with a situation that goes way too over the top--but it's still worth seeing. If this had been done totally seriously it probably would be impossible to take. Also look for Katherine Helmond in a small bit and Stockard Channing and Christopher Guest in uncredited bits. I personally had trouble taking this seriously. From what I've heard hospitals WERE this bad back in the 1970s but not anymore. See it for the acting and script. I give it a 7.",1 -"First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks!",0 -"Yeah, it's a chick flick and it moves kinda slow, but it's actually pretty good - and I consider myself a manly man. You gotta love Judy Davis, no matter what she's in, and the girl who plays her daughter gives a natural, convincing performance.

The scenery of the small, coastal summer spot is beautiful and plays well with the major theme of the movie. The unknown (at least unknown to me) actors and actresses lend a realism to the movie that draws you in and keeps your attention. Overall, I give it an 8/10. Go see it.",1 -"Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: ""Quintet"", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in ""Forbidden Games""; ""HealtH"", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; ""Popeye"", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; ""O.C. & Stiggs"", for its proposal of an anti-""adolescents flick""; ""Beyond Therapy"", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like ""The Dumb Waiter"" and ""The Laundromat"". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about ""The Gingerbread Man"", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike ""The Gingerbread Man"", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot ""Red Sorghum"", ""Ju Dou"" and ""Farewell My Concubine"". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his ""foreigner's gaze"", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa.",1 -"Shot in the Heart is wonderful. It brilliantly illustrates the plight of Gary Gimore, a convicted murder who requested death. Shot in the Heart shows the ordeal that Gilmore's family, torn up by hatred, went through. This movie is an incredible psychological study, and is wonderfully depressing and uplifting. 10/10",1 -"This is a superbly imaginative low budget Sci-fi movie from cult director Vincenzo Natali. The film plays out like a crossing of Phillip K Dick with Hitchcock and Cronenberg and the film takes on a unique feel like nothing you would have seen. The film is superbly shot, I love the cinematography in this, it feels fresh and original. Plot-wise the film explores similar themes to films like Total Recall, Dark City and the Matrix and its pretty staple Sci-fi stuff. Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a suburbanite who is bored with his life and has decided to take a job as a company spy for Digicorp, a large technological corporation. He meets up with a recruitment officer at the beginning who brings Sullivan on board and instructs him on what he has to do. It basically involves going to conferences of rival companies and recording them via a satellite transmission device disguised as a pen. It also means that he must take on a different persona and keep it a secret from his wife. After his first job things become strange, his habits change, his personality begins to differ and he suffers pains in his neck and headaches as well as nightmares. He encounters a beautiful woman named Rita Foster (played by an intriguingly cast Lucy Liu.) he takes an instant attraction to. However when he goes in his next job and sees her again she reveals herself to be an agent of some sort who reveals that his job is not quite what it seems. He finds out later on that he and the rest of the people attending the conference all work for Digicorp. The conferences are all covers to allow the company men to brainwash their spies. Sullivan, whose alternate name is Jack Thursby has been given an antidote to Digicorps drugging and while the rest of the spies at the latest conference drift off into what seems like a brain-dead day dream while the speakers drone on (the speakers send all the attendants to sleep via subliminal messages.) suddenly the rooms lights turn off and workers at Digicorp come in shining lights in all the occupants eyes to ensure they are not conscious and then in a fairly nightmarish situation they bring in head sets for each member which send messages into the brain and brainwash the precipitants into believing they are someone else. Digicorp are using these people as puppets and creating personalities and lives for these people while wiping their own existence. Sullivan now must pretend that he entirely believes he is now Jack Thursby. Digicorp want to steal information from their rivals Samways and they want their own puppets to do it, they now effectively control what these spies do, except for Sullivan. When Samways get a hold of Sullivan and discover he has not actually been brainwashed they decide to use him as a pawn to spy on Digicorp, make Sullivan a double agent. They know that Digicorp have sent Thursby to them to work his way into Samways and work his way up the system until he can get into a situation to download important company information that could shut the company down. Samways realises he had been planted and decide they will play along with Digicorp and allow Thursby to infiltrate their databanks but they will give Digicorp a dodgy disc that will ruin their system. The plot begins to twist and turn as both companies are using Sullivan as a pawn. He is stuck in the middle and Rita Foster is a mystery as he tries to work out why she is helping him. When a mysterious third party becomes involved, the person it is revealed that Foster works for, Sullivan must decide whether to go to this freelance agent, who could guarantee him a new life and safety or to stick with one of the companies he works for. The tension all builds to a stonking climax as it seems just about everyone wants to dispose of him once his usefulness has expires. The cast are great. Northam is superb and the subtlety in his performance is excellent. He brings a great visual aspect to his performance, his eyes tell a story and we see a great subtle change as his character changes from Sullivan to Thursby. Lucy Liu is just sexy beyond belief and her presence gives a great dynamic to the film because it seems strange casting but works because of that fact. The rest of the cast are also good.

Director Natali whose previous film was the cult classic sci-fi flick Cube, has a real visual flair. He paces the film superbly as well and has given it a great look. For a low budget film it features some imaginative visual effects and although the CGI isn't great it never begins too much of a centre piece to effect the film negatively. The film really does bring feelings of The Matrix and other great sci-fi films, it is up there with them. The plot nearly becomes too convoluted at times but in truth that helps in a film like this, that is where the Cronenberg and Lynch influence is evident. The film has you constantly working out what is going on and genuinely surprises as it goes along. This is overall an obvious cult classic and I can see this being incredibly popular when it is released in the states. ****1/2

",1 -"I am a huge fan of Ted V Mikels and the original ""Corpse Grinders"" is the main reason why but this is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Even the brilliant casting of the legendary Liz Renay (""Desperate Living"") could not save this worthless piece of garbage. This film should serve as a lesson to all past, present and future film makers...when you have a film as successful as the original ""Corpse Grinders"" was you should probably leave sleeping dogs lie and you should definitely not try to revitalize it over twenty years later (unless you have the financial backing to pull of a superior sequel such as Herschel Gordon Lewis did with ""Blood Feast 2: All U can Eat"") Even if you do decide to do this you should probably spend a little bit more money than you did on the original and for god's sake...NEVER film a movie onto video...why do film makers even attempt to do this when everyone knows the quality is going to turn out hideous...I personally have yet to see one film made in this fashion that's even worth the powder to blow it to hell...if you can't afford to make a sequel that is better than your original film then sell the rights of the film to someone who can...and what was Ted V Mikels thinking about (or smoking) when he wrote this god-awful script? I mean come on, dog and cat ""aliens"" from another planet? A cardboard box painted to look like a devastating machine capable of grinding up human bodies...bones and clothes and all? If any of these actors, aside from Liz Renay, were paid more than five dollars for their hideous performances than they are grossly overpaid! Avoid this film at all costs and watch the original instead.",0 -"OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of ""Matlock."" I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake.",0 -"Filmatography: Excellent, nice camera angles (I don't remember seeing a movie of late, with good close-ups, until this one). Could have avoided gruesome scenes with a soft camera. NY is pictured good.I liked the upside down angles, in particular (a different touch).

Music: Not impressive. Songs don't stick around in your mind even after watching the movie. May be, I expected same quality like ""Anniyan"". A disappointment.

Actors: Kamal needs to slowly pull away from hard-core action sequences. His age and belly really show up. Also, he should avoid close romantic sequences going forward. It was a very awkward to see a mature/aged star still trying to play like a 20+ heroes scenes. Love can be expressed at any age; as we get older, you still can express love nicely from a distance (without touching a woman too much. For example, the love expressed by Rajinikanth in ""chandrmukhi"").

Jyotika just appears for the namesake in the movie. Not sure why she accepted this. Well, that is not my problem, I guess.

Others just have a small presence.

Direction: I expected Gautham to excel (or measure-up) to his other movie ""Kakka Kakka"". He disappointmented me. It took a long time to release the movie due to various issues. He slips in few scenes. Even abvious things got slipped from a famous director.

Overall: Just a okay movie. Too much graphics. DEFINITELY not for kids (and adults who expect some kind of ""Entertainment"").

Thx",0 -"

This movie is full of references. Like ""Mad Max II"", ""The wild one"" and many others. The ladybug´s face it´s a clear reference (or tribute) to Peter Lorre. This movie is a masterpiece. We´ll talk much more about in the future.",1 -"I normally wouldn't waste my time criticizing a useless movie such as this. However, I'm off of work this week, so I have plenty of time to wallow in meaningless trivialities. To start, let me say that I frequently enjoy non-commercial, non-mainstream, non-American cinema. (Feel free to click on my user profile for a supporting filmography.) That said, there are plenty of bad movies that are released in countries outside of the U.S. Trust me, I've been tortured by hundreds of them. ""Lost In Beijing"" is one particularly bad film.

The opening half hour is an impressive, non-stop exhibition of moral degeneracy. This film provides some classic morals that belong on the same level as Kim Ki-duk's ""Bad Guy"" (2001).

1. women actually enjoy being raped; 2. rape should be glorified, praised, and respected; 3. feel free to rape any woman you like, because while your ""doing"" her she'll eventually start to like it and reach orgasm; 4. if you're wife gets raped, make sure you blackmail her rapist for lots of money, but if he doesn't pay, just repeatedly bang his slut of a wife as compensation; 5. if you're wife gets raped, be sure to screw and degrade her the next day while playing the role of the rapist, taunting her with lines like, ""Did he fu*k you like this?""; 6. if you're husband is a rapist, just accept it; 7. after you personally get raped, befriend your rapist and hang out with him whenever possible.

How can anyone in their right mind care about any of these characters? They're nothing more than a bunch of degenerates who not only live their lives in careless ways, but actually revel in their meaninglessness and support each other. Don't misunderstand me though. I'm very capable of enjoying films that depict lifestyles and morals that are contradictory to my own. ""Ichi the Killer"" (2001) and ""Moonlight Whispers"" (1999) are very interesting portrayals of sado-masochism. ""Strange Circus"" (2005) is an exceedingly perverted play on child sexual abuse. ""Marriage Is A Crazy Thing"" (2002) is a scathing indictment on traditional marriage. Even religiously-based movies like ""Running On Karma"" (2003) and ""Samsara"" (2001) have entertained me on occasion. The difference is that those films actually have some interesting psychological content and character development to them, whereas ""Lost In Beijing"" has virtually none.

It's known that people with unorthodox mindsets exist on this planet, but without some kind of character development or psychology behind the acts themselves, you end up with a superficial exposition of despicable behavior. Why, exactly, does Bing Bing eventually befriend and care for her rapist? Why does the wife of a rapist accept his behavior unconditionally? The filmmakers never bothered to tell us. Even the obvious juxtaposition of rich and poor classes was ineptly conceived and in the end served as a mere situational ploy. It all feels too bland and forgettable after the filthy opening half hour subsides.

Other reviewers here seem to have confused moral ambiguity with complex characterization. The reason you can't choose which person to root for is because they weren't developed properly. Don't think that this movie has complex characters just because they're not clearly defined. On the contrary, the reason they're not clearly defined is because we know nothing about them or what they're thinking. This is hardly a positive attribute of this movie.

On the positive side, the camera-work and acting are quite good, but everything else just gets duller and duller as the film progresses. You can place this alongside trash like ""Turning Gate"" (2002), ""What Time Is It There"" (2001), ""Irreversible"" (2002), and the aforementioned ""Bad Guy.""",0 -"Chucky is back but this time he is not scary (a lot) - but he is funny!

When Chucky is brought back to life (in the doll, of course) by his old trailer trash girlfriend, Tiffany, he promptly kills her and transforms her into a doll, too. Tiffany and Chucky are now on the case of 2 high school graduates - eekkk!!

Don't miss this film - it is a whole lot of fun. It is scary, funny, weird, wacky and stupid all in one!

My rating : 9/10.",1 -"Subject Matter: Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Stephen Hawking

Soundtrack: Phillip Glass

Have I died and gone to Heaven?

You will be enraptured.",1 -"This show is up there with the best Comedys made in Australia as it makes fun of pretty much anything which is what lots of our public want. Some of the best bits in the show are the ad road test which tests out how an ad would do in real life. What is really great about the show is how original it is and the fact that it has people(the chasers)who love doing what they do and who would n't. This show has loads of bits in it that can crack up anybody like the ad road test which I've already mentioned, Mr ten Questions where he asks 10 questions really fast in front of famous celebrities like Hugh Jackman and the Beach boys, temporary ones like The Chasers Emmys and ones that have been there from the start like What have we learnt from Current affairs this week. Overall I rate thin show 98%.",1 -"The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.

Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!!

The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.

Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!",0 -"After a long wait, ""Bedrooms and Hallways"" made it to Perth cinemas - not a commercial one mind you - and I thought it was fun, honest and took a swipe at those 'tribal scream' groups running around trying to find meaning in rocks and 'what's behind my eyes'. It is playing to full houses over here because it tells a story, has terrific acting and says something about the human condition.",1 -"Sit in your basement with the light out for an hour and a half. That's about the same as watching this subterranean search for the Devil's door. An American researcher Owen(Vincent Gallo)travels to Moscow and gathers a rescue team to search for his friend Sergei(Rade Serbedzia), an archaeologist who has disappeared in the catacombs beneath Russia's capital city. They will be shocked to discover subterranean dwellers thriving in the dank and dark complex system of caves and tunnels. The searchers will come upon the gatekeeper of Hell, Andrey(Val Kilmer), and will strike a deal to continue their venture; only to succeed in being scared almost witless when realizing they are among walking dead. Also in the cast: Joaquin de Almedia, Oksana Akinshina, Sage Stallone, Joss Ackland and Julio Perillan.",0 -"There are subtleties in this film that I think a lot of people may miss if they're not careful. You really need to follow what Leland says and read his character to figure out the intended ""why"" the movie presents at the end. Nothing it solid, it's not definite, it's about what the individual viewer takes out of it. I think that was the plan from the get-go, people aren't meant to all understand it in the same way, it's almost about forming your own personal relationship with Leland in order to maybe feel him a little better.

The storyline is interesting but its summary could never explain what the movie really is. It's dramatic and thought provoking, a lot of heavy ideas, but the pace of the movie is almost soothing, even with its more intense scenes with yelling. I think it's probably Leland, he's just calm and almost serene, even for all of his sadness. The movie personifies Leland in a way.

Of course it is captivating and draws you in if you let it, but there are some recycled ideas. I mean, Leland has a lot of impressive dialogue, he is anything but typical, but he's not a prophet. Everything he says is not a revelation, many people I know have mentioned things he mentioned, even I have observed a few things he's observed. Leland is the unique and attractive character he is probably mostly for Ryan Gosling's portrayal.

In the end the acting is all exceptional, there are no real bad guys, there is no way to psychologically evaluate Leland, only to maybe understand him and life a little better.

Comparable to Igby Goes Down I think, not comedic, but similar in its general outlook on life.",1 -"En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.

The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.

To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.

I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).",0 -"This film has some rather shocking scenes and subject matter considering it was made in 1971.

Clint Eastwood, Geraldine Page, and Elizabeth Hartman do excellent work in the film, as do all the cast members.

Set during the Civil War, the film begins when a wounded Yankee soldier, Johnny, portrayed by Clint Eastwood, is given refuge and help at a girls academy located in the south.

The headmistress of the school, Ms. Farnsworth (Geraldine Page), the one teacher-Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman), and a small group of half grown girls have been without a man in their midst for perhaps a little too long.

While their loyalties lay with the Confederacy-- their emotions and physical needs definitely lead them in the opposite direction. Johnny immediately uses his masculine charms to try to win the women over to his side--and keep them from turning him over to the patrollers.

However, feelings previously stoked by incestuous behavior, an adulterous father, a brutal rape, and adolescent inexperience combined with jealousies--turn things upside down with some unexpected consequences for both Johnny and the school's residents.

10 stars",1 -"This is definitely an appropriate update for the original, except that ""party on the left is now party on the right."" Like the original, this movie rails against a federal government which oversteps its bounds with regards to personal liberty. It is a warning of how tenuous our political liberties are in an era of an over-zealous, and over-powerful federal government. Kowalski serves as a metaphor for Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the US government, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, threw around words like ""white supremacist"" and ""right wing extremists as well as trumped-up drug charges to abridge the most fundamental of its' citizens rights, with the willing acquiescence of the general populace. That message is so non-PC, I am stunned that this film could be made - at least not without bringing the Federal government via the IRS down on the makers like they did to Juanita Broderick, Katherine Prudhomme, the Western Journalism Center, and countless others who dared to speak out. ""Live Free or Die"" is the motto on Jason Priestly's hat as he brilliantly portrays ""the voice,"" and that sums up the dangerous (to some) message of this film.

",1 -"My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film?",0 -"This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.",1 -"Seeing the names of the starring actors (Statham, Snipes and Phillippe) I thought that the movie should at least be decently funny or interesting. Instead all I got from it was not just boring 92 minutes, but the frustration of knowing everything that was about to happen, and hearing tons of lame and shabby ""bad cop"" phrases.

The main problem is that the movie doesn't have a good story to begin with. And when you have that, than no one can help you, not Statham, not Wesley Snipes...not even John McClane could save this movie :-) It could be cool for the kids, if they aren't over 12 years of age, because they don't care so much about the story, and there are some big explosions in the movie.",0 -"No one expects the Star Trek movies to be high art, but the fans do expect a movie that is as good as some of the best episodes. Unfortunately, this movie had a muddled, implausible plot that just left me cringing - this is by far the worst of the nine (so far) movies. Even the chance to watch the well known characters interact in another movie can't save this movie - including the goofy scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Yosemite.

I would say this movie is not worth a rental, and hardly worth watching, however for the True Fan who needs to see all the movies, renting this movie is about the only way you'll see it - even the cable channels avoid this movie.",0 -"I didn't think it was possible for a horror comedy film to fail so abysmally on both fronts....really awful. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously (usually a good thing) works against it, primarily because the actors are so wooden you really would swear they are reading cue cards. On the upshot though.....the MST3K version, as always, has a few laughs....",0 -"I waited until the 4th of July to write this because . . . well . . . because it just feels right to be doing it on this day.

In 1924 D.W. Griffith needed a hit, he had not had a big one since ORPHANS OF THE STORM (1921). He'd been working steadily since then but his movies had been smaller in scope and had failed to hit the right chord with audiences. He was planning a film about Patrick Henry when he was contacted by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) who asked if he might expand his ideas to encompass more of the American Revolution. This movie is the result. By the time he had finished he had a 14 reel history lesson and there wasn't a trace of Patrick Henry anywhere.

We all know the story of the Revolutionary War but Griffith threw in a love story with Patriot farmer Nathan (Neil Hamilton) falling in love with Tory aristocrat Nancy Montague (Carol Dempster, a leading lady for Griffith for many years). Complicating matters is the fact that Nancy's father hates Nathan . . . well not just Nathan, he hates all rebels. It does not help matters when, during a skirmish on the streets of Lexington someone jostles Nathan's arm causing him to discharge his gun and accidentally wound Nancy's dad!

Paralelling the love story is the (mostly true but partially embellished) story of Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore) a renegade British officer who feels he owes allegiance to no one. With Thousands of Indians form the Six Nations on his side he hopes to crush the colonials and become monarch of his own empire.

Comparisons with BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) are inevitable. The Montague family might just as well be the Cameron's from the earlier film while Nathan could be a part of the Stoneman family. The sequence of the Battle of Bunker Hill is staged very similarly to a scene in BIRTH OF A NATION with the attacking army, in this case the Redcoats, storming a trench packed with Patriots. The only thing missing is Henry Walthall charging across No Man's Land to stuff a flag into the muzzle of a cannon. Amazingly enough the battle scenes in America seem to lack the energy of the battle scenes in BIRTH and fail to draw the audience in. Something is clearly missing. It isn't scope, G.W. ""Billy"" Bitzer's camera work is quite good. Maybe what is missing is . . . dare I say it . . . sincerity?

The brutality of Capt. Butler and his men is well underscored although much of it happens in long shot or offscreen. Don't expect any heads to be lopped off in closeup like we saw in INTOLERANCE (1916). In one scene Butler's second in command, Capt. Hare (Louis Wolhiem) gouges out the eyes of a captive colonist. We see only the beginning of the deed, for the remainder the camera focuses on Hare's face as he obviously has a good time doing this. Lionel had been working with Griffith on and off since 1912. A story goes that he approached Griffith for work and D.W., knowing the reputation of his famous family, said ""I am not hiring stage actors."" to which Lionel replied ""And I am nothing of the kind, sir!"" He makes a very good and quite believable villain. Louis Wolhiem appeared with Lionel's older brother John three times; in SHERLOCK HOLMES and DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (both 1920) and later in THE TEMPEST (1927). As Capt. Hare his wild staring eyes and disheveled hair not only mark him as a villain but make you think he is quite mad also.

Neil Hamilton later remarked that America was his first time on horseback and ""I was scared to death."". He hides his displeasure very well though and we can believe he was quite the equestrian by the time shooting was over. Mr. Griffith was very much in love with Carol Dempster and at one point asked her to marry him. She refused and soon left his stock company, after which her star status gradually waned.

Speaking of horses, one accidentally amusing moment which had to be unscripted came during the depiction of Paul Revere's ride. He rides his horse right up on the front porch of a family to announce ""To arms! The Regulars are coming!"" but as he tries to leave the horse cannot negotiate the steps backwards and stumbles spilling his rider on the ground! I am amazed Griffith did not do another take.

So is America a classic? YES! Don't wait for July 4th to see it, it is enjoyable anytime.",1 -"I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.

Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.

Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.

Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.

Finally, there's the ""ghost"" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.

All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID.",0 -"The problem with ""The Killer Elite"" is that just by seeking this film out, and investing time to watch it, you are putting more effort into the experience than many of its principals did, particularly director Sam Peckinpah.

The already volatile Peckinpah was heading into rough weather with this film. According to at least one biographer, this was where he became acquainted with cocaine. Add to that his binge drinking, and it's no wonder things fell apart.

It's a shame, because the concept behind the film is a good one, and the first ten minutes promise much. Mike Locken (James Caan) and George Hansen (Robert Duvall) are private contractors who do a lot of dirty work for the CIA. They move quick, live well, and seem like the best of friends - then something happens to shatter their brotherhood.

An opening scene shows them blowing up a building - why exactly we aren't told, par for the course in terms of this film's murky motivation. But the implication is these guys hurt people and don't really care - antiheroes much like the Wild Bunch of Peckinpah's not-so-long-ago. An opening title tells us they work for ComTeg, then adds with obvious tongue in cheek ""...the thought the CIA might employ such an organization for any purpose is, of course, preposterous."" That's a pretty clever way of letting the audience know all bets are off.

Add to that a traditionally strong Peckinpah backup cast, including Burt Young, Gig Young, and Peckinpah regular Bo Hopkins in the plum role of a madman who can't pass up an opportunity to be shot at for $500 a day, and you only wish that the scriptwriters, including the celebrated Sterling Silliphant, tried to do something more with the story than turn it into a platform for lazy one-liners and bad chop-socky knockoffs. An attempt at injecting a dose of liberal social commentary is awkwardly shoehorned in. ""You're so busy doing their dirty work, you can't tell who the bad guys are,"" someone tells Locken, as if either he or we need it pointed out.

Worse still are Peckinpah's clumsy direction and sluggish pacing. We're 40 minutes into the film before we get our first battle scene, a completely chaotic collection of random shots where a bunch of people we haven't even met before are seen fighting at San Francisco Airport, their battle intercut with a conversation in an office suite.

By the end of the film, what's left of the cast is having a battle inside a fleet of mothballed Victory Ships, ninjas running out in the open to be gunned down while Caan tosses off one liners that undercut any hint of real suspense. ""Lay me seven-to-five, I'll take the little guy,"" he wisecracks just before a climatic samurai duel between two ninja warriors - from China, which we all know is the land of the Ninja. (The battle takes place in San Francisco, but surprisingly no Mounties arrive to break things up.)

Caan is much better in smaller scenes, like when Locken, recovering from some nasty injuries, is told by one of his bosses, played by a smooth Arthur Hill, that he's been ""Humpty-dumped"" by the organization. Caan refuses to stay down, and his recovery scenes, though momentum-killing for the movie, feature fine acting from him and Amy Heflin, Van's daughter, as a supportive nurse. Caan was one of the 1970s' best actors, and his laconic byplay with Heflin, Duvall, Hopkins, and both Youngs give ""Killer Elite"" real watchability.

But you don't watch ""Killer Elite"" thinking about that. You watch it thinking of the film that got away.",0 -"I am a Talent Manager. I have been for 15 years now. I have discovered some wonderful talent. They have been in Movies, Commericals, Braodway and Television. In my opinion Eddie Monroe was cast wonderful. I love seeing the ability of real people. Not just a name. The Actors in this movie were very natural and believable. I was very entertained by this film. I love a movie with a few twists. I also enjoy when at the end of the movie the puzzle is solved. I still would like to know what happened to the large sum of the money.(When you see the flick you will understand what I am saying.) The Mobsters all look real ???? I would like to see this film on the Big Screen. The footage was shot really well. The scenery of New York was the New York that I know. Have a Happy 2006 and may this movie make it to the awards.",1 -"First off, let's start with the negative points: 1) There are HUGE, gaping wholes in the story line and questions that are raised that will get no where near being answered; 2) The movie is not for all people, so impolite viewers will get restless and start yapping during the movie.

Point two above is important because the movie is very quiet. In an older type theater (like the one I went to), you can hear the reel going through the projector at times. I loved that. The movie does not keep you busy with music, nor effects: it lets you reflect upon what is happening.

There is a lack of rhythm that generates an atmosphere that is fascinating an utterly enjoyable. The same kind of atmosphere generated by Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. Not for all people.

I would highly recommend it to fans of cinema, as the cinematographic work is amazing. Those that base their appreciation of a movie solely on the story will be utterly disappointed. It's the kind of story that you have to make up the links in your mind afterwards. (My version of it is pretty darn cool, but probably quite off-track!) If you do go catch the movie, there is one very cool part: when the two cops are talking to each other on their cell phones. An ultra-cool sound effect that really puts you in the moment. Hats off to the person that thought of doing this.",1 -"This movie was release when I was 15 and I could easily relate to the themes the film portrayed.

That was over 24 years ago and I haven't seen the movie since. This time around I cringed at some of the acting but still appreciate the film for what it is.

Life is not always fair and the good guys don't always win in fact I think the movie did well to reflect that especially as a teenager the pricks always did better with a lot of girls. Also it doesn't matter how nice you are you cannot make someone like you. Girls/boys like who they want to like no matter how hard you try otherwise. Sometimes you just gotta let go and say next.

Gary does a good job showing the intensity of his feelings for Karen. This is so true of teenagers when they get fixated on someone.

I remember sitting around with mates laughing our arses off at some of the antics. The acting is not quite there compared with Fast Times at Ridgemount High but it kicks ass over this movie simply because FTARH has a lame viewer friendly ending where as this movie has a realistic ending. Nice guys finish last!! Gary comes across as pretty lame cringe worthy material but we all know guys like this who are far to sensitive. We all know a David, fun guy who makes you laugh.

Some people on here bag the ending but hello the ending is exactly what can happen in real life. Some chicks just go back for more no matter how bad the dude treats them, especially at that age. I have experienced that first hand.

Great sound track too!! U2 ""I will follow"" - Jesus is it that old??",1 -"Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.

Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.

The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not.",0 -"This IS the worst movie I have ever seen, as well as, the worst that I will probably EVER see. I see no need to rehash what all the others have said previously, just be forewarned...

This IS NOT one of those bad movies you think you want to watch because you want to be able to make fun of it, its just plain BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD.

This movie is the equivalent to having a ""pet rock"" as your friend. You wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for something to happen. Unfortunately, it never does. At least with a pet rock you knew what you were getting into. Lion's Gate completely deceives on this bombshell... No...this is a disaster. After watching this film, you would swear George W. Bush had his hands all over the making of this film... yes its that idiotic.

Stay away, unless of course you just want to watch the worst movie of all time. Its probably how Lion's Gate figured it would make some money off this piece of tripe.",0 -"One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.

If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film?

I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called ""The Gunfighter"" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.",0 -"Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.",0 -"What can I say about this film other than ""don't see it"". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad.",0 -"I really like this show. I can readily see how it achieved cult status. It's original, and thought provoking. For some reason though, I have never felt the kind of resonance from it that I could have. It doesn't pack the kind of open door, winter chill that was to be had from such an awesome premise. Each time I watch an episode, I find myself prodding, and pushing for it to answer some nameless, formless question.

Before continuing, let me preface this by saying that what follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. Different strokes for different folks.

I would have liked to have seen more scenes in ""American Gothic"" that were shot at night. There's too much daylight in this show, and I think it had a tendency to counteract the suspense. We're not afraid of the daylight, after all. We're concerned about what's in the shadows. The devil isn't always in the details. What we're not seeing is often the most frightening.

Second--and this is the one that's probably going to lead to tar, and feathers: Gary Cole is a tremendously talented actor...a character actor. I've followed his career from The Brady Bunch films on, which is why it pains me to say that he was probably miscast as Lucas Buck. He's almost too petroichan, too likable to be embodiment of evil, even by Biblical standards. Lucas Buck is a narcotic. He's Heroin. He's freebasing in a kitchen laboratory next to a gallon of Drain-O. You keep going back, even though you know the end will be madness, and death. He should be like the ultimate loan shark. He's a maker of book, but also of unspeakable condemnation. Sure. You've got the money, and before long you're also going to have broken fingers; a severed hand, a decapitated head, and eventually, a damned soul. Turning to Buck is an act of desperation, and whenever he's around, there should be some immediate, ambient finality--with interest compounded daily--in the air.

It's all largess, all strings attached, and by the time you realize that, you'll also know that it's too late.

Which leads me to three: they showed Buck a little too often. He's in most of the scenes, in fact, which may have caused him to lose his edge. The sheriff would be like the next door mythology. He's the apocryphal acquaintance. Many would know 'of' him, but only an unfortunate few would really know him. He'd be the stuff of flashbacks, and cryptic conversations, and the perfect person to deliver this plot exposition would have been the deputy character that Nick Searcy portrayed.

Four, the show could be very self-reverential--to a fault, some might say--and this is typified by the whistling of ""Meet Me At The Fishing Hole"" in the series pilot. I think we've already established that what Cassidy, and Raimi were shooting for was the anti-Andy Taylor. We probably didn't need the concept delivered to us via Fed Ex. I gathered that within the first five minutes so, for me, the piano on the head was unnecessary.

These remarks are all about what, FOR ME, would have made a good show great. I also understand that the producers had their own, unique style, and that there were many hands in the soup. In their everlasting quest for LCD programming, the network played a definite role in the demise of this series.

The least these jerk-off suits could have done was to air the episodes in order.

Get real.

Either way, it's a grievous loss to both genre fans, and casual viewers alike.",1 -This movie wasn't awful but it wasn't very good. I am a big fan Toni Collette I think she is a very beautiful and talented actress. The movie starts off about Robin Williams who is a writer and gets a book from a 14 year old kid. The book is great and he cant't believe a kid wrote it. Toni Collette plays the kids guardian who you don't know if this kid really exists or if she's making it all up. I am not gonna ruin the movie but I will say this the movie is not scary.

The acting is pretty good and Toni Collette's performance was awesome as well as Robin Williams.

The movie was a huge disappointment in my opinion I would wait for it to come to DVD.,0 -"This is one of those films you can have on for a couple of hours on a Sunday morning -- able to do other things with no real complications in losing any understanding of the proceedings, and gaining some fascination in wondering why such mediocrities acquired the manpower and financial resources to be produced in the first place.

Of course, with all the cable channels, as well as Lifetime's need to fill its time slots with 100 or so hours worth of movies per week (along with incessant ""Golden Girls"" reruns), this type of fare is now a t.v. staple. Also, it seems these flicks provide livelihood to the Canadian locales where most are made, as well as the host of Canadian actors appearing in them.

Tori Spelling, like the ferret-face Paris Hilton, is somebody who - if not for family connections and resources - would likely be working at The Gap. But at least Tori has become, say, a C+-level thespian, appearing in occasional presentations appropriate to this level.

This story is one which has been seen on Lifetime and similar venues God-knows-how-many times. Devious woman, a total sociopath, trying to screw-up everyone else's lives, operating during the initial parts of the story with more cleverness than a CIA operative could muster, committing murder when necessary, and out to wreck the life of the flick's ""heroine.""

As usual, the male lead is a completely clueless dolt. And in these types of films, one finds, say, characters about whom one can really ""care,"" about 10% of the time. This one is in the other 90%.",0 -"The Great Dictator is a beyond-excellent film. Charlie Chaplin succeeds in being both extremely funny and witty and yet at the same time provides a strong statement in his satire against fascism. The anti-Nazi speech by Chaplin at the end, with its values, is one of filmdom's great moments. Throughout this movie, I sensed there was some higher form of intelligence, beyond genuinely intelligent filmmaking, at work.",1 -"I have to admit that I am disappointed after seeing this movie. I had expected so much more from the trailers. The movie was absolutely horrible. It lacked a real story line and the acting was not exactly the best. Don't waste your time. The movie is not what the trailers lead you to think it is. I would have to say that I don't usually write anything about movies on IMDb (in fact this is my first one) but this movie was such a disappointment that I registered just to let people know not to waste their time or money. The story line is that of a heist that is to happen and it looks like it had potential to be good but the things that happen in the movie are a little far fetched to be believable. Watch another movie instead, maybe the inside man???",0 -"Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from ****",0 -"Cooley High was actually a drama with moments of comedy. It was a reflection of high school life back in the day. I attended Coolidge High in Washington, D.C. from 1976 to 1979 and much of what was in Cooley High was an every day thing at Coolidge. As a matter of fact after the movie came out everybody started calling Coolidge ""Cooley High."" Getting high, shooting dice, chasing girls, basement parties, and fights, that sums up high school life for many in D.C. back in the day. I can't forget Motown because Motown music began and ended many a day back in the 70s. The hits just kept coming. However, Cooley High adds a layer of humanity over the craziness because when all was said and done just like in Cooley High my classmates and I had a lot of love for each other. And like the characters in Cooley High there was life after high school, but there was nothing like waking up every morning and experiencing each day to the fullest from homeroom to seventh period. Thirty years later we are getting ready to celebrate those good times. Cooley High is definitely a period piece that just gets better with time because like it or not the only thing left from those days are memories, some good, and some bad.",1 -"This movie is engaging from start to finish with excellent performances, a great soundtrack with original music by Douglas Brown, and a well paced script that's full of surprises.

Full of new and not so new faces, this movie showcases promising talent especially in the case of Craig Morris who plays the main character Eddie Monroe. Morris, who also co-wrote the script, displays a quiet strength combined with a strong emotional performance as he creates a believable character on screen. Also a poignant delivery by Paul Vario who plays Uncle Benny with a genuine warmth, was so convincing that he made me hungry as he lovingly prepared his Italian sauce.

Great new faces, great new music, and a great new story - what more could you ask for. This film is highly recommended!",1 -"For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality.",0 -"This mostly routine fact-based TV drama gets a boost from the fine performance by Cole. This is the story of a highly trained military man, unhappy with his wife and children, fakes his demise and runs off with the other woman. To support her in the manner in which she is accustomed he robs banks. Predictable, but not a bad watch.",1 -"The film deals with universal themes, mentioning no specific country as its context: it could happen anywhere--and has, in substance if not form. Those concerned about 1st amendment issues, censorship, et al--but don't want to be bored with lectures--need art such as this to illustrate, dramatize, teach, inspire.

Rickman is certainly an under appreciated character actor; he shines in this film, showing off multiple acting talents that you must see (I have yet to see him give a bad performance, though, even in not-so-great films). Stowe gives perhaps her best performance (and proves that she possesses one of the most striking pair of eyes in Hollywood)--in two words: stunning, convincing.

The set design perfectly matches the situation, in function and mood. The sound editing heightens to appropriate effect. The total contrast conveyed through the animation sequences is a perfect symbolic device-and the welcome and only respite to the bulk of the story's necessary venue. The script is tight and essential, with engagingly dramatic-yet realistic-dialogue (i.e., as it might be and ought to be). Perhaps the most amazing aspect to contend with is the fact that 1) this is the director's first time out; and 2) he is the writer. In one phrase: a tour de force--with three recommendations: see it, own a copy, see it repeatedly to fathom all its secrets and grasp all it genius.",1 -"What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.

The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence.

What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that.",1 -"It is a rare occasion when I want to see a movie again. ""The Amati Girls"" is such a movie. In old time movie theaters I would have stayed put for more showings. Was this story autobiographical for the writer/director? It has the aura of reality.

The all star cast present their characters believably and with tenderness. Who would not want Mercedes Ruehl as an older sister? I have loved her work since ""For Roseanna"".

With most movies, one suspends belief because we know that it is the work of actors, producers, directors, sound technicians, etc. It was hard to suspend such belief in ""The Amati Girls"". One feels such a part of this family! How I wanted to come to the defense of Dolores when her family is stifling her emotional life. And wanted to cheer Lee Grant as she levels criticism at Cloris Leachman's hair color. The humor throughout is not belly laugh humor, but instead has a feel-good quality that satisfies far more than pratfalls and such.

The love that is portrayed in this cinema family is to be emulated and cherished.

It is no coincidence that the family name, Amati, translated from the Italian means 'the loved ones'.",1 -"This was just telecast here in the U.S. Others have commented on the faithfulness (or lack of same) to the novel; the 1983 BBC version is far superior on this and all other counts. Given the scope of the novel, it should not have been condensed to 85 minutes. Key sections have to be rushed or alluded to, or omitted; there barely enough time just to get in the chronology of events, so character development has to be sacrificed: we cannot get much of a sense of who the people are, which robs us of what makes Austen so great.

One major negative for me was the cinematography, which I thought was just awful, and quite literally sickening. The camera is constantly doing ultra-closeups, and swirling around and around in circles. Maybe on a small TV box this is OK, but on our 40"" hi-def screen it was so literally dizzying that both my wife and I had to look away from the set repeatedly (my Dramamine supply had run out). Of course, this did distract from the rather lackluster I'm-just-reading-what's-in-the-script acting (isolated scenes are nicely done, but not enough to save things).

Adding up the score so far in the Complete J.A. Sweepstakes: I'd rate ""Northanger Abbey"" a success, because of superior direction and production values (and the story lends itself better to short treatment), ""Persuasion"" OK (though not the equal of other versions, with condensation again being at fault), both far ahead of this attempt. I will hope for better in the two remaining novels in this TV Reader's Digest Jane Austen; like others, I am thankful they left P & P alone!",0 -"Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.

While ""Hollywood Homicide"" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.

Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.

All in all, ""Hollywood Homicide"" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that.",0 -"Jimmy (Heath Ledger) is given a simple job by Pando (Bryan Brown) a underworld kingpin to deliver money to a particular address, but when no one answers the door Jimmy decides to take a dip at the beach to pass some time, but he notices that his clothes on the sand have been messed up and the 10 grand is gone. Jimmy rings Pando to tell him the problem, but he doesn't want to hear it. Pando and his boys try their best to locate Jimmy, meaning no more Jimmy if they get their hands on him. So now Jimmy goes into hiding to organise a bank robbery to get Pando's money back. Also throughout this mess he meets the innocently sweet Alex (Rose Byrne) and together they're in for one hell of a ride through Sydney's King Cross.

""Two Hands"" is simply an engrossing pick-me-up film that's brisk, exhilarating and incredibly fresh. What you got here is pretty much an urban gangster film with a seedy backdrop and in-your-face violence… what, how's that fresh you ask? Well, because it takes us into the underworld where the Australian culture shines with criminals wearing thongs (flip flops) and footy shorts, done up cars and a can of beer in the hand… and don't forgot the Australian sense of humour, dry and sarcastic. You can say it owes a lot to the likes of ""Pulp Fiction"", ""Goodfellas"" (a fave of mine) and ""Lock, stock and two smoking barrels"" for its inspiration, but for me it still stands on its own. The film has real mixture of light-hearted moments, but also a mean streak to it with some unexpected shocks and black humour that can actually be disturbing. You just don't know what's coming and it has a nice touch of snappy irony (especially the ending) and great timing with its humour. One scene involving a bank robbery will have you in stitches, I guarantee you. The plot's outline is really a coming to age story (or about the road not taken), with a punching love tale added and then the gangster element to finish it off. Most of the sub-plots were cleverly constructed and interlocked, well maybe it could've gone without the supernatural element involving Jimmy's dead brother, but in the overall context the diverse plot seems to all click together. Intense, natural and crisp dialogue filled the outrageously colourful script, with quick jabs of Aussie slang/twang - I'm fair dinkum!

What truly made the film was that of Bryan Brown's performance of Pando. He just gave his character such a deviously charismatic/nasty persona that when he wasn't on screen his presence was still felt. He gave his character two sides - one being a prick, but the other side is such a good bloke. A young Rose Byrne glows with her nervously sweet/quirky character Alex. She looked radially gorgeous and added a bubbly personality. Then you got Heath Ledger who fit's the buck as the naive Jimmy. Great supporting cast involved with the likes of Susie Porter, Tom Long, David Field, Steve Vidler and Steve Le Marquand. Such raw performances are achieved and from that you get riveting, fun and believable characters. Pumping rock soundtrack bursting at the seams with the likes of Powderfinger and Alex Lloyd provide a cool vibe. Also being shot on location in Sydney's King Cross really helped it stick out by holding a life of its own and showing the Australian way of life. Gliding camera tricks captured the city's backdrop superbly, especially the piercing nightlife. This was a film that when it ended I was totally satisfied with what I got. Overall, a slickly paced crime thriller that achieves what it intended to do... a fun, clever and crazy roller coaster ride of thrills and excitement.

I say, it's a successful Aussie take on ""Lock, Stock and Two smoking barrels"" by director/writer Gregor Jordan in his debut film. If you come across it, don't hesitate to it give it a go.",1 -"Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit ""chatty"" at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film ""Bright Victory"", also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area!",1 -"I watched this immediately after seeing HILLSIDE CANNIBALS so anything would have been an improvement . On top of that it stops me from comparing ZOMBI 3 to 28 DAYS LATER and its sequel . Unfortunately the more I watched it the more I realised how well made Danny Boyle's original was and how much this movie influenced 28 WEEKS LATER

One can't help noticing how much the 28 franchise has dated this type of Italian horror movie . I was totally convinced ZOMBI 3 must have been made in 1980 or 1981 at the very latest - In which case I would have called my summary 28 YEARS LATER ( Geddit ? ) - but wasn't until I came to this page to find it was released in 1988 . All the production values scream that it's a low budget splatter flick from the very early part of that decade . I might have enjoyed this movie as a fifteen year old schoolboy in 1982 as would have my peers but not now

Much of the problem involves a lack of internal continuity . For example some of the zombies shuffle about with the pace of a snail while others can run very fast and posses self awareness which leads to a ridiculous end scene involving a DJ . Likewise some can be killed by a kick to the face while others remain alive even if they've had their head chopped off , wait till you see the fridge scene , you might just die laughing . Even the serious characters suffer from this type of contrived sloppy scripting where a character suddenly reveals he's a helicopter pilot which leads me to ask why the army have been employing him to drive jeeps for a career

Obviously you're reminded of the earlier film THE CRAZIES which also reminded me of the later 28 films . Bunch of terrorists break in to scientific base leading to all sorts of disaster with the military being the bad guys trying to kill both the infected and the survivors and long before the ending you'll have worked out that basically everyone dies . The problem with this is you'll instantly be reminded of how the British franchise did it so much better on a bigger budget . Not just that but the 28 franchise will appeal to a thinking audience who may have little interest in the average horror movie . ZOMBI 3 will appeal to no one but a hardcore splatter audience",0 -"The early career of Abe Lincoln is beautifully presented by Ford. Not that anyone alive has seen footage of the real Lincoln, but Fonda, wearing a fake nose, is uncanny as Lincoln, with the voice, delivery, walk, and other mannerisms - exactly as one would imagine Lincoln to have been. Ford, in the first of three consecutive films he made with Fonda, is at the top of his form, perfectly evoking early 19th century America. The story focuses on a pair accused of murder that Lincoln defends and the courtroom scenes are quite well done. The supporting cast includes many of Ford's regulars. This was Alice Brady's last film, as she died months after its release.",1 -"LORD PROTECTOR is kiddie fare, but for whose kids? Obviously shot for television or STV, this amateurish rehash KRULL has several stock characters -- a magician, an assassin, a warrior, a scientist -- on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the Dark Forces about to be unleashed on their planet. Badly written, acted and staged in available California locations like municipal parks and a ranch, LORD PROTECTOR has nothing to recommend it, not even as a time waster. Jay Underwood is the only ""name"" actor, and most people, especially the intended audience of five year olds, are not likely to remember him from such ancient Disney fare as NOT QUITE HUMAN. A no-name actor playing a magician in an ill-fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of KING LEAR. I was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. Alas, the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted-over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks, like Bert Gordon's THE MAGIC SWORD. The filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. Often, such cheap Hollywood back-lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. I kept myself occupied during the film's seemingly interminable running time, trying to figure which was which in this one. I didn't have much luck.",0 -All the actors in this film seem bored. They are not really interested in their roles and the dialogue is all delivered in monotone. It's a problem because I think the basic idea for the film is really very sound. I suppose it's just bad direction which leaves the actors drifting.,0 -"As a collector of movie memorabilia, I had to buy the movie poster for this film which, now that I've finally seen it, has to be the best thing about it. There's nothing more attractive to hang on your wall than a 27x41 inch image of the melting man. However, there's nothing more awful to put in your VCR than an hour and a half long image of the melting man. At first I thought this movie was pure garbage but then I realized that it did have some qualities which made me laugh. The character of Dr. Ted Nelson has to be the most wishy-washy persona ever brought to the big screen. His dialogue is so trite it's unbelievable! (""It's incredible! He seems to be getting stronger as he melts!)

And could somebody tell me please how the heck they know exactly how much time Steve has left before he melts completely and exactly what their plan is to ""help"" him? If this movie was meant to scare its audience, I think it missed its calling.",1 -"This is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said ""Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it"". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.

Worse than Swimfan. It's that bad.",0 -"I remember running home from school almost every day to catch KTLA's channel 5 monster movies, but never did I run home faster then when this movie was scheduled. Somehow, the idea of being a boy and having a giant robot as a friend appealed to me in a very unique way. Sure, I pretended to be Spiderman, Batman and other superheros, but I really wanted to be Johnny Sakko over any of them.

I have not seen this movie in 30 years and I can still remember it vividly. Who can forget the way Giant Robot shot missiles out of his fingers! Or how about the way Ghuillotene threw his fingernails to make explosions! Geez, I can even still whistle the theme music that plays at the end, which is so tragic that I remember crying myself to sleep a number of times!

Only one other movie has the kind of magic that this movie does in my mind and that is the Wizard of Oz. But I have seen that movie many times since I was a kid. Of course, the Wizard of Oz is a true classic whereas Voyage Into Space is low budget nonsense. These two films shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence but to a young boy it isn't high production values or continuity that capture your heart, its flying monkeys and giant robots!

P.S. My cousin use to do a very accurate impression of Giant Robot (he pronounced it ""Giant Robutt."") If you recall, Giant Robot had a particular way of shooting his missiles and my cousin had it down cold. I made him repeat the routine endlessly for my personal amusement.",1 -"Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.

So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.",0 -"Enchanting. The best time to see this movie is sometime when unhappy or sad. It's all just so cute, all, even the way that white bear loves the Queen in secret and gets Her in the end, also the achievement the two young actors of Gerda and Kai gave. It's music is also very nice. The two of us will always be one combined with sad piano tones in some places gives a very touching result and if one watches both parts at once, he'll see the Snow Queen is not so bad. She only tries to surround Herself with love in the wrong way. The evening this movie was on here (first part) I only watched it, because I was bored, but I loved it a lot more after and was very angry, when they didn't show the next part because of the Pope's funeral... Yeah, that was terribly sad for me. But when they said it will be on next week, I was so happy, that I recorded it and now I'm glad to have done so.",1 -"Drum scene is wild! Cook, Jr. is unsung hero of this and many movies. Fantastic actor, great flick. A few twists that keep you moving. A must-see.",1 -"The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.

Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives).",0 -"""Inuyasha "" was awful . This show was incredibly over -hyped but this is nothing but a tedious bunch of anime clichés. The characters are annoying and lifeless ,the story line is boring and endless .I think that it could have be something interesting if it have a better writing, but it seems that the writers of the show have more intentions in show Inuyasha and his stupid friends fighting with some monsters and then crying for his tragic love triangle with Kikyou and Kagome and a lot of circles around the same thing again and again . The script is cheesy and dumb and the animation is poor .The character design it 's very ugly ,I don't know why everyone love it ,all have the same face ! : Big eyes , tiny noses , a line as the mouth and the typical anime haircuts . I find ""Inuyasha "" incredibly boring and dumb . This have to be one of the most over -rated animated shows ever made .",0 -"""The Shop Around the Corner"" is one of the great films from director Ernst Lubitsch. In addition to the talents of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, it's filled with a terrific cast of top character actors such as Frank Morgan and Felix Bressart .They're the type of character actors that Hollywood sadly no longer employs. In fact, the film itself is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. (The makers of ""You've Got Mail"" claim their film to be a remake, but that's just nothing but a lot of inflated self praise.) Anyway, if you have an affection for romantic comedies of the 1940's, you'll find ""The Shop Around the Corner"" to be nothing short of wonderful. Just as good with repeat viewings. Enjoy!",1 -"Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, ""Seven Pounds"" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile.

Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.

However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.

One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.

Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.",1 -"Under the assured direction of F. Gary Gray, ""Italian Job"" never loses its grip on being cool and fun. Although the material is rehashed and average, the film itself is masterfully executed and is satisfyingly good. The tone could easily have been much heavier, considering the murder-revenge plotline but F. Gary Gray keeps the tone light by good humor, snappy dialogs and pulsating music. It is a pleasure to see these would-be-bad guys form a great bond and stick to eachother through deceit and murder, while never forgetting to have fun. This one is 7/10.",1 -"""Hundstage"" is seidl's first fiction film (before this he directed great documentaries as ""animal love"" or ""models""). seidl worked on this project for more than 3 years but it only cost around 2 million dollars. the actors are very good especially the non-professional actors who nearly played themselves.the cinematography is good too. the whole film is shocking disturbing and some scenes may be too much for ""ordinary"" viewers.the film shows a lot of sex and violence but also that people are lonely and not able to communicate with each other. finally i've to say that this is one of the best and most rewarding austrian films in the past years. please excuse my bad english.

",1 -"Now this film isn't going to scare anyone, but it was interesting for two reasons - two big reason and a smaller one- well, that's three reasons, isn't it.

The first reason this is interesting is the special effects. I found them to be quite interesting and somewhat spectacular. To see the hair growing on Marsha A. Hunt and Sybil Danning was creepy, especially when they were participating in a ménage à trois.

Of interest, is the fact that this Marsha Hunt is the famous ""Brown Sugar"" of the Rolling Stones song, and that she was in the infamous nude scene in the London cast of the rock musical Hair.

Besides the special effects, there were two other points of note in this film, and they were brought out repeatedly during the closing credits. I lost count, but i swear that Sybil Danning bared those points for us in the closing credits at least a dozen times and maybe many more. Theyu were the most outstanding feature of the film.",0 -"It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.

The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.

HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.

The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.

Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.

It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring ""workers"" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.",0 -"It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.

It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment.

Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.

I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!",0 -"A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.

First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.

Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike ""2001"", which had traditional classical music.

Third, its ""monster"" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.

Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.

In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.",1 -"After an undercover mission in Bucharest to disclose an international gang of weapon dealers, the agent Sonni Griffith (Wesley Snipes) is assigned to protect the Romanian Nadia Kaminski (Silvia Colloca), the widow of an accountant of the Romanian Mafia. However, the CIA safe house is broken in by the criminals, and Sonni realizes that the information was leaked from inside the Agency. Alone, trusting only in his friend Michael Shepard (William Hope), Sonni fights to survive and protect Nadia.

The career of Wesley Snipes is downhill. I have just seen this flick, and it is another disappointing movie of this actor, whose career is presently very similar to Steven Segal's one. The movie has many explosions, shots and car chase associated to an awful story and horrible acting. First, the Afro-American Wesley Snipes is chased by the police of Bucharest, but they never find a black American man. I have never been in Romania, but I believe there are not many Afro-Americans in this country. His character does not like to bath, wearing the same clothes along many days. There is no chemistry between Sonni and the sexy Silvia Colloca, but she freely has sex, falls in love for him and shares her fortune with him. The boy that performs Nadia's son is horrible. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): ""O Detonador"" (""The Detonator"")",0 -"I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.

Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.

I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality.",0 -"""Delusion"" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)",0 -"Seeing the title of this movie ""Stupid Teenagers Must Die"" made me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was ""Blood and Guts"". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, failing in both areas. A group of teenagers is attending a séance at a spooky house and then the killing starts. Sounds over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds nothing whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly made. Because of the lack of light the entire film is grainy. Now this effect can be highly effective, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the story line just stinks. The sound is terrible at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very loud indeed.

This is not the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a bad one. For me a 3 out of 10.",0 -"Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.

The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.

A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that ""It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play.""",1 -"Inspector ""Dirty"" Harry Callahan once again angers his superiors with his maverick approach to police work. Refusing to take a vacation he is given a simple case which takes him outside of San Francisco. However, he soon discovers a link between a recent murder in the city and a murder outside of the city, which leads him to the trail of a revenge killer.

As an entry in the Dirty Harry franchise the film starts with some very promising moments, including the legendary ""Go ahead, make my day"" line that Eastwood delivers wonderfully through clenched teeth before single handedly foiling a robbery. Very badass and it just what fans can expect from him. However, the film soon shifts gears and focuses on the mysterious revenge killer. The problem is that this killer isn't all that mysterious as she is characterized as much as Harry is. This really detracts from the presence of the main character who ruled all of his previous film appearances with, pardon the pun, Magnum Force.

On the bright side this new storyline does draw several parallels to Harry's own unorthodox methods and gives his character dramatic depth that was not there before, but fans that were looking for another badass Harry outing will more than likely be somewhat disappointed. However, a tense climax ends the film on an exciting note so if you don't mind something a little different, it is a good movie for fans. --- 7/10

Rated R for violence and a rape scene",1 -"I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.

Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.

A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie.",0 -"I saw it last night and I was laughing out loud for the whole second half of the movie. The whole audience was. Bruce Campbell has made a damn funny movie! I don't want to give anything away, but when the film turns and gets wacky, it gets really wacky. Just one funny scene after another. My hats of to Mr. Campbell and crew for pulling this off on such a tiny budget. Bruce was there to introduce the film and do a Q and A, which was a treat. A lot of the questions people were asking were pretty lame, but Bruce would turn it around on them and be all sarcastic. He was great! Anyway, loved the film. I'll be looking forward to seeing this on DVD later this year. B sure to check it out on the Sci-Fi channel this fall. I highly recommend this one.",1 -"I had been long awaiting this movie ever since I saw the trailer, which made it look like a political drama, starring three of my favorite actors; Al Pacino, John Cusack, and Bridget Fonda. And even though it was directed by Harold Becker, who has done uneven work, he and Pacino did combine on SEA OF LOVE, which ranks among each of their best work. But interference on some level(for starters, several of the scenes in the original trailer don't appear in the movie) and changing of tone(subsequent trailers make it look like a thriller) make this, while watchable, nowhere near as it could have been.

Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. There was great potential here to be a film about how government can still be worthwhile despite all the corruption, and to make a complex statement about that corruption, not the usual good guys vs. bad guys. And there is good acting here. Pacino and Cusack are both very good, and Danny Aiello gives one of the best performances of his career. But Fonda is wasted in her role, having nothing to do, and while there is merit in the central storyline, when it turns to a thriller, the movie loses its way, briefly recovers in the final scene between Cusack and Pacino, and then falls down completely in the end. I wish I could like this more, but no.",1 -"Positively awful George Sanders vehicle where he goes from being a thief to police czar.

While Sanders was an excellent character actor, he was certainly no leading man and this film proves it.

It is absolutely beyond stupidity. Gene Lockhart did provide some comic relief until a moment of anger led him to fire his gun with tragedy resulting.

Sadly, George Sanders and co-star Carol Landis committed suicide in real life. After making a film as deplorable as this, it is not shocking.

The usual appealing Signe Hasso is really nothing here.",0 -"Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the ""Dekalog"" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.

The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.

Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment ""Thou shalt not kill"" is explored theologically--(""Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.

In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?

It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.

I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.

This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8.",1 -"Straight up, I love this film. I love everything about it. It has a great soundtrack, it has a lot of recognizable faces and it is funny as hell. There are so many plots in this film and every one of them is funny in one way or another.

Where as Spicolli lit up the screen two years back, Drake is almost as memorable of a character. All he wants to do is have fun. He moves out of the house without his parent's consent, he skips work whenever he feels like it, he is obsessed with sex, he loves his drugs and booze and he tries to be a good friend. It is his lacksidaisical attitude that makes him such a joy to watch. And he comes out with some great lines. And there are so many tiny observations that you don't see coming but they make you laugh at the sheer velocity when it hits you. One particular moment is when Tommy and Bill are talking about Bill's ex girlfriend dating someone else now. At the end of the conversation, Tommy takes his huge beer bottle and just throws it over his shoulder, casually. He then says good night and the scene ends. It is a perfect scene. Tommy's world is his own. He really lives to party and have fun. When the conversation is over, his time is over and he doesn't care who he offends in the process. He has an innocence about him. ""It's casual"" is his favourite saying.

Another such classic scene is Reggie handing Bill a donut. He says something to him that me and my friends will never forget because we rewound the film ten times and watched that part over and over again and hurt ourselves laughing. It has to be seen to be appreciated.

Wild Life is a throw back to when teen comedies were funny, raunchy, had a good ear, entertained us and just wanted us to get lost in their world for 90 minutes. Wild Life does all those things perfectly. If this is a film that you haven't seen, give it a chance. It is a classic.

Also check out the army store guy that Jim has problems with. He is a very familiar face now and it is his first role on the big screen.",1 -"For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.",0 -"Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) was the last film to feature Freddy Krueger as a solo act (not as an entity or a co-star). The years of killing have taken a toll upon the town of Springwood. It has gotten to the point that the little city has become a virtual ghost town. The parents who killed Freddy Krueger so many years ago have all paid the ultimate price. Only the mad inhabit the town and the survivors are scattered everywhere. But that doesn't stop Freddy from seeking out his final revenge. No matter how they try to stop him, he always comes back for more. But this time he finds out a little more about his old life. Can the kids finally stop Freddy for good? What is this secret that is buried in Freddy's twisted mind? to find out you'll have to watch Freddy's Dead. the end was originally filmed in 3-D.

A fitting way to end the franchise. Freddy learns something about himself and his perverted life and he gets to go out in a bang! Lisa Zane, Yaphet Kotto and Freddy Krueger star in this final installment. Rosanne, Tom Arnold and Johnny Depp make special appearances. A whole lot better than the last one but it's filled with a few dated jokes. If you enjoy the series then you don't want to miss out on this one.

I have to recommend this movie for Freddy fans.",1 -"Silverlake Life, The view from here, is an absolutely stunning movie about AIDS as well as about a gay love relationship. Some images are indeed really hard to take, especially when one is gay or fears about AIDS, and probably for any sensitive person watching it. It's not easy to make a movie about such a terrible illness and its consequences about not only one, but two people's lives. This movie teaches how to care for each other in such hard times, but it never gets too morbid, it still shows life at any time, reminding you that outside of the theater or of your room, life goes on, whatever the destiny of some people may be. The characters are incredibly endearing, while we watch their intimacy in shots that never go beyond a very strict limit, never unveiling anything too private or offensive. Children should certainly not watch this movie, but grown-ups whether they have to deal with such situations or not, should do it, and will not regret the tears they shed.",1 -"Based on the best-selling novel ""The Dismissal"", The Missing Star, the latest film by acclaimed Italian director Gianni Amelio, is the story of the growing friendship between an older Italian maintenance man and a young interpreter he hires in Shanghai to be his guide through China. Vincenzo Buonovolonta is the Maintenance Manager at a steel mill in Italy that has been shut down and the blast furnace sold to China. When Vincenzo (Sergio Castellitto) discovers that a control unit in the furnace is defective and potentially dangerous, he travels to China to find the steel mill where the part has been sold in hopes of preventing a fatal accident.

The film, of course, is about the journey not the destination to use a familiar cliché and, on that journey, we are privy to an engaging look at China with all its immense beauty and complexity, via the outstanding cinematography by Luca Bigazzi. The film takes us to Shanghai, Wuhan, Chongquing, Baotou, and a trip along the Yangstze River showing us coastal areas that are scheduled to be flooded when the Three Gorges Dam is fully operative, a Chinese mega-project that has resulted in the displacement of 1.2 million people. The trip brings the travelers face to face with poverty, overcrowded housing, and children left to fend for themselves.

The film revolves around the relationship between Vincenzo and translator Liu Hua (Tai Ling) who first meet in Italy where his impatience with her translations at a dinner meeting causes her to lose her job. When he tracks her down in Shanghai she is working at a library and resistant to Vincenzo's approach. Looking at his offer to help him in his travels in China as little more than a well paying job, she reluctantly agrees to accompany him. Their relationship, however, grows as they move from city to city, her interpretive skills much in evidence to help the bewildered Vincenzo who does not own a cell phone.

As they slowly open up to each other, they expose each other's vulnerability and the film delves into their past and present life and how they arrived at their present situation. We meet Liu's son (Lin Wang) at the home of her grandmother. In China's one child policy, he is one of the unwanted children who have been ""hidden"" since the father of the boy abandoned the family. Although the meeting between Vincenzo and the boy is casual, their relationship becomes central to how the story plays out.

Castellitto is an excellent actor (though one longs for a younger Enrico Lo Verso in this role). However, he is emotionally distant throughout the film, his expression rarely changing from a far away hangdog expression. Though Tai Ling brings a great deal of presence to the role, her relationship with the much older Vincenzo never seemed real to me and the ending seemed to exist only in a reality known as the movies. Though Amelio is one of my favorite directors, coming on the heels of the brilliant Keys to the House, Missing Star is a disappointment.",1 -"Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it.",1 -"I respect Alex Cox the filmmaker, I really do. He's like the kid at school who you think at first is just trying a little too hard to be ""different"", a literary punk-rocker who has dipped more than his feet into spaghetti westerns and science fiction and fringe-culture and come out into the world ready to take s*** on... but then you see what he can actually do, the talent and raw feverish artistry and moments of true absurd hilarity capable of him, and you are ready to see whatever he has to offer. But there's two sides to his proverbial coin: he can either really hit it out of the park (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy, Walker arguably) or just try just a little too hard and pull way too many pretentious rabbits out of the hat (Straight to Hell). Death and the Compass falls into the latter category, and while I respect its (mostly) original approach to tackling a detective-killer story, it too falls on its face and its weirdness becomes oddly dull.

It has a strange enough set-up and already irreverent style to follow: a detective, Erik Lonnrot, is after a killer with a hell-fire voice, Red (something), and it seems that the killer is leaving disturbing clues with his victims: scrawled in blood on the walls are messages that, according to eyewitness Alonso Zunz (Christopher Eccleston looking as if he just walked off Shallow Grave without changing his look) has religious significance in the Kabbalah. We follow Lonnrot on his case, and his methods of going after the perp, which include following at first a triangular and then compass-shaped pattern on the map- this despite the protests of the flabbergasted Commissioner Treviranus (Miguel Sandoval), who also looks back in flash-forwards sitting at a desk and speaking to the audience in garbled but sad descriptions of his former employee and colleague after the fact of the case.

Oh, Cox has his moments of creativity and interest, such as a shot where we see the entire scope of the harrowing depths of the police station where Eccleston's character is taken in by handcuffs (""For his own protection"" says Lonnrot in case of getting lost in the wrong room) and we're followed in a long tracking shot- maybe the best or just most curious- where we're taken through very dark hallways with very little direction, lost in the maze of turns and oddities among the characters. And it's never something that isn't fascinating to *look* at, with Miguel Garzon's cinematography a morbid delight. But The plot goes through hoola-hoops to keep things so off-beat it might as well be beat-less all-together. The performances, save for a confident Boyle and for Eccleston at the very end, are pretty bad, especially Sandoval who just seems to squirm in his seat reciting the goofy dialog given to him to speak at the audience.

While the murder plot itself contains an intention for the audience that this isn't something we've seen before, that it's in a society with a good many rioters and architecture suggesting Alphaville's next decrepit wave, it too fizzle's out very quickly. What's the conflict here? I was never that much engaged with Boyle's own personal mission to find this killer, and only mildly caught up in the few flashes of deranged scenes of the killer (and/or killers) going after people like in the building early on (Cox himself has an amusing cameo). And just when I started to think it was leading up to something spectacular, with Boyle and Eccleston in that big (""not as big as you think"") building in the South section of the city, it suddenly gives us a ""TWIST"" that we know in the back of our minds is coming but hope isn't, and it deflates any of the humdrum mystery it's been leading up to. For all of Cox's uncanny touches as a filmmaker, for all of his opposition to spoon-feeding the audience with a 'conventional' approach, which I do respect, Death and the Compass ultimately cuts one off at the brain-stem; it's masturbatory.",0 -"I rented this film to see what might be a bloody, non stop action movie and got this overly sentimental and super cheap low budget action-drama that makes Kickboxer look like Die Hard. Lou and Reb are in Vietnam and as Lou saves Reb from the gooks, he gets shot in the head in what is easily one of the worst effects ever. The Vietnam scenes are shot in someones backyard, I swear! Lou is now brain damaged and Reb and him live together and own a bar. Super homoerotic. Lou is convinced to fight in a cage for money and Reb goes on a killing spree to get him back. There is no good fight scenes at all, the punches are two inches away from a person. Characters personalities change in matter of seconds. One guy is a bad and in the next scene he's good. The acting is horrid and the music is some overly sentimental Frank Stallone sounding song that would make you sick. I hated this film.",0 -"""Trigger Man"" is definitely the most boring and silliest movie I've ever seen in my life. My aunt's holiday videos are more fascinating.

The actors seem to be recruited at uglypeople.com. They do not have any talent to act in a convincing manner.

They walk and walk and walk through the forest. There's more walking-around than in all three parts of ""The Lord of the Rings"" together. After the first hour, I began to read a Porsche brochure while watching ""Trigger Man"" along the way. Awful.

A total waste of time and money. I'd give that movie 0 stars out of 10, since this is not possible, I have to give 1 star.",0 -"This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called ""instructional"" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called ""Pvt. Snafu.""

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with ""five."" You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

""We lost the war,"" declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the ""War On Terror"" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous ""Dr. Suess,"" uses analogies of ""hot air balloon juice"" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time",1 -"I got this as part of a competition prize. I watched it, not really expecting much from an obviously low budget production. I laughed myself sick!There are obvious references to other films in the horror genre - Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Friday 13th etc. All the standard clichés were there - long drive through partially arid and somehow menacing countryside, inbred red-necks, mysterious vehicles tracking you - throw in some really good humorous scenes (siphoning petrol from the camper-van) and dialogue (""f*****g virgin? That's got to be an oxymoron.."" and you have one of the best spoof horror films for years. I particularly liked the way our reluctant hero used his stress-related nose-bleed to great advantage..",1 -"Done in a mock-documentary style, late 60's subversives and supposed detractors of the mainstream government are arrested and given a choice. Upon sentencing for their wrong doings,there is a choice of going to prison for 7 years to life or spending three days and two nights in a southern California desert at Punishment Park. In the 100 degree heat, the prisoners are to trek fifty some odd miles to an American flag for their freedom. US and state law enforcers will follow two hours latter. If the dissidents are captured it means prison.

Appearing in this pseudo-documentary: Carmen Argenziano, Katherine Quittner, Mary Ellen Kleinhall, Stan Armsted, Scott Turner, Patrick Boland and Kent Foreman.",0 -"The Man with Bogart's Face sets it self up to mine the viewers nostalgia for the late 30's-late 40's film era. It fails miserably for several reasons. First, Sacchi, while looking reasonably like Bogart and even speaking like him on occassion and using his mannerisms, completely lacks any of Bogart's charisma or acting ability. This is really apparent whenever Sacchi is not clearly imitating a scene from one of Bogart's films. Second, the film does not have the first rate character actors Bogart was able to work with. There are no Peter Lorre's or Sydney Greenstreet's in this one, folks. Sure we are treated to performances by Victor Buaeno, Olivia Hussey and George Raft amongst others, but they just aren't of the same caliber (or aren't given enough screen time or are miscast). Third, the attempts at ""modern"" humor all fall through. All of the underwear jokes, having Marlowe almost *never* remove that damn hat and trench coat (even though Bogart would have), etc. just aren't funny and really pull down this film. Fourth, I've never heard a goofier theme song this side of Mitchell. Finally, the film's false reverence for Bogart (and other classic actors work) is truly irritating. Bogart almost *never* played a straight hero, on those occasions he was a hero. He played complicated characters. This movie makes Bogart out to be a trigger-happy, moralistic do-gooder. While this may have been true about some film characters, Bogart's characters rarely fit that bill. It's movies like this that make people unexposed to the cinema of the past think that all of it is hokey, ""good guy beats the bad guys and gets the girl"" crap with low production values.",0 -"This show is absolutely fantastic. It provides all the great drama and romance of teen shows like The OC and Dawsons, but it's a whole lot funnier. It's a show with morals and values, without everything being sugar coated and sanitised (ala 7th Heaven.) We don't have sororities or fraternities in Australia, and our university system is completely different, so I have no idea how accurately Greek life is portrayed. But I don't care! Because this show is my new favourite! Any writer that can make me love a racist, homophobe confederate flag-waving Bible basher must be genius.

And Cappie is my new Pacey. Sorry Josh Jackson, you've been dethroned!",1 -"With all of mainland Europe under his control Hitler prepares for the last obstacle in his way before heading for North America, Great Britain. With an overwhelming edge in aircraft Goering's Luftwaffe looks unstoppable on paper. Once in the air however the RAF tenaciously disrupts the paradigm by blowing the enemy out of sky air at a seven to one rate. The Battle of Britain rages on for a over a year as the Island nation is bloodied but unbowed providing crucial time for their American allies to produce more arms for the inevitable struggle.

Using more staged footage than the three previous documentaries in the Why We Fight series the Battle of Britain has a more propaganda like feel to it with the dramatized (some with unmistakable Warners music score ) scenes glaringly obvious to newsreel. In an ironic twist amid the devastation caused by German air attacks Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is employed to underscore the visual suffering. The story itself is one of remarkable courage by a defiant nation who refused to buckle under to the devastating attacks inflicted upon it by up until that point an invincible war machine. It is the 20th century version of the 300 Spartans.

There have been more exhaustively researched and better looking commercial efforts done on this battle since this film but the immediacy and motivation The Battle of Britain provided then will always make it a more valuable document of England during its ""Finest Hour"".",1 -"Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.

While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).

At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.

It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.

In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.

Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.

What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the ""gravitational balance of the solar system"" might ""pull the earth back"" into its usual orbit ""over time."" When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.

You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.

So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.

POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.

Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for ""some violence."" I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are.",0 -"This is a very ""right on case"" movie that delivers everything almost right in your face. I'm a Christian and liked the film in one way. It had some average acting from the main person, and it was a low budget as you clearly can see. It can be a bit long-winded, but the film has some quite nice cars that rescues it from a lower rating from me. As a Christian film it was quite good, but maybe a bit right-on in the message. The film works best on a big screen. *SPOILERS* The fighting scene with the two brothers can remind you of the fighting scene between the two brothers in the Christian thriller ""Mercy Streets"" starring Eric Roberts.*End of Spoiler* I give it a 7/10.",1 -"Makes the fourth theatrical release (the one National Lampoon took its name OFF of) look like a comedy classic. A complete mistake and a sad attempt to capitalize on a once-proud franchise. Painfully unfunny and unwatchable...even for a TV movie! The Cousin Eddie character has become progressively less amusing, from the original Vacation when it was fresh and unique, through Christmas Vacation when it was starting to wear a bit thin, to Vegas Vacation where it was actually annoying to see come on-screen (but, in fairness, there were a LOT of things that were annoying to see come on-screen in that movie!). But this attempt to move the character up to lead status is unfortunate to say the least. The Vacation movies themselves met an ugly death in Las Vegas, and this hope at reviving even the thinnest thread of the series for television was thoroughly misguided. Chevy Chase and company put together a great trilogy back when he was in his prime; now let's just pull the plug and let the title rest in peace. (One tiny note of interest: The original Audrey Griswold--Dana Barron, the first of four actresses to play the part, including Juliette Lewis--returns to the role 20 years later! One is left only to wonder...WHY?)",0 -"Certain DVD's possess me until I just have to go out and buy it. This was one of those movies. Like many on here, I remember seeing it as a child and loved it. I never knew there were scenes and musical numbers that were cut, so I was intrigued to see what they might be. I will agree that the ""Portabellow Road"" sequence is now a tad long (as is the soccer game) but other than that, I found no qualms with the remaining scenes that were put back in their respectful place. Perhaps Disney should have had the original version (which IS the restored version) on one side with the restored version on the flip side, then people could choose what they wanted to view. All in all, it's still an entertaining movie that still manages to recapture some of my childhood memories.",1 -"This a good episode of The New Twilight Zone that actually includes interesting ideas and clever stories (I note both of them are based on short stories). ""Examination Day"" is set in the future, year unknown but at a point where they have cake candles that light themselves, huge TV-looking ""phones"" that double as numerous other entertaining machines and distributed only to those of a certain age...and the Examination Day, a point where 12-year-olds must undergo a government-required IQ test. The kid is this story, Dickie Jordan (David Mendenhall) is just celebrating his own 12th birthday and is a smart kid, so is calm, even eager to take the test that he has seen friends pass easily and knows he will excel at based on his school grades. His parents (Christopher Allport and Elizabeth Norment), on the other hand, say he shouldn't have used his birthday wish on getting a good score, and while their reason includes that they believe he's capable and he should have no need to worry, it's pretty obvious they are worried. I won't give anything away in the ending, but I will say this - there's a point where we get a glimpse of what's to come as far ass why the test is such a heavy subject: that evening (or another?) his parents ask Dickie whether he'd prefer to watch TV all night. By today's standards, we'd be pleased he'd say he'd rather read and not just because there's nothing worth watching...but why would his family ask this? The flavor of what's encouraged and discouraged in the future reminded me a bit of the atmosphere from Harrison Bergenon (which I hear hasn't received a great adaptation to the screen). I only wish they could've provided an opening and closing narration to make this theme as powerful as The Obsolete Man was. I found it to be better than the short story it was based on. I haven't read the one that ""A Message from Charity"" was based on, but would like to since it was interesting - a 16-year-ld boy, Peter (Robert Duncan McNeill) is suffering a fever from unclean water, that has always been common in his Massachusetts hometown...but he is able to see through the eyes of a young Puritan woman suffering the same type of fever, Charity Payne, (Kerry Noonann) who also finds herself able to experience what goes on around him. They both recover, especially since it's common for that to happen in 1985, but the connection doesn't go away. Charity is curious about the sights and sounds she records of 1985 and they each enjoy each other's company, especially Peter, who has promoted grades in school enough to always have felt isolated from other students, even at the college he's been staying in one place at. Things take an unexpected turn, though, when Charity reveals some of these experiences to a friend who take her claims that the 13 colonies will breach from England as a sign of bewitchment, added to the fact that she was spared death from the fever (not so common in 1700). The two try to learn a way to save her. The ending is sad but has an interesting final moment that makes it touching. Both segments of this episode include a lot of pain but both times, through a lesson/warning that sounds like something Rod Sterling would've cooked up and entertainment, make cheerful watching as reminders that friendship, love, and wisdom do a great deal. Probably 3/4 of this has no theme, but somehow I think it all would have been approved by Sterling's crew.",1 -"Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.",0 -"Well the film starts good, but after half an hour it becomes boring and stupid, when all the plot is about Karen's( that was the name of the girl right?) pregnancy.

The end of the movie it's really corny and the characters really dumb.

I don't know who is more stupid, if the girl because she came back with her old boyfriend or the boy for the way he was used for her.

Anyway my conclusion is this: definitely not the best eighties comedy, just another movie like many others with nothing special, they could do it better but they ruined it, if only the plot had take another way but they keep that pregnancy stuff and they definitely ruined, so final conclusion: i don't like.",0 -"I was really looking forward to watching this film. It had all the ingredients of a great tongue in cheeker, but it just didn't come together AT ALL. Kevin Spacey's accent was tolerable except that sometimes he forgot to use it and I would rather NOT have had to listen to Linda Fiorentino's pale attempt. She and Helen Baxendale were totally lacking in charm and personality, thankfully their screen kids had loads, so you could find at least some members of his 2 families endearing. You could have strained spaghetti with the plot and I'm sure that the script was written by some adolescent schoolboy in a high school English competition. That said, when I wasn't cringing, I was smirking so it wasn't a totally wasted 90 minutes. I did find the superimposing of Kevin's face on the painting very clever and quite funny. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I was expecting a bit of quality viewing and it just never came.",0 -"Just caught it at the Toronto International Film Festival. This is a good story, told in a compelling way. The handheld camera approach to action scenes added to the intensity of those scenes (in a documentary style, not a Blair Witch style). Joel Schumacher shows he doesn't need a big budget to produce a gripping film.

The actors were strong, particularly the actor playing the focus of the events in the film, Boz.",1 -"I watched this movie for the first time the other day and was bored to tears. I guess I just was looking for some flashback to the wonderful series that I remembered. I watched The Mod Squad television show religiously back in the day and it was fantastic. It was action packed and the relationship the 3 had with Greer was endearing. There wasn't any of that here. When Greer was murdered you get the idea that these 3 could have cared less. The actor who portrayed Pete is a really good actor but they wrote his part like he was mentally challenged. Pete in the television series was quiet and serious but had a funny side also. They had this guy acting like he was either on drugs on the time, drunk or just plain ignorant. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. Especially if you were a fan of the TV series. It will be a complete letdown.",0 -"This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Avengers held this dubious honor… but no longer. The acting in ""Jill the Ripper"" is terrible and was only eclipsed by the plot. This movie is as intellectually stimulating as the Telletubbes. It doesn't know whether it wants to be an S&M flick or a really bad thriller. Only watch under extreme intoxication or if you're bed ridden and need a leather clad distraction. This script should be reworked into a porn, it wouldn't take very much effort and would have a longer shelf life. A porn, even a bad porn, wouldn't do the damage to Dolf Lundgren's career the way that this movie has.",0 -"Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.",1 -"Dolemite may not have been the first black exploitation flick to come along but it certainly is one of the best. It is a pivotal film in the Black Exploitation genre as where it caused a dramatic shift between the films that came before it in contrast to the films that came after it. It wasn't necessarily a poignant or moving film about black culture and it's fight to overcome issues like racism or anything as important as that, but it was the story of one bad-assed dude fighting ""whitey"" with his army of hot kung-fu mama's. It was a guilty pleasure, great fun and best to watch it with friends. (10 out of 10)",1 -"OK - the Cons first: The obligatory '70's alligator (all right, correction - caiman) with nonmoving limbs is made the worse for scale miniature underwater shots (with the full length of reptile comparative to the size of the boat) utilizing a toy alligator being swirled around the toy boat in broadly lit water - even for nighttime shots!

Unlike most primitives-killing-exploitative-Westerners films, the superstitious natives going bat**** and start massacring the vacationers seems unjustified this time. No one really abused the natives - exploited, yes, but far from abusive treatment. After all it was one of the natives (canoodling with a spoiled supermodel during a taboo full moon) that brought the curse of the River Demon on them, right?

The vacationers are easily annoying (with the notable exception of the token old-soul/mildly blasphemous-little-girl-who-takes-a-shine-to-the-heroes that you often see in 70's Euroflicks), but far from from deserving violent death - unless they were your next door neighbors, mind you. A couple actually get killed being heroic - notable in that none of them fill the role of sidekick. There are only two straight villains in the entire film, so the demises feel more arbitrary than cathartic.

The sequence where the giant caiman crunches down and scarfs thirty tourists in under five minutes will probably strike you as unintentionally hilarious.

The point at which the natives decide not to wipe the surviving Westerners and practically saying ""hey, you aren't so bad after all, sorry about that fuss last night"" - because they blew up the monster lizard - has you shaking your head as the corny music kicks in. You know, the local military dictatorship will wipe out the village for ****ing with the tourist trade after the credits roll...

The Pros: Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. You ALL know WHY you're interested in this film in the first place, right? I thought so. If you're a Bach completist, get the DVD reissued by NoShame films earlier this year (digitally remastered with no real extras to speak of, aside from the director bemoaning the current state of international film distribution).

The hero isn't half bad, being far from an idiot (always a plus in B films) and the cynical little kid provides most of the comic relief.

Worth a look, but get it cheaply!",0 -"A great gangster film.Sam Mendes has directed this beautiful movie showing another father-son camaraderie.Brilliant star-cast leading with Tom Hanks(Michael Sullivan) has done a terrific job.Great acting by him again.He is an acting legend.Great acting too from Paul Newman,Jude Law and Daniel Craig.Casting is just too good.The plot is quite good.You will enjoy the movie.A great portrayal of the gangster of the 1930's.Set in the 1930's,this will surely stand out as the zenith of all gangster movies of that era.Soundtrack is pretty good an apt to the movie.A great flick in totality showing what a father does to protect his son.Way underrated for my liking.Deserved a fully deserved 10.",1 -"This is the first 10 out of 10 that I've given any movie. What made this movie so good for me? Constant action - there isn't any slow parts, great acting, smart writing. I also liked the filming style where the shakiness and different angles just made it feel like you are a part of the scene. Finally, I get to see an action movie that doesn't try to please all sectors of the public (i.e. there's no forced romance).

I liked the first two Bourne movies, but I loved this one.

Warning - after watching this movie, you will be full of adrenaline and you may want to calm down a bit before driving your car!",1 -"i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original ""Lifeboat"".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10",0 -"As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the ""charming"" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done.",1 -"I always enjoy this movie when it shows up on TV.

The one scene that always stands out, for me that is, is the one with the Myrna Loy and the painters foreman, where she gives him very explicit instructions on the colours and as soon as she goes away he turns the his guys and says ""Did you get that, that's yellow, blue, green and white""",1 -"This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.

Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.

I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his ""episodes,"" though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his ""honour,"" this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.

When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.

When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he ""accidentally"" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.

The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these ""big"" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.

Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.

Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. ""Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself."" A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.

Finally, to add a bit of ""fairness"" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.

A failure.",0 -"this is one of the more poorly made movies I've ever seen. One has to take anything by Truffaut seriously; it's not just some B-movie cranked out by hacks.

evidently Truffaut couldn't decide whether he was making a noir or a sentimental chick flick. and neither could Deneuve, whose dozen (?) character flip-flops are simply unbelievable -- not even badly acted; just not acted at all. Among other things, how a woman as beautiful as Deneuve could be a person such as Julie/Marion is simply beyond anyone's ability to suspend disbelief; the role absolutely demands someone not so beautiful. Belmondo's acting also suffers although imho his character is not quite as unbelievable as Deneuve's. The cliché ending (which I won't describe) is unfortunately all too appropriate for this complete mistake.",0 -"I don't even know where to begin on this one. ""It's all about the family."" That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a ""horror"" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write ""Bottle Rocket"" and ""Rushmore."" He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.",0 -"My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.

My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.",0 -"At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.",0 -"If folks were really this stupid I could be the SRW - Supreme Ruler of the World. In this one Knotts plays a dimwitted bean counter for some little jerk water town run by a group of crooked simpletons only slightly brighter than he is. When things appear a bit shaky for the crooks they go for a frame-up of the patsy Figg. Plenty of laughs as Knotts does his usual bumbling, stumbling act. I especially appreciated the extension cord scene; asininity at it's highest level.",1 -"Ingrid Bergman is a temporarily impoverished Polish countess in 1900s Paris who finds herself pursued by France's most popular general and a glamorous count -- and that's on top of being engaged to a shoe magnate. Such is the failproof premise that entrains one of the most delirious plots in movie history. There are backroom political machinations by the general's handlers, a downed balloonist and ecstatic Bastille Day throngs, but the heart of this gorgeously photographed film is the frantic upstairs/downstairs intrigues involving randy servants and only slightly more restrained aristocrats. Yes, it's Rules of the Game redux. Before it's all over even Gaston Modot, the jealous gamekeeper in Rules, puts in an appearance -- as a gypsy capo, no less! Things happen a little too thick and fast toward the end, resulting in some confusion for this non-French speaker, but what the heck -- Elena and Her Men is another deeply humane Renoir masterpiece.",1 -"To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: ""We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."" (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID",1 -"For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.",0 -"Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His ""Swimming With Sharks"" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from ****",0 -"Dahl seems to have been under the influence of Wenders' The American Friend. Innocent Nick Cage gets recruited for a hit. Dennis Hopper plays a real Hit Man. Lara Flynn Boyle is dangerous. The Hero gets more entangled the more he tries to extricate hisself. And small town America does not seem all that safer than the Big City. Like it's predecessor mentioned above, this movie has lots of plot twists and turns that seem improbable, but all lead to the cathartic self discovery.",1 -"This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.

The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.

The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).

For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?",0 -"If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original ""Lady and the Tramp"" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.

If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like ""Bella Notte"" and ""The Siamesse Cats Song"" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

""Lady and the Tramp 2"" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.",0 -"I so love this movie! The animation is great (for a pokémon movie), the cgi looks so awesome. I love the music in the movie. So great they kept the Japanese music.

As for the story: its great. It has a great feeling of friendship. Celebi is a very cute and powerful pokémon. Ash is really great in this movie, and I like his friendship with Sam. The only thing I didn't like was Suicune's appearance, he just suddenly pops up, helps Ash & co a bit and leaves. They could have made his part in the movie a little bigger.

But overall, awesome movie! Can't wait to own the USA version on dvd!",1 -"Ben Masters,(Kyd Thomas),""Dream Lover"",'86 plays a sort of Mike Hammer character, a private eye who does any old job for a buck and never misses out on all the sexy curves of good looking gals. Kyd makes one big mistake when he stops Morgan Fairchild,(Laura Cassidy/Eva Bomberg),""Arizona Summer"",'73 from getting beaten up and raped. Kyd takes Laura home to his pad and when he wakes up, she is out on his patio eating his eggs and orange juice and making herself right at home. By the way, Kyd sleep in his bed and Laura slept on the couch for this particular scene. Laura is mixed up with all kinds of hoods and there are some hot scenes between Kyd and Laura. All said and done, this is a lousy picture and I purchased the DVD for only $1.50 and I really got ripped OFF !",0 -"Comparing this movie to anything by Almodovar is an insult to Almodovar. The best thing I can say about it is it tries desperately to be like an Almodovar movie and fails miserably. The script is dreadful, the characters are one-dimensional, and the performances are the quality of high-school drama (except Marcia Gay Harden's, which is pretty good, given the material she has to work with). Furthermore, the cinematography does absolutely nothing to convey the whimsical beauty of Gaudi's architecture or the infectious charm of Barcelona. If you enjoy the grit, pathos and dark, quirky comedy of Almodovar's movies, you'll find none of them here. Spend your money on something other than this waste of celluloid.",0 -"This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.

My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek [""do you think he's compensating for something?""]).

A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.

Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)

All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)",1 -"I find it rather useless to comment on this ""movie"" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ...

Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian ""movie"" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called ""Romanian reality"" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).

Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this ""movie"" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.

On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : ""How NOT to make a movie.""",0 -"I'll say one thing for Herman, USA: it will probably always play well to Minnesota audiences. I can't imagine that there's another place in the world where a reference to the fast life of Bemidji or a line like ""I knew there was something wrong with Iowa guys"" would bring down the house. I actually quite enjoyed the first hour or so. Basically, a bunch of lonely country boys take out a personals ad and find their town beset with willing female suitors (is suitors a gender-specific word?). It ain't progressive, to be sure, but it's sorta charming in its own right. Pity that the filmmakers felt the need to tack on a contrived subplot about a conniving golddigger and her violent husband. Overall it's just too cloying for its own good, but you've got to give some props to a film with the guts to give a guy with Kevin Chamberlin's build a nude love scene. I will always applaud the depiction of people who don't meet the usual standards of beauty as sexual, caring human beings, but that's not enough to redeem Herman, USA. To paraphrase Jello Biafra, it's nostalgia for an age that never existed.",0 -"An excellent thriller of all time. Vijay Anand excels as Director and Editor. Performances by Dev Anand, Vyjayantimala, Tanuja and Ashok Kumar prove to be an asset to the film which has its screenplay worked out to the minutest detail. Cinematography adds to the mystery, glamour and other requirements of the story as it evolves. And to top it all, music by Sachin Dev Burman is unforgettable. ""Yeh dil na hota bechara"" by Kishore Kumar, ""Raat akeli hai"" by Asha Bhosle, ""Rula ke gaya sapna mera"" by Lata, ""Aasman ke niche"" by Lata and Rafi and ""Hothon pe aisi baat main"" by Lata, again reaffirm Burman Dada's unique stature as a top notch composer with a style of his own.",1 -"Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.

***MAJOR SPOILER***

The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.

The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.",0 -"There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.

I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.

I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.

Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.

It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).

This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say ""Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!"" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification.",0 -"The movie was not a waste except for some boring scenes in between.But the women cast gave a pretty good show than the males who were laughable.

But Krista Allen really rocked in the movie .Her voice was so seducing and sexy.The scenes in the bed involving Krista should have shortened but she made it so watchable and sexier than any one could do.Krista really is one of the best in such roles.She also enacted quiet well as the baddie in the last 5 minutes,which is the interesting part of the movie.

Burt Reynolds was not that good and this was not his best as an action star.He could have chosen a better script than this.Ireally think he did for money.",0 -"The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.",0 -"'A Smile LIke Yours' is a pathetic comedy that actually makes no sense. I don't mean that the story was complicated, but the entire plot is based on one thing: a couple's desperate and expensive unsuccessful attempts to conceive children. People who tried that hard must've forgotten of the option of the adoption, to which this movie is not kind to.

Lauren Holly plays Jennifer Robertson, a complete contradiction to anything offered by the women's liberation movement, exhibiting almost no sense of independence. She is quite a boring character as the dreamy housewife with absolutey nothing else on her mind but to have kids. Like a dumb 50's romance comedy, Greg Kinnear is her submitting husband who likewise displays no personality, no independence, and from us, no interest.

They are the two most boring and often annoying characters, and they hardly make for topics of a comedy that should present itself with many mishaps, which should arise from a couple doing all they can to get pregnant. Except, they really don't do anything except go to a fertility clinic and shell out a whole lot of money to do what they could do in the privacy of their own (except for that in vitro fertilization number). The plot hardly allows for any mishaps, because well, the couple don't do anything to create any sort of bizarre situation. They just go to this clinic. So what?

The subplots are meant to test the faithfulness of the couple, a necessary moral element of the story since the couple does plan on conceiving children together. Jennifer works at a new age shop with her friend (played by Joan Cusak), and they are in the business of developing aphrodesiacs. Christopher MacDonald plays the intrested buyer and Jennifer is the promising negotiator of a pretty price for her and her friend's product. The subplot hardly offers much to keep you interested (although Joan Cusak is pretty funny in the restaraunt scene).

Danny (Kinear) is an architect, who finds an opportunity to make some extra money to cover the clinic bills, by taking on a job in Seattle, where his boss is the crass seductress (also another hopeless, helpless female character) who tries to influence Danny (as dumb as he is) to have an affair with her once things are conveniently rocky with him and his wife (for reasons I don't care to give away). Jill Hennesy is good in the role, but her character is too predictable, and too formulaic as a much needed element to create conflict for Danny. It is stupid and once again, hardly interesting.

The overall movie itself is utterly boring, and hardly funny at all (save the restaraunt scene and the airline flight). The plot offers nothing that is really attention-grabbing. Even if the story was entirely about two people trying to conceive, the writers could've figured out several hilarious mishaps to develop out of that. Second, the main characters are completely boring. They are complete silouhettes of dumb 1950s comedies with happy wife and clueless husband. So, even without mishaps present in the plot, the characters themselves offer nothing interesting, let alone funny.

Joan Cusak should've been in the lead and someone else should've taken Kinnear's part. Cusak would've made even a lousy story outrageously funny (as she sometimes does in her co-starring role here). This is definitely one to pass up.",0 -"""I'll Take You There"" tells of a woebegone man who loses his wife to another and finds an unlikely ally in a blind date. Unlike most romantic comedies, this little indie is mostly tongue-in-cheek situational comedy featuring Rogers and Sheedy with little emphasis on romance. A sort of road trip flick with many fun and some poignant moments keeps moving, stays fresh, and is a worthwhile watch for indie lovers.",1 -"Freebird is the perfect marriage of road trip comedy, gang caper, ""stoner"" film and feel-good British movie.

It is the brilliant lead characters that set this movie apart from other films in this genre. Stars Phil Daniels, Gary Stretch and Geoff Bell have a great chemistry and make their characters hugely likable and realistic. The main story centres around their road trip from London to Wales, and the adventures and mishaps that occur along the way. This small film also has a great heart - it is not just for bike fans, as it bases around the character's relationships with each other including dreams and regrets, such as Gary Stretch's Fred longing for the family he left behind. The cinematography is also great - a love letter to the Welsh countryside as well as capturing the grittiness of London streets and typical pub life in the Welsh country towns.

Stylish, slick, fantastic soundtrack, likable characters and funny storyline - I would recommend Freebird in a heartbeat!",1 -"A man in blackface lands in a spaceship and meets a girl who lives in some sort of shack with a monkey. He hooks her up with a telephone, and she teaches him how to Charleston. Then they fly off in the spaceship, leaving the monkey behind. Cringe-inducing blackface aside, this short film makes no sense. I think that's the plot, but I'm not sure by a long shot. You can't tell that this is Renoir at work, despite his characteristic humanism. Good use of slow-motion, though. Can be found on the NY Film Annex's series of Experimental Film videos, No. 18, I believe.",0 -"... when dubbed into another language. Let's face it: Neither Nielsen nor Schwarzenegger are really good actors when it comes to dialog. And given the campy lines they are supposed to utter this is a loose-loose situation. Any type of voice-over is sure to be an improvement (and it actually is - at least in the German version).

But that is only a minor point. The acting is bad. The speeded up combat sequences are pathetic. Nielsen couldn't use her sword to fight her way out of a wet paper bag. This becomes painfully obvious when compared to the fluidity of motion exhibited by the kid (who has had some martial arts training, no doubt) and to the athleticism shown off by Sandahl Bergman.

Schwarzenegger does his Conan thing - nothing new here.

Some of the visuals are nice, I'll have to grant that. The dragon skeleton bridge looks cool. But more often than not the plaster is all too evident.

Overall the movie isn't worth seeing. Even 'Conan the Destroyer' is better than this (although only marginally). I would have much rather seen Bergman as Red Sonja as she was originally supposed to be, but I doubt that that could have saved this movie - oh well.

3/10",0 -"I've watched almost all of the Gundam/Mech anime that have showed in the US and this by far has the best story. The way its plot twists and turns has u riveted. Gundam Wing is a series that mainly focuses on politics and war. The series follows a group of five 15 year old boys who have been trained to pilot state of the art mobile suits known as Gundams. The Gundam pilots were trained to battle a powerful insurgency known as Oz. As things begin to heat up between OZ and the Gundam pilots, new political groups will form and old ones will dissipate. Old conflicts will end and new ones will arise. To obtain peace the Gundam pilots must come to grips with the events taking place in their world and put an end to all the fighting. But, how far are people willing to go to obtain their goal. I recommend this anime to anyone who is looking for a show that has a deep plot.",1 -"Even though I saw this film when I was very young, I already knew the story of Wild the Thief-Taker and Shepherd who famously escaped from Newgate prison.

Apart from the liberty taken right at the end, the film more or less faithfully follows the true story. The temptation to bend the facts which is the hallmark of so many so-called historical films is resisted in this film and the film makers must be praised for that.

Of the performances, There is scarcely a poor performance, and Tommy Steele is ideally cast. Also good is Stanley Baker as the Thief-Taker and Alan Badel is good as always.

Because the film sticks to the facts, it makes it suitable to be watched by all the family.",1 -"This is one of the better sci-fi series. It involves character development, a few really tensionate moments and reasonable episode scripts. As one other commentator said here, it looked as if it were a mini series, not a full blown series with filler episodes and low budgets.

The problem with the show, which in short is a Godzilla series, is that it started too big, with incredible monsters, fantastic science, then it all boiled down to local Americans doing stuff. Then, the show ended too soon, since the Olympics were coming and hey! a sci-fi show is a sci-fi show, but half naked athletic people running around aimlessly is much more important. So they only did 15 episodes instead of the expected 22. The audience was small, too, as people didn't really caught it on at 20:00. In the end the suits did it. Trust a marketing plan to destroy anything that looks remotely original and promising.

Conclusion: you have a show with good special effects, stuff like huge monsters killing people or destroying boats, then going into genetic engineering, transforming people, human clones, end of the world, tsunamis. Also, the only fillers are scenes with aggressive rednecks or other annoying people being killed for their stupidity. The down-side is that after 15 episodes that prepare something huge, the show ends. No real ending, no closure, just a bitter taste of cloth in one's mouth, as if you just swallowed a piece of suit.",1 -"As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, ""Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!"" Chances are, you will too. It does start out intrigueing. A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago. Then, one day she dissappears. The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search. So far, so good. Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability. At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart. None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting. The film moves slowly, and there's very little action. There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway. No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense. Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters. One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together. By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake.",0 -"Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! ""The Brain"" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of ""independent thinkers"", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the ""evil"" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made ""Bloody Birthday"" (guilty pleasure of mine) and ""Plague"". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent… She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her ""masterpiece"". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in ""3 men and a baby"", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress…",0 -"From the start I knew I would be in for the best movie watching experience of my life. The idea of two giant robots, manned by brilliant humans, fighting each other for control of the world was the most intense and well thought of plot I have ever experienced. I can't even begin to describe the brilliant acting and well written script. Let's just just say it compares to both Lord of Rings pictures , combined. The Academy had a grave oversight in not celebrating the joy that is.....ROBOT JOX.",1 -"The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well.

I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian.",0 -"There are some nice shots in this film, it catches some of the landscapes with such a beautiful light, in fact the cinematography is probably it's best asset.

But it's basically more of a made for TV movie, and although it has a lot of twists and turns in the plot, which keeps it quite interesting viewing, there are no subtitles and key plot developments are unveiled in Spanish, so non Spanish speakers will be left a little lost.

I had it as a Xmas gift, as it's a family trait to work through the films of a actor we find talented, and Matthew Mconaughey was just awesome in ""A Time to kill"" , and the ""The Newton Boys "" so I expressed I wanted to see more of his work.

However although it says on the DVD box it is a Matthew Mconaughey film and uses this as a marketing ploy, he has a few lines and is on screen for not very minutes at the end of the film, he is basically an extra and he doesn't exactly light up the screen while he is on, so die hard fans, really not worth it from that point of view.

The films star though, Patrick McGaw is great though and very easy on the eye, and his character is just so nice and kind and caring, a true saint of a guy, he'd be well written into a ROM com.

So for true Mcconaughey acting brilliance of the ones I've seen, I'd recommend, ""A Time to kill"" , ""The Newton Boys "" ""Frailty"", ""How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days"", ""Edtv"" and ""Amistad"" and avoid too ""Larger Than Life"" and ""Angels in the Outfield"" unless you feel like a kids film or have kids around as neither of these are indicative of his talent, but are quite amusing films for children, again MM is really nothing more that a supporting artist with just a few if any lines.

As for Scorpion Springit's not a bad film but it also isn't screen stealing either.",0 -"Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished.",0 -"I have to start off by apologizing because I thought the first 75-80% of this film was hilarious. It's mostly because of Brad Pitt's performance. Spot on.

The acting by all involved was quite good but Brad stole the movie. The atmosphere was perfect in all respects. I'm not a giant Pitt fan but this has got to be one of his best roles ever.

Brutal,Honest,Gritty. All good words to describe this movie.

I was reading a previous review and the person said that the reasoning behind Early's violence isn't explained. It is explained but they thankfully don't have to go into graphic detail to get their point across.

Overall I gave this a 9 because every scene bar 1 or 2 was effective. I think the humor in the first half or so is perfect for this movie. Underrated.",1 -"In his directorial debut, Denzel Washington takes a true story that also happens to be a very difficult story and brings it to the screen with an honesty that we have come to expect from Washington's acting efforts, but now we see this touch as a director.

Recently we have seen some of the disastrous results of kids who have fallen through the cracks of public protection. This story tells of a nightmare existence that leaves terrible scars but suggests the triumph of the human spirit in the end.

We can nit pick on some first effort problems with too many close ups and not the best of editing these scenes but the simplicity of other scenes that project such power cannot be understated.

If the academy overlooks this film it will be travesty. This film pulls no punches and goes to the cold hard facts of the story with a purity that usually doesn't transcend from a novel to the screen. This , of course , is a tribute to the Director.

This is a dandy so go see it and tell your friends to go see it too!",1 -"If ever I was asked to remember a song from a film of yester years, then it would have to be ""Chalo Di Daar Chalo Chand Ke Paar Chalo"" for its meaning, the way it is sung by Lata Mangeshkar and Mohd. Rafi, the lyrics by Kaif Bhopali and not to mention the cinema photography when the sailing boat goes out against the black background and the shining stars. The other would have to be ""Chalte Chalte."" Pakeezah was Meena Kumari's last film before she died and the amount of it time it took can be seen on the screen. In each of the the songs that are picturised, she looks young but after that she does not. But one actor who didn't change in his looks was the late Raj Kumar, who falls in love with her and especially her feet, after he accidentally goes into her train cabin and upon seeing them, he leaves a note describing how beautiful they are.

Conclusion: Pakeezah is a beautiful romantic story that, if at all possible should be viewed on large screen just for the sake of the cinema photography and songs. The movie stars the Meena kumari, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar and is directed by Kamal Amrohi.

Kamal Amrohi's grandson has now started to revive his grand father's studio by making a comedy movie.",1 -"Another American Pie movie has been shoved down our throats and this one is the worst one of them all. It doesn't deserve the name American Pie. They should have stopped at ""The Wedding"".

This movie feels like just a stupid porn movie which they slapped the title American Pie on. When i was watching this i felt like i was watching a different series. It doesn't fell like American Pie at all. It has different humor and it is much more rude and has many more sex scenes then the other American Pie movies.

I don't recommend it ever. Actually i don't recommend any of the ""American Pie Presents"" movies. Just stick with the nice original trilogy.

2/10",0 -"I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.

I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.

This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.

I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.

Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV.",0 -"You know, this is one of those ""Emperor's New Clothes"" films. It's like, so off the wall and strange that you're SUPPOSED to like it if you're really into film. Well, I think that's a bunch of bologna. Films like this which hide under the cloak of Dada or surrealism make me nuts. Some person has this bad dream, perhaps brought on by eating the aforementioned bologna right before going to bed, remembers most of it (unfortunately) and then puts it on film and we're all supposed to marvel at their creative genius. I have bizarre dreams too, sometimes, that make absolutely no sense but I don't feel the need to put them on film, expose everybody else to them and call it art. Weirdness does not, in of itself, mean something is interesting. True Dada or surrealistic expression has SOME intent and intellectual thought behind it. If other people don't get it, that doesn't make it profound, it just makes it incomprehensible. Bizarreness for bizarreness sake, for me, is not good, let alone great, art. And comparing ""Tuvalu"" to ""Delicatesen"" is like comparing ""The Godfather I & II"" to ""The Godfather III""---same genre, NOT in the same league.",0 -"Shot on an impossible schedule and no budget to speak of, the movie turned out a lot better than you would expect, certainly much more true to the Peter O'Donnell books and comic strip than the previous two films. You can read the strip currently in the reprints from Titan Books, or in Comics Revue monthly. It is one of the greatest adventure comic strips of all time. The movie isn't great, but unlike most low budget films it makes the most of what its got, and it holds your interest. On the DVD extras, the interview with Quentin Tarentino, who is obviously stoned, is a gas. Some people have faulted Tarentino for associating his name with the film, but without him it would never have been made. He is a Modesty Blaise fan, and picked a good writer and director. All things considered, worth 8 stars.",1 -"One of the other reviewers has mentioned that after watching just 1 Oz episode you'll be hooked. They are right, as this is exactly what happened with me.

The first thing that struck me about Oz was its brutality and unflinching scenes of violence, which set in right from the word GO. Trust me, this is not a show for the faint hearted or timid. This show pulls no punches with regards to drugs, sex or violence. Its is hardcore, in the classic use of the word.

It is called OZ as that is the nickname given to the Oswald Maximum Security State Penitentary. It focuses mainly on Emerald City, an experimental section of the prison where all the cells have glass fronts and face inwards, so privacy is not high on the agenda. Em City is home to many..Aryans, Muslims, gangstas, Latinos, Christians, Italians, Irish and more....so scuffles, death stares, dodgy dealings and shady agreements are never far away.

I would say the main appeal of the show is due to the fact that it goes where other shows wouldn't dare. Forget pretty pictures painted for mainstream audiences, forget charm, forget romance...OZ doesn't mess around. The first episode I ever saw struck me as so nasty it was surreal, I couldn't say I was ready for it, but as I watched more, I developed a taste for Oz, and got accustomed to the high levels of graphic violence. Not just violence, but injustice (crooked guards who'll be sold out for a nickel, inmates who'll kill on order and get away with it, well mannered, middle class inmates being turned into prison bitches due to their lack of street skills or prison experience) Watching Oz, you may become comfortable with what is uncomfortable viewing....thats if you can get in touch with your darker side.",1 -"This typically melodramatic Bollywood film has inexplicably become a favorite of Western critics. The script is ludicrous, the acting is over-the-top, and it looks cheesy. The only reasons for watching this soap opera are the wonderful songs sung by Mangeshkar and the curtain call of the legendary Meena Kumari. Watching the actress, who was ill during the filming and would drink herself to death at age 40 shortly after the film was released, has the same fascination as watching a train wreck. Her ex-husband, Amrohi, wrote and directed, but lacks the competency to execute either task well. Bollywood has produced far better films.",0 -"From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.

In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.

Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.",0 -"First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.

Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.

The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.

When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.",0 -"This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.

It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.

Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing.",1 -"This movie is painfully slow and has no plot. It conveys the lives of a group of laid off boatworkers. One of the older ones is sincere in his attempt to get a job. There may be some social commentary here, but, it is muddled as nobody is painted in a very sympathetic light.

I do not understand why it had a 7.8 when I decided to watch it. I watched the whole tedious thing and built expectations for a huge redeeming payoff. No luck. The IMDb rating has always been such a good match for my tastes. Anything above 6.5 was worth watching.

And my wife says Javier Barem does not even look good in this movie. He's not my type, so, my agreement does not mean much.

Sigh. I give it a 1.",0 -"At first glance I expected this film to be crappy because I thought the plot would be so excessively feminist. But I was wrong. As you maybe have read in earlier published comments, I agree in that the feminist part in this film does not bother. I never had the idea that the main character was exaggerating her position as a woman. It's like Guzman is presented as somebody with a spine, this in contrast to her classmates. So I was surprised by the story, in fact, I thought it was quite good, except for the predictable end. Maybe it would've been a better idea to give the plot a radical twist, so that the viewer is somewhat more surprised.

In addition, I'd like to say that Rodriguez earned her respect by the way she put away her character. I can't really explain why, but especially in the love scenes she convinced me. It just looked real I think.

I gave it a 7 out of 10, merely because of the dull last half hour.",1 -"I really really love this show! I have always liked the 1990's shows of Space Ghost! This show was hilarious and I can't believe why Cartoon Network's Adult Swim would take such a funny show like this off the air. I hope they put this show on DVD or something. The show is about Brak (from the Space Ghost cartoons, SGCC and Cartoon Planet) who lives his every day life with his Mom and Dad and his best friend who likes to drop in a lot, Zorak! My favorite episodes were the one where Zorak gets this really good singing voice and then his voice doesn't give him any money that Zorak made from singing at all. Another episode I like is the one where Brak and Zorak didn't finish their homework and then they go back from Sunday to Friday and they just goof off and then they go back to the day homework was invented and then when they go back to the present homework didn't exist! Another episode I like is the one where Brak's Dad and their next door neighbor, Thundercleese the Robot keep getting into this agrument and then they get eaten by a giant worm. Another episode I liked was the one where Zorak makes a bully stand and then some new guy took over his stand. I also like a lot of the other episodes! One thing that never fails to make me laugh is when Zorak is getting beaten up, blasted and zapped!",1 -"There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with ""Cabin Fever"" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer.",0 -"I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said ""we have to go see this movie""...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.

The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.

Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made!",0 -"What gives this movie its personality is the knowledge, in the end, that it is all true. While it is a compelling and humorous documentary that does border on mockumentary in some parts (are they staged or is it really happening humorously?), it does seem to get a bit long towards the end.

This movie is funny in places it needs to be, and flows relatively well. Reminiscent of Christopher Guest's movies, if you liked those or Adaptation then I recommend you keep a look out for this one.

B+",1 -"I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a ""fun"" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100.

",0 -"The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license.

Which might one aver?

In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.

In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.

How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?

The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.

That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.

So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.

In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.

For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.

Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.

David Broadhurst",1 -"Very silly high school/teen flick about geeks trying to prove themselves better than the rich brats. Sound familiar? This television movie from director Rod Amateau (""Uncommon Valour"" and some ""Dukes of Hazaard"" episodes believe it or not) says nothing, does nothing, and surely will entertain very few.

Notable for its ""who's who"" of television cast, including Michael J. Fox, Bob Denver (""Gilligan""), and Todd Bridges (""Different Strokes""). This lame effort barely limps over the line. Also stars Anthony Edwards (""E.R."").

Saturday, September 5, 1998 - Video",0 -"Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity – all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery.

Washed-up hit-man Armand ""The Blackbird"" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses.

Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene – purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.

The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall – and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing.

- The Massie Twins",0 -"There is a famous short story about a man who becomes the prey of a safari hunter who has lost interest in hunting anything except humans. Its quite good, and its been done and redone in film and TV many many times. Some are notable, but this urbanized version, that injects the tired old racism themes, just flat out stinks. Leguizamo's slapstick is almost as weak as the unfunny script. Chaplin, this guy isn't. There must be people who find a dwarf who cant stop dancing funny, I mean I suppose it is funny in a pathetic freakish way, but its just not enough to carry a movie. You have the usual Nazi holdover or neo-Nazi whatever the heck we are supposed to think, type villain, who's son of course is gay, German accents...get the picture?",0 -"It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.

This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.

The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain.

When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.

To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.

But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly – so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind – and look where the thinkers end up.",1 -"An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.",0 -"The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen – believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.",0 -"It's a simple fact that there are many of us from the 80's generation who grew up loving those loopy John Cusack comedies made by Savage Steve Holland, and while I prefer there other more bizarre, out-there flick, Better Off Dead, it's hard for me to dislike One Crazy Summer, a movie I grew up loving wholeheartedly as a kid into my teens. OCS was a follow-up to Better Off Dead, returning Cusack and Curtis Armstrong from that film.

Cusack is Hoops, following graduation pal Joel Murray(George)to Nantucket for the summer to each some fun on the beach. Hoops finds himself embroiled in a feud with a blonde, buff punk named Teddy Beckersted whose lecherous father has designs on bulldozing over homes of a neighborhood to build a giant condominium. One of the homes, needing it's mortgage repaid belongs to Demi Moore(Cassandra). There's a sailboat race which might be their only hope of saving Cassandra's grandfather's home(..he had recently passed), but it has been won by Teddy over the past many years, and Hoops is deathly afraid of boats over water. But, with the help and motivation of newfound Nantucket friends(..such as Bobcat Goldwait and Tom Villard as auto-mechanic twin brothers!), George, and budding love-interest Cassandra, perhaps Hoops can come to terms with his fears and win the race to save the neighborhood. Armstrong has a supporting part as the son of a kooky, manic weapons salesman, General Raymond(..SCTV's Joe Flaherty in an inspired bit of casting), Ack, who uses the training from his father to assist Hoops and company in their goals to win the race.

Memorable scenes include Bobcat getting stuck in a Godzilla suit(!)running rampant across an entire model of Aguilla Beckersted(Mark Metcalf, barely recognizable as Teddy's rather unhinged pops)'s condominium, Hoops being chased by deranged cub scouts wishing to perform first aid, George a victim of toxic flatulence, Bruce Wagner's nutty Uncle Frank's increasing insanity every time he tries to better his chances to win 1 million dollars from a radio show, and the wonderful Billie Bird as George's grandma who actually bills the group after a meal! Jeremy Piven as(you guessed it)a brutish jerk who associates with Teddy and causes trouble for Hoops and his posse, the yummy Kimberly Foster as Cookie(..Teddy's girl who attempts to make-out with Hoops while he attends a luncheon with his father), and the one-and-only William Hickey as Old Man Beckersted, who will not reward his son and grandson an inheritance if they lose the sail boat race. Demi Moore is cute, but this is Cusack's vehicle, though Bobcat and Villard steal most of the scenes their in. Again, some delightful animation from Holland are sprinkled throughout the movie(Hoops is an artist, appropriately). If you like his movies, I highly recommend the underrated, How I Got Into College.",1 -"In efforts to make a somewhat comedic yet serious movie about the art of growing marijuana, Stephen Gyllenhaal (director) fell a few bong rips short of a good movie. While the cast is nothing short of amazing, this movie is extremely hard to sit through. The acting of Billy Bob Thornton, Ryan Phillipe, Jon Bon Jovi, Hank Azaria, and Kelly Lynch couldn't even save this movie from failure. It would be wiser to flush three single dollar bills down the toilet then to check this movie out at the local video store.

",0 -"We found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often.

The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed.

The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.

I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.",0 -"Sensual and tough Maria Braun. (Hanna Schygula) marries a soldier in the middle of World War II and spends a half of day and the whole night with him. That's how long her marriage lasts before she loses him to the war and then to prison. She carries on with her life, becomes a successful businesswoman being not only sensual but intelligent, ambitious, and willing to use sex whenever or wherever necessary: ""I don't know a thing about business, but I do know what German women want. You might even say I'm an expert on it"". While climbing up to the success she always remembers her husband, Hermann (her man) and convinces herself that whatever she does – is for him, for their future happy life together. ""Maria Braun""'s style reminds much of melodramas by Fassbinder's favorite Hollywood director, Douglas Sirk and offers a glimpse of the loss and survival in postwar Germany. Hanna Schygula literally shines in every scene of the movie and she is fantastic.

8.5/10",1 -"A group of teens decide to take their slumber party to an abandoned school where, 27 years prior, a horrible massacre took place. Unfortunately for them, the person responsible for the slaughter still lurks the halls of the derelict school and he is not happy with their presence.

This film is not like most modern teen slashers we've seen. It's much darker, much more suspenseful, no wise-cracking murderer, etc., and I liked it for those reasons. From a film-making point-of-view, it's not great. The acting is below average. The writing was pretty bad and quite full of clichés, containing randomly tossed-in references to American horror films, some that didn't even make sense (like. . . ""Have you seen Scream 3?"", a girl asks. Yes, I have, and it had nothing to do with walking through the doors of an old school so it in no way relates to this film). But, hey, it's a slasher flick, those are part of the fun. Also, the underutilization of characters was heavily exhibited in this film. There were six main characters (not including The Security Guard) and, to be honest, only three or four were really used. Two characters (the token black guy and some other girl that wasn't important enough to get a label) barely spoke: Between them, I'd estimate about five or six lines total. Also, the girls (other than one) weren't formed well enough to differentiate them from one another. They could've replaced each of the girls with one another repeatedly throughout the film and I wouldn't have noticed the difference. The pacing, however, works well as the horror begins right from the start and rarely ceases. The atmosphere is utilized well and the direction reveals some truly chilling moments. . . although, the overall appearance is a bit cheap-looking due to, what I assume is, low-grade camera equipment (and operation). The ending, though I liked the idea they were going for, was fairly poorly done. It felt rushed and without explanation enough to make it effective. With the amount of time they spent running around looking for nothing, they could've spent a little bit more time on the conclusion to make sure it didn't feel like some random event thrown in for no good reason (which is a flaw many modern horror films are afflicted with). However, ignoring a few irksome issues and trying to focus on the first 98% of the film rather than the ending, this is actually a rather good modern slasher that should be checked out, especially if you're a fan of Spanish and/or atmospheric horror.

Obligatory Slasher Elements:

- Violence/Gore: There's a good bit of blood and gore, realistically done, but not buckets. The violence is extremely well done, not to excess, but pretty brutal at points.

- Sex/Nudity: Little bit, and with the hottest girl in the film.

- Cool Killer: Well, security guards are hardly considered 'cool,' but this guy is pretty wicked. His creepy smile was chilling.

- Scares/Suspense: The suspense is top-notch. . . very tense, very well done. There are also some extremely creepy moments that fused jump scares and the spooky atmosphere.

- Mystery: None at all, really.

- Awkward Dance Scene: Of course: between a couple of guys and a half-unwilling female in the flashback.

- Classic Quote of the Film: 'One more trophy.'

Final verdict: 7/10. This may be stretching it, but fans of Session 9 might want to check it out simply for the similar tone and atmosphere.

-AP3-",1 -"Following a sitcom plot is so mindlessly easy that having her character simultaneously operate both within and without the context the rest of the cast inhabit is the kind of experimentalism that sitcoms could really use. The supporting characters ground the show in a sitcom reality which provides a contextual counterpoint to Sarah's erratic persona which, beyond general insensitivity, has no specific recurring traits for behavioural expectations to be based on, making her less a character than a canvas to be repainted in every episode if not scene. Sarah's ability to see everything from an outside perspective enables her to parody aspects of social behaviour that are subtle enough to usually go unnoticed. Every time she speaks it's like a self-contained 5 second skit. She overemotes a lot, demonstrating the countless things a smile or change in vocal pitch can signify, but never sticks with one idea long enough for you to get comfortable and form expectations that will be satisfied. This may be the most creative, original and experimental TV program ever.",1 -"I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus.

The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on.

I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.",0 -If this awful film moved at a snails pace it would at least be moving.Watching grass grow would be more interesting. It was painful to sit through and I only stayed in the theatre to see how all the cruel teens would die.Where is Brian DePalma????,0 -"This is your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered ""Oscar worthy"".

I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.

The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.

The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.

This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.

As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.

I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.

The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5.",0 -"I absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who wants to be entertained.The directing,acting,and the story is brilliant.Definitely up there with films like scarface and the godfather.This movie makes your heart race.Damian Chapa as well as all of the cast was amazing.I would definitely rent this movie.Damian Chapa deserves an academy award for his acting,and for the way he portrayed the life of a gangster.This movie is a soon to be classic,and an all around brilliant piece of film-making.I loved it and I give it 10 stars.In a sentence the only way to describe it is a film without any flaws.Watch this movie and you'll see what i mean. 2 thumbs up!!!!!!!",1 -"As I watched this movie, and I began to see its' characters develop I could feel this would be an excellent picture. When you get that feeling, and the movie indeed fills those expectations the experience is rare. I had that very feeling throughout this movie. Robert DeNiro and Cuba Gooding Junior played riveting and amazingly strong parts which were both Oscar worthy. The supporting cast was equally as strong creating a winning foundation for the picture to grow on. I can say without any hesitation at all, see this movie it will not disappoint.",1 -"I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.",0 -"This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.

The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really.

The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.

I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)",0 -"I was interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.

The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel ""Descent Into Hell"" for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.

What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break.",0 -"since the plot like Vertigo or Brian DePalma's Obsession, till to the score by Peter Chase that reminds the sounds of Bernard Herrmann, this little pearl seems to be sight from fews. Remarkable playing by Romane Boeringer and Vincent Cassel in a bohemian Paris portrayed from the famous Thierry Arbogast. A little cult! It is a pity that the only version available on DVD are the french one and the English. Directed by a controversial artist as Gilles Mimouni, it could be considered a little homage to the Cinema masterworks. It is a french movie, and as all of them, not for all, we could say a d'essai cinema. Even if not so publicized, it could be remembered for several reason.",1 -"Enhanced by the expressive cinematography of Agnes Godard (Beau Travail), Golden Door is a visually striking tone poem that follows the journey of a peasant family from their primitive home in Sicily to Ellis Island in New York at the turn of the century. It is a surreal, enigmatic, often strange, but ultimately deeply rewarding experience. Interweaving dreamlike and symbolic imagery with gritty realism, the latest film by Emanuele Crialese (Respiro) is like an impressionistic painting - a cinematic artist's rendering of what the immigration process may have been like for our parents and grandparents. Crialese's ""magical, mystery tour"" came about as a result of his visit to the museum on Ellis Island, the looks on the faces of the immigrants depicted in photographs he saw, and his research into the harsh policies and procedures used during the admission of immigrants.

Guided by letters he read of immigrants sent to relatives who remained at home, Crialese identifies with those impoverished immigrants who were able to see the positive side of things beyond their ordeal. To Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his older son Angelo (Francesco Casisa), America is a distant dream that they know nothing about. After climbing a rocky mountain to pray to the saints for a sign, they are rewarded when they are shown post cards by Salvatore's younger son, Pietro (Filippo Pucillo), a deaf mute, that depict the new world as a land where they can bathe in rivers of milk, sit under a money tree, or harvest giant onions and carrots.

After disposing of their animals in exchange for shoes and suits, Salvatore, his two sons, and his elderly mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) set out on their adventure with more hope than trepidation but the equation soon shifts the other way. As they board the boat and settle into their crowded third-class steerage compartments, the most-talked about scene in the film takes place. Using an overhead camera that shows masses of people standing, as the ship pulls away, the frame is divided into those aboard the ship and those waving goodbye from the dock and the way they are separated implies they are being torn asunder from everything familiar.

Aboard the ship is a mysterious English woman named Lucy (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Crialese does not reveal her past or the reason she is traveling to America but she seems to stand for the onset of the modern world they are entering. Though they eye each other cautiously, Lucy becomes interested in Salvatore and asks him to marry her in order to allow her to enter the country. The voyage is treacherous with a violent storm buffeting the ship. Shot in almost complete darkness, passengers in steerage are tossed against the side of the boat and, afterward, bodies lie tangled and twisted on the floor as if in a macabre Totentanz. The rite of passage through immigration processing at Ellis Island does not become any easier and Crialese attacks the way illiterate peasants, in the name of preserving ""civilized"" society, are forced to put puzzles together, perform mathematical tasks, and undergo humiliating medical examinations to prove they are ""fit"".

A marriage brokering ceremony feels like an auction block and the young women look despondent when they are matched with overweight middle-aged men. This is the only way they can enter the ""Golden Door"", however, since single women are rejected unless they have partners, ostensibly to prevent the threat of prostitution. Through the fog the immigrant's can barely see the land of milk and honey and there is no Statue of Liberty asking for the tired and the poor, the humbled masses yearning to breathe free. In their imagination, however, the river is still flowing, waiting for them to jump in. Though the ending is ambiguous and one door opens on to a blank wall, another door symbolizes a rebirth of the soul and the passage we must all take from the old world to the new.",1 -"What a poor excuse for New Zealnd Movie making. I'm ashamed to call myself a New Zealander when this movie exists and is currently playing on New Zealand satellite TV (Aug 2006). The cast is made up of a large number of local soap stars. The ship, in real life, is one of the inter-island ferries that travel daily between the two main islands and even has the company's logo (a dolphin) still all over the set including on the ship's funnel. The ship is supposed to be a cruise ship/ferry between the USA and Mexico. It has obvious signs of rust and old age all over the place yet is supposed to be a luxury ship on it's maiden voyage. One of the scenes shows the snow capped peaks of New Zealand's South island in the background for God's sake! Must have been a very cold time on the USA/Mexico area! The story is weak, the acting is weaker and the new Zealand/American accents just don't work. I expect the New Zealand tax payer contributed to the production cost of this movie and that was a waste of money better spent on a real production. I know high school kids in New Zealand who could make better movies with their cell phones. Goof: There is a truck in the hold with tagging on it and they stuck a Taco Company sign on the door of the truck, presumably to make it look like it was American. But some of the sign is over the top of the tagging - you'd think they would have noticed that in the props department before attaching it. I'd love to go on but it just isn't worth the trouble in any way.",0 -"Excruciatingly slow-paced, over-scripted black comedy with a too-clever premise and bad acting.

Maybe this would have worked as a Twilight Zone or Tales from the Crypt episode, but by the last half, you just want it to get to its predictable ending and be done with it already.",0 -"There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.

I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the ""Blind Dead"" series.

This movie was certainly much worse than the first, ""La Noche del Terror Ciego"". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.

The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.

The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.

Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.

Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.

The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.

I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes.",0 -"I don't have much to add to my summary, this film ranks right up the there with Top Gun as one of the funniest films ever made while not trying to be. I for one don't think it should be taken seriously when watched as it is very enjoyable.

I don't think it brings Christopher Walken's reputation down either as his reputation was on the wane back then anyway. It took Pulp Fiction to wake him from the slumber he had been in. As for Michael Ironside, he has been in some of the great funny while not trying to be serious films. Total Recall, Top Gun. What I think is amazing is the budget this movie had. The scenes and actors and explosions etc. are quite amazing so obviously someone liked it quite a lot and was willing to risk a lot of money. Whoever he or she was I like them because I love this film!

If anyone reads this looking for information on McBain (and I seriously doubt there'll be too many) just know that it is a hilarious movie and should be viewed with a smile on your face!",1 -"Sergio Martino's The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a scenic giallo from the early 70's heyday of the genre. An explosion on an aeroplane results in one million dollars in insurance money for a bereaved but unfaithful wife. The money is subsequently snatched by a black-clad assassin and a series of brutal murders follow.

Scorpion's Tail plays the mystery element, written by giallo specialist Ernesto Gastaldi, fairly straight. But, being a giallo, the murders themselves are memorable and well-staged. In fact, the violence in this movie is very strong in places - a scene with a broken bottle being particularly graphic. The emphasis on the violence no doubt influencing the giallo genre to move into more and more extreme territory. But like the best films in the genre the brutality is offset by a good score and attractive photography. The music by Bruno Nicolai is at times reminiscent of Ennio Morricone's avant-garde work in The Bird with the Crystal Plumage but is also strong in its own right. The photography is helped by the nice use of foreign locales - in this case London and Athens - where Martino manages to get in, respectively, the Houses of Parliament and the Acropolis! There is also some inventive camera-work too, the most effective being the use of slow motion in a sequence where a woman runs towards the door where the maniac is prowling outside. In this particular scene Martino has the killer hack through the door with a knife in a manner influenced by Dario Argento's Crystal Plumage, however, it also has the killer attempt to flick the latch open with the blade of a knife which is something repeated later by Argento in Suspiria. So Martino's film is influential in its own right.

This is a good solid giallo that both genre and non-genre fans can appreciate. The performances are good and the production values are fine (although the plane explosion is, shall we say, somewhat low-budget!). The DVD release by NoShame is nice. It has both the English and Italian language options which is a real bonus. However, it is worth pointing out that at times you need to be a fast reader to fully appreciate the English subtitle option. This applies to both the movie and the documentary in the extras. This is a minor point though, the DVD release is a worthy addition to any giallo collection.",1 -"I loved this film because of the dialog and superb acting by Candace and Jacqueline. However, I never knew until now, watching a Bette David marathon on TNT that this film is a remake of a 1943 Bette Davis classic called Old Acquaintance. Bette co-stars with Miriam Hopkins who she was in a terrible feud with during the making of the movie because Bette had had an affair with Miriam's husband who directed her in a film before they made Old Acquaintance.

Anyway, both are worth every minute spent watching. I highly recommend this film if you like a lot of dialog and drama. It's a study in the psychology of women and their relationships with each other, in my opinion.",1 -"This was a very good show. I enjoyed the construction of real time and flashback, seeing the old Diggers meeting again and recalling the terrors of their captivity in Changi POW Camp. The main problem with the way the show was written is that the scenes of life in Changi are more like a holiday camp than what the place must have been like. I am old enough to remember film footage of the men being liberated from Changi and other Japanese POW camps. No actor could lose enough weight to have a resemblance of the state of those men. They made the Jews of Belsen look like sumo wrestlers. I have met several veterans from Changi over the years. Many would never ride in a Japanese car, let alone own one. The physical and mental torture those men endured was too horrific for them to even talk about. What percentage survived? John Doyle might be OK writing comedy for ""Roy and HG"" (I hate that too) but this is a serious sugar coating of history that should never have been tolerated. I'm happy for satirists to write ""The Life of Brian"" and make fun of the Crucifixion because it is obviously comedy, even if some consider it to be in bad taste. ""Changi"" is written as a portrayal of a real event and, as such, might be regarded by younger people as a true record. Great performances by a fine cast cannot redeem this lightweight screenplay.",0 -"This is another fantasy favorite from Ralph Bakshi; after watching it on YouTube that is. Set in the distant past after the Ice Age, it is a prehistoric sword-and-sorcery quest between good and evil. Nekron, Lord of the realm of Ice and his mother Queen Juliana, has set their sights on conquest of the known world. When their glaciers destroy's the village of a man named Larn, he (Larn) vows to avenge his people and kill the Ice Lord. Meanwhile, the sub-human minions of Nekron and Juliana capture Firekeep's King Jarol's sultry daughter Princess Teegra; but she manages to escape, and eventually meets with Larn, who promises to escort her back to Firekeep; if the sub-humans don't find them first.

This movie did very little box office (as did most of Ralph Bakshi's films), but has become a cult classic, partly for the quality of the art, a collaboration between Ralph Bakshi and the famed fantasy artist Frank Frazetta. Also, I have heard that the screenplay was written by Gerry Conway and Roy Thomas, the two men who had done Conan comic book stories, and the background painters included James Gurney, the illustrator of the Dinotopia novels; though admittedly I had never read Conan or Dinotopia. And also the painter Thomas Kinkade, noted for his artwork for figurines, music-boxes for The Bradford Exchange Company besides paintings. And like Bakshi's films The Lord of the Rings and American Pop, this movie was rotoscoped, but the process works better in this film than in the former.

So overall, I think it's one of the best animated fantasy movies ever made, and an awesome collaboration between two great minds - Ralph Bakshi and Frank Frazetta. With plenty of fantasy, sexual innuendo, and thrilling adventure.",1 -"The plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless",0 -"please why not put this fantastic film on DVD,i have been searching just like the previous writer for years, whats the hold up, or show it on TV. its so underestimated its one of the most romantic and beautifully written books i have ever read, and believe i have read some.I seem to think it was read on radio 4, but i can't find that either. Why not try and remake it even, i promise it will be top earner, people love those sorts of stories, So please either release it and take us out of our misery or remake it,although i doubt if it could be improved upon. Has any one read gone to earth by the same author or seen the film with Jennifer Jones, this is superb, but not to the same extent may be.",1 -"Blame Guy Ritchie. The late 90s success of Ritchie's cliché-ridden Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels triggered a series of pitiful gangster movies from which the genre never really recovered. Sadly Rise of The Footsoldier - the true story of Essex hardnut Carlton Leach - isn't likely to reverse that trend. Despite a decent lead performance from Hartnett, the film falls victim to all-too familiar East End stereotypes. They're either busy blowing someone's brains out or shagging a scantily-clad blonde.

From fearsome football hooligan in the eighties to a key figure in the criminal underworld during the nineties, Footsoldier charts Leach's rise through the ranks of thuggery. Leaving the terraces for nightclubs, Leach becomes a bouncer where he's given carte blanche to kick the crap out of anyone. Here he gets in with notorious gangland leaders Pat Tate (Fairbrass) and Tony Tucker (Stone), and begins to realise gang-warfare ain't what it's cracked up to be.

There is fun to be had deconstructing writer-director Julian Gilbey's laughable join-the-dots yob patois, as every sentence seems to start with an, 'I'm gonna fackin'…' or 'You fackin'…' or, on occasion, 'So then I only went an' fackin'…', typically concluded with a mandatory 'caaaant!' The direction, too, smacks of sadism, especially the obvious glee Gilbey gets from filming violent scenes in close-up and, in the case of the bloody shotgun-to-the-face denouement, in triplicate.

Director Gilbey's use of the classic rise-and-fall gangster narrative isn't what will condemn Footsoldier to big screen obscurity. Nor is it the fact that half way through, the film annoyingly sidelines Leach in favour of the events culminating in the infamous shooting of Tate and Tucker. It's Gilbey's sickening appetite for scatter-shot violence that ruins the film; whether it's a brick in the face or axe in the head during a vicious attack on a train, it's all unnecessarily prolonged. Footsoldier doesn't so much pack a punch as leave you feeling violated and more importantly, robs you of two hours of your life you won't get back...",0 -"Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not.

Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, ""Enigma of Loch Ness"" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished – probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, ""What is the film crew doing here?"" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, ""Who is in charge here?"" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction.

Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless.

This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie.

The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students – sort of a ""what not to do"" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.

I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time.

(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book ""Picture"" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of ""The Red Badge of Courage"" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)",0 -"A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.",0 -"I love Henry James books and Washington Square was no exception. I was very excited to see a new movie coming out, based on the book of that title. Jennifer Jason Lee is an exceptional actress and Ben Chaplin good enough to play the lead roles. Albert Finney is miscast and doesn't carry the role well. I wanted to shoot Maggie Smith....or rather her silly, insipid role. The real problem and what's lacking in this latest version is a good script, music, and direction.

I fell asleep in the theater watching this long, drawn out and exceptionally boring movie. There are more pauses in the dialog than a Pinter Play. In the book I felt a deep caring for Catherine Sloper and her life. The movie had just the opposite effect. I also disliked the twist where her aunt has a sexual attraction to Morris. Eeeeeeeek. YUK.

Watch it if you can't sleep, it's a definite snoozer. Don't watch it if you're depressed. You'll need Zoloft after this.

Sure, ""The Heiress"" was exceptional with Olivia Haviland and Montgomery Clift in the title roles. The actor who played her father was on the mark as the uncaring, cold father....still grieving for his dead wife and hating Catherine for it. The movie was not faithful to the book but neither is this one.

This movie was a box office flop. I have no doubts as to why.",0 -"Horrible waste of talent. Not even worth watching when there is absolutely nothing else to do. My hope against hope is that the actors at least got paid well. Anyway, if you're a fan of Heather's or Luke's, you'll be really disappointed by this big budget student film.",0 -"I really enjoyed this movie.I was fifteen when this movie came out and I could relate. This will be a movie I would show my kids to let them know, the feelings they are having are normal. It is funny to see how we could be so devestated by things at such a young age..who knew that we would bounce back....again and again....Great movie!!!!",1 -"Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry.",0 -"Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or ""global amnesia"", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book ""Fallen Angel"" (filmed in 1965 as ""Mirage"" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, ""Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!"" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: ""What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!"" This is one frantic ""Jigsaw""! *1/2 from ****",0 -"THE FEELING of the need to have someone play the role of Arbiter of Public Taste and Political Correctness always manages to get under our skin. It does seem that these self-appointed, self-superior, pseudo-intellectual types do appear everywhere; be it in one's family, church or bowling league.

THESE are the guys who would have society completely disregard and ignore all that went before us; unless, of course, whatever 'it' is does not fly in the face of today's ""acceptable"" language, mores and general ""standards"" of ""proper"" behavior.

SO it is that these latter day, high tech book burners have targeted a great deal of what was Hollywood's greatest achievement; namely their participation in our own Allied Propaganda via their unselfishly crafted message and theme films.

COLDLY brutal in its generation, the Banned Code and List of Now Unacceptable extends into the Wartime Cartoons that don't meet with the new touchy, feely socially engineered 'official' attitudes; which these ""Thought Police"" have foisted down upon us.

WE were truly surprised to see that there seem to be volumes of such animated short subjects. The majority we are aware of are from Warner Brothers' LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES; featuring Bugs, Daffy, Elmer & Porky, all in conflict with Hitler, Goerring, 'Il Duce', Tojo and the like. Surprisingly though, we found an ample supply of cartoons from MGM, Walt Disney, Lantz, Paramount-Famous Studios and the Brothers Fleischer.

YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP (Famous Studios/Paramount Pictures, 1942) is a prime example of just what we're talking about.

BEING virtually indiscernible from the cartoons that were the output of the Studios of Max and Dave Fleischer before the 1941 business coup-de-tat that moved them out, bringing the new name of ""Famous"" Studios, YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP bore none of the bland plot elements that would reduce the latter day Popeye Cartoons down to the level of the ultimate formula short movie.

WE all remember how we'd have Popeye and Olive Oyl together. Enter Bluto, usually the exponent of wolf whistle and an on acceptable on-screen version of a Male reaction to feminine pulchritude. Olive falls for Bluto's less than honorable attentions; until he gets a little too physical and invariably blurts out, ""Hey Babe, how 'bout a kiss?"" At this point we hear ""Help! Help, Popeye and the diminutive sailor shows up to save the day; replete with the obligatory can of Spinach! DO we exaggerate, Schultz? ONCE again this JAP SAP cartoon is nothing like any of that. Oh sure, it follows the storyline of now having Popeye in the U.S. Navy. The Brothers Fleischer put the little guy in the service in 1941 to conform to the mood in the country and as an open gesture of support for the men now being conscripted in the first Peacetime Draft in United States History. Max and Dave even put Popeye in service aboard the mythical Battleship, the U.S.S. Pensyltucky.

OUR point is just this. YOU'RE A SAP MR. JAP and others like SPINACH FER Britain aren't cartoon vehicles for comic relief in the Theatre's program at all in the true sense. Rather they are a sort of grouping of Editorial Cartoons much like those from any ""Great Metropolitan Newspaper"". These animated shorts, much like those still one panel illustrations, have characters that are highly symbolic and representative of Nations, Ideas and Ideals, such as a just and lasting Peace. In most cases, the hero (Popeye, Bugs Bunny or whoever) is alone with the symbol of the Enemy. Both are highly exaggerated visual metaphors for abstract concept and thought; even if they are cloaked in humorous trappings for wider palatability.

OUR liberal stupidgencia (the antithesis of intelligencia) may not see themselves this way; but for this sort of behavior, they are no more than Neo Nazi Book burners.

PLEASE, allow the future generations to view and appreciate a view of past happenings that is both Historical and Humorous.

POODLE SCHNITZ!!",1 -"This movie is total dreck. I love Val Kilmer and was very surprised earlier this year by ""Felon"" (a good movie!). The entire DVD box is misleading. Val Kilmer while being billed as one of the main people in this film, is in the movie for about 2 minutes. Even the summary on the back of the DVD is not entirely true. This could have been a good movie but the direction was horrible and the plot was about as thin as a sheet of paper. Usually when a movie is this horrendous you can sit back and laugh at it. This film though is so bad and boring I actually fell asleep to it (which I never do during a movie). AVOID AT ALL COSTS!",0 -"Anyone who doesn't laugh all through this movie has been embalmed. I have watched it at least twenty times and I still get tears in my eyes at many of the scenes. Sally Field is absolutely perfect as Celest Talbert, a fading soap star whose supporting cast is trying to get her replaced in hopes that their own star will rise. Fields, at 45, still has that wonderful and beautiful pixie quality and a perfect figure that belies her having had three children. I'm biased, I'm in love with her.

The cast of ""Soapdish"" is filled with stars who perform their roles to perfection. Kevin Kline is flawless, as are Robert Downey Jr., an ingénue Elizabeth Shue, Whoopi Goldberg, Teri Hatcher in one of her early roles, Carrie Fisher as the oversexed casting director who auditions an actor for a small part as a waiter without his shirt on. Kathy Najimy is wonderful as the hapless costume designer, and best of all, Cathy Moriarty as Nurse Nan who leads the plot to get Fields character removed from the show is hilarious.

This movie should have won Oscars for best comedy, best leading lady in a comedy, best leading man in a comedy and myriad other bests, including writing, directing and supporting actors and actresses. Get the DVD so you can watch it over and over for the next twenty five years. You will still be laughing at it when the disc wears out.",1 -A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.

Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.,0 -"Let me just give you guys some advice, if your going to watch this movie just to see a bunch of unlikable characters get slaughtered in a dozen different ways then you are going to love this movie because everyone dies a horrible death, beyond the gore however there is not much else.

where should i start: -the characters do not appeal to the audience as there are no back stories for any of them, there for i didn't feel connected to any of them, in fact i didn't like any of them, and i was so sick of them that by the end of the movie i was rooting for the disfigured creep to kill them all.(which he did by the way)

-bad acting; i mean i didn't get it, take the Asian tour guide for example, first he spoke perfect English then after their little tour boat thing sunk he somehow got an accent out of the blue, then later on went to speaking normal English.

-one of the worst endings for a horror:(if you can call it that)after the monster/human mutant thing kills almost everyone, he is killed by the last two remaining idiots, or so they thought! the monster/human thing is finally killed when the beauty and the geek stick a pole through its heart/nick(it was hard to tell)and presumably it died right in front of them(within arms reach) but later on it comes back and kills them(wtf) i mean why didn't it just kill them when he was right next to them. Arghhhh! i mean it was just way too retarded,it was like the writer didn't know where he wanted the story to go.(or he was a few minutes short of 80 min so he added some more retarded twists to the movie so people can get 80min worth of crap instead of 75min.

what i didn't get was why didn't they just kill the damned thing while it was unconscious, instead they just walked away from it like idiots and left it so it could come back and kill them. the only reason i gave it a 4 was because of the gore which was actually the only thing that i watched this movie to the end for, that and to watch them all get killed.(no, i'm serious)",0 -"My very favorite character in films, but in nearly all of them the character of Zorro has a small bit of cloth as a mask and if the villain`s can`t tell who is under that cloth then they are daft.

But in Reed Hadley`s ""Zorro`s Fighting Legion"" (serial 1939) the mask fills his whole face making it a real mystery as to who Zorro really is.

But anyway Zorro is one of the best character`s in films and to bring it up to date l think Anthony Hopkins in ""The Mask of Zorro"" (1998) is a delight.

My interest in films is vast, but l have a real liking for the serial`s of the 30s/40s....

Bond2a",1 -"Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as ""Page 3"" with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.

The film's music is average. The only passable songs are ""Kitne Ajeeb"" and ""Huzoor-E-Ala"", sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is ""Filmy Very Filmy"". The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous.",1 -"'Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.

In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.

Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.

Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.

The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for.",1 -"I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, ""Oh, HERE comes the good part"" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.",0 -"This film is about aging Geisha in post war Tokyo. Okin, played by the incredible Haruko Sugimara, lends money to two other ex Geisha, Tamae (Chikako Hosokawa) and Otomi (Yuko Mochizuki) and they resent the way she is somewhat smug about it. Tamae has a son, Otomi a daughter, who during the film announce they're leaving them while Okin, never a mother, gets visits from two men in her past who, it turns out, just want money from her. Its a compelling tale of what choices you make, what you do to get through life and who you're responsible and beholden to. Haruko Sugimara has always been in my eyes one of the greatest character actresses ever from any country and she plays the mostly unyielding, less than compassionate Okin with an air of superiority that makes you not like her, but at the same time almost envy her. At a time when great films were made by Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kinoshita and Kurosawa, amongst others, Mr. Naruse is right up there with him. If you have a region free DVD player, you should attempt to find the two Naruse box sets released in England. I think this film was a great character study of women who are in danger of being irrelevant. That they are really not makes this film a veritable masterpiece.",1 -"***SPOILERS*** All too, in real life as well as in the movies, familiar story that happens to many young men who are put in a war zone with a gun, or rifle, in their hands. The case of young and innocent, in never handling or firing a gun, Jimmy Davis, Franchot Tone, has been repeated thousands of times over the centuries when men, like Jimmy Davis, are forced to take up arms for their country.

Jimmy who at first wanted to be kicked out of the US Army but was encouraged to stay, by being belted in the mouth, by his good friend Fred P. Willis, Spencer Tracy, ended up on the front lines in France. With Jimmy's unit pinned down by a German machine gun nest he single handedly put it out of commission picking off some half dozen German soldiers from the safety of a nearby church steeple. It was when Jimmy gunned down the last surviving German, who raised his arms in surrender, that an artillery shell hit the steeple seriously wounding him.

Recovering from his wounds at an Army hospital Jimmy fell in love with US Army volunteer nurse Rose Duffy, Gladys George. Rose was really in love with Jimmy's good friend the happy go lucky Fred despite his obnoxious antics towards her. It's when Fred was lost during the fighting on the Western Front that Rose, thinking that he was killed, fell in love and later married Jimmy. When Fred unexpectedly showed up in the French town where Jimmy, now fully recovered from his wounds, was stationed at things got very sticky for both him and Rose who had already accepted Jimmy's proposal of marriage to her!

With WWI over and Jimmy marrying Rose left Fred, who's still in love with her, a bitter and resentful young man. It was almost by accident that Fred ran into Jimmy on the streets of New York City and discovered to his shock and surprise that he completely changed from the meek and non-violent person that he knew before he was sent to war on the European Western Front. Smug and sure of himself, and his ability to shoot a gun, Jimmy had become a top mobster in New York City's underworld! Not only that but as Fred later found out his wife Rose had no idea what Jimmy was really involved in with Jimmy telling her that he works as a law abiding and inoffensive insurance adjuster.

Jimmy's life of crime came full circle when Rose, after she found out about his secret life, ratted him out to the police to prevent him from executing a ""Valentine Day"" like massacre, with his gang members dressed as cops, of his rival mobsters. While on trial Jimmy came to his senses and admitted his guilt willing to face the music and then, after his three year sentence is up, get his life back together.

***SPOILER ALERT*** Hearing rumors from fellow convicts that Rose and his best friend Fred were having an affair behind his back Jimmy broke out of prison ending up a fugitive from the law. It's at Fred's circus, where he works as both manger and barker, that Jimmy in seeing that Rose as well as Fred were true to him that he, like at his trial, had a sudden change of heart. But the thought of going back to prison, with at least another ten years added on to his sentence, was just too much for Jimmy! It was then that Jimmy decided to end it all by letting the police who by then tracked him down do the job, that he himself didn't have the heart to do, for him!",1 -"I have absolutely no idea why I watched Ali G Indahouse except for the fact that Salon seemed to think a crime was committed by not nominating Sacha Baron Cohen for a Emmy for his work on Da Ali G Show. It is a sure bet that I will never watch that show as there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie. Comedy? Torture was more like it. It was just about the stupidest thing I every watched. I will admit that I was captivated by Rhona Mitra. I had not seen her in anything. She wasn't on The Practice during the time I was watching, so I guess I will have to check out Boston Legal one of these evenings to see how she does in something that may be worth watching.",0 -"Expecting to see another Nunsploitation movie with a mean Mother Superior abusing and torturing her charges, Flavia turned out to be MUCH more than I had anticipated.

It actually has a feminist storyline, though I don't think such a term existed in the era in which the movie is set. It certainly wasn't practiced. Women (and the Jews and the poor) are very downtrodden and locked into menial spots in society. Throughout the story, Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) witnesses the tyranny of her time until she just can't sit there any longer and actually does something about it, albeit with disastrous results.

The pre-credit sequence has Flavia as a young adolescent near a battlefield. She sees an injured ""evil"" Muslim soldier (one of the few still alive) and tries to assist him. Before she can, her hate-filled father beheads the soldier and waves his head in her face (great family dynamics, huh?). After this, her father forces her to join a convent where she witnesses even more injustice. Though scenes do involve violence, rape and nuns, I would consider this more of a historical drama than Nunsploitation.

Indeed, many of the ingredients for a trashy exploitation piece are there, but the acting, camera-work, storyline and music are too good to keep it down in that level. Most ""nun"" films I've seen usually have the basic premise of: A good girl somehow winds up in a convent, where the Mother Superior is a supreme bitch that likes to whip people and/or make their lives a living hell.

Flavia spends much of the first part of he movie passively questioning all of the atrocities happening around her. Much of her passivity is forgotten when she becomes acquainted with the strong-spirited (but slightly loony- she likes to pee outside like me, but it's a lot easier for guys) Sister Agatha. When a group of Muslims attack their abbey, Flavia and Agatha do not cower in fear like the other nuns. Their attackers actually function as their liberators (of the cruelty and near-slavery of the abbey). In fact, it is a Christian, not a Muslim invader, that impales dear Sister Agatha.

It is Agatha's death that sends Flavia on her violent crusade against those who have oppressed her... Her father treats her like dirt. Her Muslim lover deserts her at a very inopportune time. I don't want to give out too much of the rest of the story, but be prepared to be shocked, devastated and saddened at the conclusion. This is a great film, so don't be put off by its (undeserved) reputation as a trash epic. Plus, how on Earth could a movie featuring Florinda Bolkan and Claudio Cassinelli go wrong? I am not familiar with María Casares' other works, but Sister Agatha is a hell of a character.

I have read many great reviews of the Synapse (US) release, but I love my German X-Rated Kult DVD copy. It isn't anamorphic/16:9, but actually has a little more picture information on all of the edges than Synapse's release.

And there are also many great, wise or funny lines of dialogue (many from Sister Agatha)

""Why is God male? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit… They're all male!"" -Flavia

""These men are afraid- look at them, Sister- Afraid their power will be taken away from them!"" -Sr. Agatha (regarding Christians fleeing after the Muslims arrive)

""Woman, where are you going? The Moslems can do nothing to you that the Christians haven't done! Ha Ha Ha!"" -Sr. Agatha (to a group of fleeing Christian women)

""Lord bless these Moslems- For putting fear into these pompous Christians."" -Flavia

""Does it take the mere sight of a Moslem to make you $h!t your underclothing?"" -Sr. Agatha

Closing message: ""Flavia Gaetani, not yet a Muslim - no longer a Christian - was punished as a runaway nun. The idea for the film came from events which occurred during the Musalman invasions of Italy culminating in what even today is remembered as THE MARTYRDOM OF THE 800 AT OTRANTO""",1 -"MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film.",1 -"I don't agree with one of the reviewers who compared this film to the American International Pictures. Basil Deardon has directed a brutally realistic film with an honest attempt to portray the rise of juvenile delinquency in post war England (but without the sentimentality of ""Blackboard Jungle""). The cinematography was excellent as it really captured the scariness and isolation of the huge housing estate. The estate looked like an old prison. Stanley Baker was excellent as the hardened detective, reassigned to the juvenile division - ""Urgent, urgent - Larceny - five iced lollies""!!!! He finds he is the butt of many jokes. David McCallum showed that he was one of Britain's top young talents of the fifties. (He had a very different role in another Stanley Baker film ""Hell Drivers""). His portrayal of Johnny and the fanatical following he inspired was very frightening. Ann Heywood was also very good as the cynical Cathie. I wouldn't say there was a romantic subplot in it.

Detective Jack Truman is investigating a string of arson attacks by someone labeled the ""Firefly"". Just as he finds evidence which could lead to a breakthrough, he is assigned to the Juvenile Division - he is pretty disgusted at what he feels is not proper police work. Amid all the heckling he gets his first call out - the 6 year old Murphy twins are working a scam at the local lolly shops!!!

Taking the twins home he meets their brother, the charismatic Johnny, and their embittered sister Cathie. He starts to appreciate how life on the ghastly housing estates can turn young kids into criminals. As he gets more involved with the family, he realises there is a strong link between the fires, Johnny and a frightened Chinese youth who works for a laundry. The local priest (Peter Cushing in an unusual role, away from the Hammer horrors) explains that when Johnny was younger he had rescued some people from a burning building and had been hailed a hero. He wanted to recapture the feeling of importance and being useful and felt he could by lighting fires. The school siege was filmed in a very real way and the viewer felt the children's fear - the teacher (thinking only of her own safety) runs off and locks them in the room with the frightened gunman!!!!

I thought it was a really excellent film that tried to show some of the social problems Britain experienced after the war.

Highly Recommended.",1 -"When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.

It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.

The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only ""good ""part.

Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening.",0 -"So often with Stephen King adaptations, you just get a collection of characters reciting dialogue from the books. This really captures the heart of the book. Maybe because they DON'T use large chunks of text straight from the book, but it's a bit more of an improv of the events in the story. A big part of its success is Miko Hughes as baby Gage. Dale Midkiff and Denise ""Tasha Yar"" Crosby really act like his parents. There's a scene where Louis is cuddling Gage, and they are very natural together. Fred Gwynne is WONDERFUL. He nails the Maine accent perfectly without lapsing into parody, and is wise and warm just like Jud should be. (8 out of 10)",1 -"I never thought I see a movie worse than ""Lisa Picard Is Famous"", but this came pretty close. As repeated often throughout the comments, it was predictable; five minutes into the movie you know it will be a stranded at the alter outcome. This movie painfully references/rips off everything from ""Something about Mary"" to ""Revenge of the Pink Panther"". Writer Greg Glienna (Meet the Parents) needs some new material.

The only twist is the deranged boyfriend/police officer pursued by internal affairs, but even that opportunity is wasted. Lots of setting shots of the Seattle Space Needle necessary to disguise the obvious Canadian shooting locale. Some of the worst driving in the car scenes with almost no effort to disguise the fact that the car is being pulled through town on a trailer. Geez, at least turn the wheel or put the brakes on once in a while. Selma Blair is inert and the short haircut a crime. $3M to Jason Lee, for what? Guess it beats skateboarding!

So here's who should see this movie: Bee Gees fans who want to hear two actors sing 'Islands in the Stream' badly; People who can't get enough of Julia Stiles. 1/10",0 -"I first played this around 98' or 99' when I was with my friends.I thought the game was really great,and loved it.

The game is simple.On one player mode,you go around as James Bond and complete missions in different places like an Arctic wasteland or a city.My favorite was one with a tank.On two player mode,you and a friend choose from any character you wish and go all out with a fight.Through out the area you are in,you will find ammo and weapons to help.From hand guns to rifles to lasers and even your fists work.

Again with player two mode,there are lots of places to go,and some to unlock.I find this game really fun,but also very suspenseful.Because,you never really know where your opponent is,and it's surprising to see them behind a door where you are going.

This game gets ****(1/2) stars or of ***** Very good!Go play it sometime!",1 -"A much undervalued film that tells the story of a young musician caught in an ever-declining spiral of domestic violence.

At times difficult to watch, while Morris Day is portrayed as the misogynist, Prince as the knight on (motorcycle) steed, he is still called upon to twice beat a woman as part of the screenplay. That he can do this and still emerge as a flawed but vindicated hero is credit to the writing. Prince is so free of ego in this film that not only does he portray himself as a narcissistic megalomaniac who beats women, but his most famous song is fictionalised as being written by his father and Wendy & Lisa. Even further, two of his compositions - Computer Blue (admittedly the album's weakest track) and Darling Nikki - are shown as being songs that kill off an audience. Perhaps the only concession to the Princely ego is a card that lists the (slightly shorter than Prince) Apollonia as 5'6.

The nearly complete-amateur cast are mainly band members playing themselves (and reviewers who slate the actors on the terms that they've never appeared in other movies are completely missing the point), and do perfectly well under the direction. Morris Day gets most of the plaudits for his likable ham, though Jerome Benton must also get credit for bouncing off him well, particularly their stage act, which is hilarious. Day and Benton even go so far as to make an Abbott and Costello routine funny, which takes some doing.

Lastly, there's Prince. While I admit to bias, I do actually think he's a pretty good actor in terms of being able to portray a low-key version of himself. Acting ISN'T his profession, this was a film made for entertainment, so anyone pointing out that the guy in the lead role isn't Robert DeNiro and thinking they're making a point is sadly deluded. I don't want this review to be a derisory attack of other people's comments, but I've even this film slated as having a low budget and being darkly lit. How would a film about domestic violence be shot, then? With full overhead spotlights and a CGI dinosaur walking into frame?

The film acts almost as a perfect snapshot of the neon light and skinny tie era… until you remember that it was actually made in a world of curly perms and tinny synths, and this isn't some retro-recreation. Prince's best film with Oscar-winning music, it sees him at his zenith, and it's saddening to realise that, even though he would make some fine albums, he would never again capture this high.",1 -"I really wanted to love this show. I truly, honestly did.

For the first time, gay viewers get their own version of the ""The Bachelor"". With the help of his obligatory ""hag"" Andra, James, a good looking, well-to-do thirty-something has the chance of love with 15 suitors (or ""mates"" as they are referred to in the show). The only problem is half of them are straight and James doesn't know this. If James picks a gay one, they get a trip to New Zealand, and If he picks a straight one, straight guy gets $25,000. How can this not be fun?! Take my hand, lets stroll:

The most glaring problem with this show is the bachelor himself. James is your typical young and successful gay guy with a nice smile and body, the one you'd probably give two glances towards at your local bar before grazing for greener pastures. Why they chose to cast James as the leading man is beyond me. God knows there's so many other hotter and vivacious homosexual men out there dying to be on TV.

Aside from his rather average physical appearance, James is about as interesting and exciting as a piece of chalk. Even as such, he has this arrogant, smugly condescending aura about him. However, if James were standing up against a blank, white wall he'd meld right into in it. I honestly can't recall a single interesting or noteworthy thing James said during the course of the show. He is THAT boring and forgettable. In fact, one of the mates flat out advised him he wasn't feeling a connection. I thought that was the best part of the show. Also, James speaks with an excruciatingly annoying lilt. Sound feminine or sound masculine, but don't ****ing segue tones in the middle of sentences...so painful to sit through. I hated him so much all throughout the show I kept thinking, ""Please choose a straight guy and humiliate yourself and your unfortunate looking hag""

Then we have the suitors. A remarkably bland bunch of men who don't seem to care either way what is happening. Equally vapid, they seem to be indistinguishable from one guy to the next except, ""Hey that guy has blond highlights or oh that one has curly hair"" Again, astoundingly inept casting decisions seem to be the aim of this show. While it may be hackneyed to type cast roles, it would've been a lot more entertaining to watch than these amorphous drones. However, in all their banality they still manage to upstage James (which isn't all that hard to do anyway), slightly that is. You know you have a problem when some of the suitors are actually hotter and more interesting than the leading man. And the fact that the suitors seem to have more fun around EACH OTHER than with the leading man? Very sad.

Also, I just thought that Id point something mentioned on the message boards which I felt was actually true: the straight men are all hotter than the gay guys.

Don't get me wrong, Im not saying all the gay guys were ugly and boring, as a matter of fact I found some of them very cute. It's just that overall they were just BLAH compared to the men you'd see on shows like A Shot At Love with Tila Tequila or The Bachelorette.

I don't know how many times I hit fast forward during this show. I can accept a lead character as interesting as a cardboard box, I can accept the mundane, apathetic suitors but PLEASE for the love of God entertain me just a little. No such luck.

If you're expecting drama, intrigue, sexiness, or excitement you will be SEVERELY disappointed. The biggest ""drama"" comes from the fact that one of the suitors still may have a boyfriend in New York (How scandalous!). As titillating as that may be I guarantee you, that is the ONLY thing that remotely resembles any conflict on this show.

Sure there is the twist, but if you have any semblance of Gaydar in you, you'll easily discern who's who (it wasn't hard at all, I was only wrong once.) This show is stacking so much of its chips on the twist that it fails to deliver anywhere else.

We get to watch as James & Co plod along such exciting activities such as learning how to Western step dance, shopping for gifts, visiting a petting zoo, and gay karaoke. YAWN. Sure you have the occasional topless dancing but who cares when everyone is boring anyway. That's one of main problems with the show: NO ONE seems to be enjoying themselves--they are there just going through the motion trying mightily hard to appear to have a good time. And you really cant blame them since the events are all wildly unimaginative and lame.

Finally, the physical aspect is not there. There's no cuddling, no caressing, no kissing (!), no endearment of any sort. It's just ""Ok that was a boring date, Im gonna go back to my ugly, tacky wanna-be Sydney Operahouse dwelling (quick peck on the lips) CYA."" This show is so ****ing prudish it's ridiculous. I can understand them not wanting to play up the perceived indiscretionary nature of homosexual men, but come the **** on. People who watch reality TV shows are gonna want more than standoffish hugs and curt kisses. This show refuses to compromise.

Sorry if this was long winded but I felt these were issues that needed to be addressed. I do commend Bravo for first putting up a show of this nature, but the staggeringly incompetent manner in which this show was handled is mind boggling. To summarize my three points: Boring + Boring + Boring = go do something else. You'll have more fun waiting at a doctor's office for an appointment, at least they have interesting magazines there.",0 -"Oh, God! Why didn't you give this money for charity? I thought I saw the lowest crap by now, but I was wrong! Who did this script, anyway? A retarded? Who did this cast? I can't believe that there are people that spend money and time to do garbage like that! I was under the impression that I'm watching a porn movie, only without sex scenes, that bad was the so called acting. Onestly, did this film have a director? I believe not and I'm convince that everybody had upon them a page with some lines and red it in front of the camera. I can't explain myself how all the characters in this garbage died without a fight. Nobody can do lower than this! Please, erase it even from IMDb! Bleah!",0 -"Royal Rumble 1988 bored me pretty damn good. The rumble itself is pretty uneventful, filled with mid carders, and a winner that really had no point in winning, and why on earth did The Young Stallions Vs The Islanders main event? half the crowd left. Jessie Ventura sounds bored, through half the thing, and you can tell when he mentions he finds the development of Hogan Vs Andre more interesting. McMahon and Ventura don't have the chemistry of Gorilla and Jessie.

Ricky Steamboat Vs Ravishing Rick Rude. Heavily disappointing match, with too many rest holds, and too much of a sluggish pace, sink this one. When it picks up like crazy in the last 5 minutes, it's too little, too late. Steamboat wins by DQ.

2 1/2 /5

Next is up Dino Bravo attempting to set a new bench press record, with Ventura spotting him. Horrendous segment, with no entertainment value what so ever. Ventura is not nearly enough to carry this segment, and even McMahon admitted it was boring. Controversy or not, I wasted enough time on this crap.

0/5

WWF Woman's Tag Team Championship.

2 out of 3 falls.

The Glamour Girls|C|/W Jimmy Hart. Vs The Jumping Bomb Angels. This is the best match of the night, no I'm not kidding!. Very exciting stuff for Woman's wrestling, and you'll be hard pressed to find stuff this good, now a days. The Jumping Bomb Angels were way over, and the crowd went ape sh*t for their title win.

3/5

Contract signing between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant. Hogan gets a decent pop, but there a few noticeable boo's for him, probably because its in Canada. A bit too drawn out for my liking, but it was necessary for the storyline. It got it's point across, and had some effective moments, but a lot of the times, I kept saying ""Get on with it"". Both sign, and Andre slams Hogan's head on the table, and pushes the table on him.

2 1/2 /5

Royal Rumble Match. Very weak Royal Rumble, probably due to awkward pacing, and the true lack of star power. I think Vince was testing the waters with this one, and it showed. Ventura seems uninterested, and I don't blame him. Crowd clearly wanted Roberts to win, yelling DDT almost every 5 minutes he was in there, and while Duggan got a good pop, I don't believe he was the winner they wanted, and where did this take his career? Nowhere. Bret's 1st ever Royal Rumble, and he made an impressive showing. It wasn't terrible, but it was quite lackluster, and it didn't have enough to make the show, considering this was what the show was based on.

2 1/2 /5

Hogan has an interview with Craig DeGeorge. Standard Hulkster interview, but not with the same craziness, and outrageous remarks he usually pulls.

2/5

Ted and Andre get interviewed. Andre claims he will deliver the Championship to Mr. Dibiase. Short, but effective.

3/5

2 out of 3 Falls.

The Islanders Vs The Young Stallions. Crowd is completely dead for this, and half of them bolted for the exit's. It's quite dull, and had no business being in the main event. Jessie and Vince seem bored, and argue about other things while the match is taking place. Islanders win, due to taking advantage of Roma's injury.

2/5

Bottom line. Historically important I suppose, but there is really nothing to see here. This was just a starting cue for great things to come for The Royal Rumble, and while you can see glimpses of potential here, there is nothing on here, going out of your way to see. I usually recommend everything once for Die Hard Wrestling fans, and considering it's the 1st Royal Rumble event, I suppose I have too, but prepare to be bored a lot of the time.

3/10",0 -"Like Tarzan the Ape Man (1932), only more so. There's more of everything, more animals, more varied African tribes, and scenes in which the thought must be, if this was good with three or four lions, forty would be better. Tarzan wrestles with crocodiles—the the crocodile machine spins in the water like a rolling pin, around and around, jaws flapping. Tarzan can kill it with his ubiquitous knife if the blasted saurian would hold still. Tarzan kills lions and rhinos and a steadily increasing number of animals. His friends are real chimps, people wearing larger ape costumes, and elephants. In fact, they use Indian elephants—far more friendly and trainable than African ones—with costume ears attached to their heads. The human story: another white man, worse than the rest, shows up to join with Holt to go after the ivory from the elephant graveyard. Tarzan won't show them the way, so the bad guy shoots an elephant so they can follow it to its deathbed. Tarzan intercedes, and the bad guy shoots him—but, of course, he survives and returns to save Jane. Everybody else dies, Holt and the bad guy and every single one of their ""boys."" People are expendable, especially Africans, and there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the black fellows who die because they work for the white men travelling through taboo country and those black fellows who kill them. This must be the last Tarzan movie before the Hays Code made Jane wear more clothes. There are a number of underwater scenes in which Jane swims nude, and though the light is flickering the movement and the glimpses are very appealing. Apparently one of Weismuller's friends from the Olympic swim team did the nude scenes, and not Maureen O'Sullivan. She, however, moves through the movie wearing the same sort of loincloth Weismuller wears (plus a bikini top), showing a splendid glimpse of thigh and hip. They still don't need to talk a lot. They sleep together and hang out with cool animals and stay away from cities. No wonder they're happy.",1 -"I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--""I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended,"" ""This movie is not Shakespeare,"" etc. Guess what? Neither was ""Road Trip""! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. ""Whipped"" tries to be ""Swingers"" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word ""extremely"" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second.

""Whipped"" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive.",0 -"Got to confess right up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. I missed the first hour during a Sci Fi Channel broadcast. Or was I spared the first hour? The other reviewers sum this one up nicely. It was badly conceived. Badly scripted. Badly acted.

But the worst thing for me was the ADR. The entire film, which appeared to have been dubbed, sounded like it was done in somebody's garage. There was a voluminous echo to the words, which just served to make the bad dialog hang. And hang. And hang. Even a made for TV movie should have recognized this.

And the idea that alternate dimensions are differentiated by color saturation went out in the 80s, folks.",0 -"For any fan of Nickelodeon who used to watch the network in the 80s and 90s, there was always something good on. You had entertaining acts like You Can't Do That on Television. You had weird but good shows like Pete & Pete. You even had cartoons that taught morals like Doug. But just like Disney, Nickelodeon has fallen down the tubes, limiting their demographic to shallow preteens and giving us poor excuses to come up with new, innovative shows. As I tried watching Zoey 101, I just shook my head in disgust.

The setting couldn't of been more fake than this one. Each character attends a boarding school called Pacific Coast Academy, boasting everything that a spoiled child wants. A sushi bar, laptops everywhere, flat screen TVs in every room, cool dorms to hang out, etc. The kids in this show are rarely seen in class and there doesn't seem to be any real teachers. It looks more like a place that you would spend on a nice summer vacation rather than to work and study while preparing for college.

The characters were also a factor that turned me off. Every episode consists of boy problems, situations that they caused themselves, and troubles that should be solved. Each character is a stereotype. Zoey (Jamie Lynn) seems perfect in anything she does, and each of her friends ask her for help when they feel they are in grave danger. Only leading her to have no other side. I've been through school and I can tell you, nobody is like that. Chase is dumb. Logan plays the arrogant tough guy. Quinn plays a nerd who is highly unrealistic in what she does. Michael is an idiot. Lola is a clone of Nicole. Dana is just well, a tough person. Why not use some originality? Something that is unique for these characters, and different from other personalities? Is being stereotypical the best the creators of this show can come up with? Instead, these actors are dull personalities with the sense in that there is a lack of creativity involving their roles. There is nothing here to be amazed or surprised at.

Not only that, but the show is clearly for the intent of aiming for kids of adolescence, facing a stage in that they must evolve from being a child to being an adult. Through that period they must learn to study on their own, make their own decisions, and do what's right for them. Zoey 101 contains nothing of those values. In this case, we are supposed to believe that looking good and having a stereotypical personality is all you need to succeed. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. People can't expect things to be handed to them like the actors in this show are and just let those things sit there. If I expect things in Zoey 101 to happen in real life, then I would be living in a fantasy world locked away in a dream house. Nothing in this show relates to those who face health and money issues. Neither does it relate to kids wanting to learn something meaningful.

So in conclusion, Zoey 101 is a show made by Nickelodeon that only falls flat on it's face. It displays a horrible message for kids and I highly think the show itself is simply inappropriate for them. Sure, it doesn't have morbid violence, but it teaches everything to make a kid act and look stupid. A horrible show, and should be forgotten with the rest of the garbage Nickelodeon has been making in recent years.

1 out of 10.",0 -"This film's premise seems to be that the passing of the World War 2 generation in America, with its apple-pie phoniness and hypocritical morality, was a terrible tragedy. Those awful hippies ruined everything apparently.

What holds the film together are the excellent performances - particularly Lemmon's which is truly remarkable. Otherwise we have a boring slice-of-life drama (just over 24 hours of Jack's life) with pretensions.

I found it a chore to sit through.",0 -"I found this film to be a fascinating study of a family in crisis. When Leo, the oldest announces that he is HIV+ the reactions of the family members alone and with each other was touching and yet strange.

I have never seen a family that was as physically demonstrative as this one; nor one as likely to shout at each other. I didn't understand why the family felt that youngest couldn't deal with the news but once past that difficult I found this a thoroughly moving film.

",1 -"Reading through most of the other reviews, I tend to agree with most of the comments. The one thing that I would add is the disjointed way the movie has been Directed and Produced. I think that some of these new wave movie makers think that they are being clever using unusual (sometimes jerky) camera angles, and flitting from one scene to another. It goes down well with these movie festivals, and with some of these Indie type critics, but it spoils the movie for me. I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters. This would maybe prove my point, as the film has that 'rushed to finish' feeling that makes you wonder why such a beautiful film appears to be lacking a smooth flow. As for the comment about Kiefer Sutherland being a big name to put on the poster, I would bet he cringed when watching the final cut. This is a story with real potential, spoilt by trying to be different in it's production. Worth watching, but not many would come back for a second view.",0 -"This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No!",0 -"This makes the third Errol Morris movie I've seen, and I'm increasingly not liking his style. He seems to find very interesting and varied characters, great personalities to create documentaries for, and then with tongue-in-cheek editing make fun of everything they are about. It's never really a direct caricaturation of them and Morris seems most of the time to be saying, ""But no, no, these people are really fascinating, really!"", but there's always these subtle little canted angles and not-so-subtle editing techniques that show that Morris seems to be mocking them behind their back.

This movie tracks four people who break the traditional boundaries of organic separation... a man who studies African hairless molerats to find that they are amazingly ant-like, a lion tamer, a man who keeps a garden full of animal-shaped shrubbery, and a robot designer. The general theme of the film seems to revolve around the question of what designates animal, human, and life features? So the title of Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control doesn't really seem to mean anything in terms of the movie... right? Except of course Morris seems just a little disturbed by these individuals' passions (he might call them ""obsessions"") making synthetic designs on life. I share not that fear and honestly don't appreciate some of the connections Morris makes in the film.

But I stress his subtlety. With no voice-over narration and leaving the words entirely to the interviewees, it's not as if Morris ever pounds that anxiety onto the spectators' collective head. Instead he mixes circus footage and ant footage together often at times when they're taken out of the context of the circus and the ants, showing a sort of collective absurdity behind what all of these people are talking about. I don't find them absurd, I find them all very neat and interesting individuals.

Unless, of course, he didn't intend such juxtapositions, which means he's just a bad craftsman instead of a silent subverter. Considering none of this films I've seen so far have particularly impressed me, I don't really care to find out what he's trying to do.

--PolarisDiB",0 -"""Stella"", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and…..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+.

",0 -"Well, I remember when the studio sacked Schrader and hired Harlin to do reshoots to this film, they were quite right to do so.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist is simply a bad movie, it's boring, really it is.

It would be nice to think that the studio put aside a psychological masterpiece and that all those who in such big words condemned Harlin's version and praised Schraders, even if no one had ever seen it, would have been right.

But they weren't.

To put it in a nutshell : Schrader has no idea what a horror film should be, and it shows in a big way.

Droll, boring, unintentionally funny in all the wrong places and bad supporting cast.

Save your cash and your nerves, don't see it.",0 -"From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.

William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.",0 -"THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits.",0 -"When I first saw this film it was about 1956 and even though I saw it again recently I have not changed my mind about it. I think it was Robert Ryans best film, because he portrayed someone like my father, and he was a schizophrenic in real life,(my father) although he never murdered anyone but was affected more so during the second world war which made him worse. Having to humour him just to get by and get through the day was so apt. (My mother and brother had to do this)When I saw Robert Ryan portraying this type of man, it was a very good imitation of this type of individual, and I was impressed.",1 -"Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the ""regents"" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the ""right"" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings.",1 -"Today, I wrote this review in anger at Uwe Boll and Hollywood.

Hollywood has produced movies based on one of the darkest days of our nation. 911 changed everything. It changed our perception of security. It changed our understanding of the evil of man and humanity. Most importantly and devastatingly , it changed our world.

However, I can't not stress how utterly repulsed, disillusioned, and angry I am at the careless, blatant ignorance of Hollywood seeking to make a lucrative profit out of death and destruction. This film and those like it are bound to cause controversy amid word-of-mouth among moviegoers and critics alike; most surely to be echoed by the mainstream press. Hollywood has sunk to a new low. Even lower than the low-down bastards who perpetrated the most barbaric acts of savagery and unrelenting cruelty. Behind it all is Uwe Boll. I am very angry at this movie. How dare they disrespect the memories of families of those lost? How dare they mock the lives of the brave men and women who risked their lives to save those trapped in the doomed towers on that fateful day of infamy?!?!? How dare they try to satirize and at the same time capitalize on a national tragedy in the mist of a mourning and weary post-911 world?!?!?! How...dare...they?

To those who have the gall to even think of seeing this morally appalling travesty, I say this with a heavy heart with all my strength: Remember. Think back to that day and ask yourself whether or not you are a sane and moral person. Think back to that day, ask yourself whether or not this film is a disgrace and dishonor to the lives lost on that day. Think back to that day of the outcry of families of loved ones. Think back to that day of the lives lost on those two planes. Think back to the further carnage it caused following the attacks.

Ask yourself if you have a soul.

Think. Remember. Respect the memories of the lives lost on 911 by not seeing this film at all.",0 -"I would have given this otherwise terrific series a full 10 vote if Claudia Black had not continued on in it! Her inclusion as the silly 'Vela' has brought the series down in my estimation. To bring her in as a regular at the same time as including Ben Browder to replace RDA was a mistake.

Unfortunately we were just reeling from the loss of 'Jack' and really didn't need this great series turned into new episodes of 'Farscape'.

I was a great fan of the film ""Stargate"" and when the series was first announced I had reservations that it could live up to the film, but after watching the first episode I have to admit I was hooked. I have always looked forward to new episodes with great anticipation",1 -"This movie is about basically human relations, and the interaction between them. The main character is an old lady who at the twilight of her life starts a journey to her past, doing an analysis of how she lived her life. This journey is precipitated because of the sons economic crisis and his intentions to put her in a nursing home. It is a very honest look to some issues that we all ask ourselves at some point in life, and there is plenty of secondary ideas to discuss in this movie such as family legacy, real love, marriage or destiny. although this type of movie melodramas are nothing new, this one can be useful to watch it with family members to discuss some ideas. There is a good performance by the actors and the characters are very believable, but because of the time some characters are maybe not fully developed. I really recommend this movie for a quiet Saturday afternoon.",1 -"Wallace and Gromit are the main characters in some of the best cartoons ever crafted. The excellent mix of visual humor and claymation makes ""A Grand Day Out,"" ""The Wrong Trousers,"" and also ""A Close Shave"" some of the best animated footage ever put on television. Winning several Oscars and also countless other awards, Nick Park became quite the popular man in the U.K., yet his impact on the United States has not been big. After the third Wallace and Gromit short, there was all this speculation about a full-length Wallace and Gromit movie, yet for years nothing had happened. Then in 2000 instead of a full-length Wallace and Gromit film, we get another brilliant claymation film from Nick Park, which was Chicken Run, which almost got nominated for best picture in the Academy Awards. Perhaps it was the success of this film that ultimately drove Park to finally work on a Wallace and Gromit project.

5 years later (these kinds of films do take long you know) and a lot of anticipation, Wallace and Gromit finally hits the big screen. Despite the rather weak trailers and marketing campaign, this movie delivers in so many ways. This film will be a delight for both kids and parents. With tons of adult humor hidden beneath the brilliant animation, Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit is one of the few films that perfectly manages to equally appeal to both kids and adults. This rather difficult technique is one that only Pixar has already perfected and DreamWorks has had a lot of trouble doing lately. Despite the DreamWorks logo slapped onto the poster, this film is mainly from the very creative staff of Aardman Animations.

Wallace and Gromit are first seen running a business that protects the townspeople's crops from being ruined by rabbits, which apparently had been running around wild and in great numbers lately. Their business has gotten them plenty of respect from the others living in the town because a gigantic vegetable contest was rapidly approaching and the crops needed protection. Complications arise when Wallace attempts to manipulate the rabbits into not liking vegetables and then a great eating machine is unleashed on the area. It is up to Wallace and Gromit to find the gigantic animal and stop it from eating away through gardens and also their approval from the townspeople. To add to that, Wallace wants to impress Lady Tottington, which also captured the attention of a snobby suitor by the name of Victor. Simple plot yes, but there is more than meets the eye, be prepared for a few fun surprises along the way, kind of like in the other Wallace and Gromit cartoons.

In animated films with little dialogue, it is the animation that has to set the pacing and the mood of the film. Despite requiring 5 years to produce only 85 minutes of footage, the payoff is fantastic. There is a massive amount of detail that requires more than one viewing to truly notice. Even more incredible than the detailed and nearly flawless animation is the truly unspeakable amount of visual humor put into the film. Whether it is a creatively placed shot or normal labels put into the funniest position possible, or it is the oh-so-adorable rabbits that is constantly shown in the film, most Curse of the Were-Rabbit's humor comes strictly from just watching the movie itself and catching all the references before it is too late. Just picture the movie Madagascar, except funnier much fewer pop culture references, and better animation.

Casting was great, even though in a film with not much dialogue, it was not that important. Peter Sallis yet again does a wonderful job as Wallace, even though in this movie there was no stand-out quote that can be used anytime (The Wrong Trousers: ""It's the wrong trousers Gromit, and they've gone wrong!""). Ralph Fiennes does a superb job as the lead villain Victor and also Helena Bonham Carter (known as the crazy female lead in the cult hit ""Fight Club"") lends her lovely voice as she plays Wallace's love interest. Even though nothing could top the final chase in ""The Wrong Trousers,"" Curse of the Ware-Rabbit did have plenty of action scenes, including one fantastically done chase scene between Gromit and Victor's evil dog. Last but not least, the rabbits really steal the show at some moments. Whether it is their cute expressions, their funny movements, or their howling, the rabbits in the film even take some of the glory from the main stars. The funniest rabbit in the movie is the ""cursed"" rabbit himself, to the very end of the movie he had the audience rolling in laughter.

Bottom Line: Despite not being as memorable as ""The Wrong Trousers"", this film is just as good and entertaining as Chicken Run. Unlike almost every movie to come out this year, the movie does not drag at all, clocking in at a short 85 minutes yet containing so much joy and fun, it will leave everyone watching it asking for more. There is very little wrong with the film; it was a pure delight to watch. This film is a total contrast of the decent yet vulgar, uncut, raw movies that have made a surprising amount of money earlier this year (40-Year-Old Virgin, Wedding Crashers, and Sin City) and for families and those who want harmless entertainment; that is a good thing. Highly recommend, this is the top animated movie to come out this year and among the best we have seen this decade. Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit: totally harmless fun from second 1 to second 5,100.",1 -"Based on the true story of two young Americans who sold national secrets to the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War, ""Falcon And The Snowman"" wants to be both suspenseful and philosophical, and winds up falling short in both departments. It's less le Carré than who cares.

Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a former seminarian who, disgusted by Watergate and the middle-class values around him, is probably the wrong guy to be hired by a company running spy satellites for the CIA. Sean Penn plays his drug-dealing pal, Daulton Lee, who makes himself Boyce's courier, delivering secret files to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. An offbeat synth-jazz score, lack of sympathy or emotional attachment for anyone, and lots of scenes of guys getting angry in rooms all combine to deaden what could have a decent moral-dilemma thriller.

It's really Penn's movie despite the second billing; his character gets to talk turkey with the Russians while Hutton plays with his pet falcon. Hutton looks like they woke him up five minutes before they called ""action"". With Penn, it's a crapshoot whether you get a brilliant performance or an over-the-top one. Here, it's a bit of both, but more the latter, especially in the second half when Lee switches from coke to heroin. He screeches. He snorts. He crashes Russian embassy parties. He gets pummeled with telephone books. He spits at himself in a mirror, a big goober he must have been saving for a paparazzi. ""I don't know who my friends are anymore!"" he cries out. It's exhausting to just watch him.

Penn seems to have modeled Lee somewhat on Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo from ""Midnight Cowboy"", complete with overly nasal line readings and constant eye shifting. John Schlesinger directed this film as well as ""Midnight Cowboy"", but he seems to have had another Hoffman film in mind, ""The Graduate"", throwing up scene after scene of Boyce and Lee poolside, trying to decide how to live their lives in their gilded cage. Too bad no one suggested plastics.

From the opening shots, news footage of American decline juxtaposed with Boyce and his bird, ""Falcon"" makes clear it is a message movie, though the message itself is far from clear, probably because the characters never come into focus. Is Boyce supposed to be an idealist? Or is he just a mercenary? Hutton and Schlesinger don't seem to know, which makes it harder for us. Meanwhile, opportunities to establish some suspense, like Boyce stealing documents from the top secret ""Black Vault"" where he works or Lee playing games with the Russians, are interrupted by jump cuts to scenes of the pair with their families and friends. It's the normalcy of the story that Schlesinger finds interesting, but it's the least interesting aspect for us.

Good stuff: It's interesting to see a film that works the 1970s vibe so early as this one, referencing Maria Muldaur and Tang. Dorian Harewood, memorable in ""Full Metal Jacket"", has a nice turn as Boyce's paranoid colleague Gene, who shows Boyce how to make margaritas with a shredder but has some serious 'Nam issues beneath his partying exterior. Macon McCalman is also fine in a totally different way as the no-nonsense boss who gives Boyce his high-security job. David Suchet as the Russian embassy official who deals with Lee makes for a fascinating blend of menace and amiability.

But ""Falcon And The Snowman"" stands or falls on the the question of the two title characters, and neither the actors nor Schlesinger are able to mine much in the way of answers. Worse, after more than two hours in their alternately feral and catatonic company, you don't really want answers. You just want those credits to roll.",0 -"Universal's answer to ""The Exorcist"" isn't a very good one. Unfortunately, the film offers bland, unimaginative direction from Michael Winner who wastes an outstanding cast with a screenplay massing crater-sized plot-holes. Not to mention, it's unbearably silly never explaining certain key elements within the story.

Model Cristina Raines moves into a high-rise owned by the Catholic Church with a creepy, blind priest John Carradine, who holes up in there always at the window. She begins to suffer faint spells and nausea. What's worse is tenants she meets in the building such as Burgess Meredith(with a cat and a canary!)and a young Beverly D'Angelo as a lesbian. Ava Gardner(looking great at 55)is the Realtor who showed Raines the place. Cristina's lover is Chris Sarandon, whose wife ""committed suicide"" after finding out they were having an affair. José Ferrer has a small role as the ""Priest of the Brotherhood"" who informs Monsignor Arthur Kennedy to be careful as he heads to the very high-rise not only housing Carradine but Raines as well. Sarandon sends a hired-hand up to the high-rise one night to check out a certain room above Cristina's apartment where she heard metallic clanging and other loud racket. He winds up dead the very same night Cristina ""kills"" her DEAD father in a nightmare. Screaming mad on the street, Cristina does indeed have blood on her which leads police detective Eli Wallach and partner Christopher Walken to investigate them with sure certainty that it all somehow leads back to Sarandon who is a hot-shot lawyer who once beat the cop in court regarding the whole wife's suicide. That case is really a motivating factor is Wallach's dogged approach to finding out whose blood was really on Cristina and if Sarandon has anything to do with it. You also have Martin Balsam as a professor who understands this type of Latin Cristina mysteriously understands and unbilled actors such as Jeff Goldblum as a fashion photographer and Tom Berenger as a man interested in this certain room that has become available in the very room(now renovated)that Cristina once stayed in! What bothers me more than anything is lack of explanation. Towards the end of the film Wallach and Walken are forgotten and we are left wondering why they just up and quit investigating. Their characters are just left on the back-burner. How the priests know that ""now is the time"" when a certain man will die and must be replaced to guard a certain gate in that high-rise and why Cristina suffers through the trauma she does isn't adequately explained. How certain ghosts just appear to Cristina and disappear when she tries to show Gardner the rooms they occupied during a cat's birthday(see for yourself)isn't adequately explained. Not to mention Gardner's role in the grand scheme of things..she brings people to that high-rise, but what is really her reasons in the film? It seems like this film should've been longer and cleared things up left lost to a rushed conclusion that is just laughable when it should be scary.",0 -"I can't say that this film deserves anywhere near the amount of vitriol being heaped on it by some reviewers. Yes, it's bogged down by an overly-padded running time, hamfisted editing, and an overreliance on cheeseball special effects. And it lacks much of the energy a comedy needs to get your average audience member to sit through it without checking his or her watch.

On the other hand, it's also got some laugh-out-loud funny lines, a talented and earnest cast, and the classic underdog premise. Macy, Stiller, and Azaria are brilliant as the ""core"" team, and Garofalo and Studi do superb work adding conflict and variety to the team. I can't say Reubens or Mitchell added much to the film overall, though each had a few chances to shine.

The plot, as I said above, is your classic ""underdog-makes-good"" stuff. No surprises there, since you know they're going to triumph. What makes it worthwhile is not the absurd, gaudy heroes and villains, but the dialogue and interplay between the characters. Underneath it all, these people are children at heart, who just want to do right. The best scenes in the film give this film its emotional grounding. Look at Azaria's relationship with his long-suffering mother; Macy's endearing innocence in his unwillingness to accept Cap. Amazing's secret identity; Stiller's rage (not unlike that one weird, spazzy kid you once knew who'd always go into quivering, impotent rages on the playground); Garofalo's desire to avenge her father. This childlike belief that a sense of justice and goodness will always make the world a better place, is the true appeal of super-hero comics; and underneath its parodic exterior, ""Mystery Men"" shows us why these hackneyed comic-book tropes matter to so many.

It never really gels into a satisfying whole, due to the huge number of half-baked subplots (romance, family life, conflicts within the team, etc.), but the main plot is such loopy fun that it makes up for that. The fact that it's supposed to be good, nonsensical fun seems to be lost on some of the reviewers here, so I'll issue a caveat: if you're the type of viewer who finds his enjoyment of an Itchy and Scratchy cartoon ruined by the unexplained and illogical (""Am I to believe this is some sort of.. *snort*... _magic_ xylophone?""), then you are far too literal-minded and humorless for this film. Go rent a Sandler film instead.

(7/10)",1 -i thought this movie was really really great! Helena did an amazing job in it! I thought she played her character very well! she's an AWESOME actress!! :)

the movie was also really funny too! The jokes were great! i couldnt stop laughing! :)

i think everyone should see it... :)

,1 -"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.",0 -"There's a brand new killer on the loose, and he's doing God's work. Yeah right! This killer makes Jason Voorhes look like a chump, and Freddy Krueger look like a rag doll against this dude. He is Jacob Goodnight(WWE's Glen ""KANE"" Jacobs), a 7' monster who wields a Axe, and a hook and chain. Those weapons are nothing to him his real finisher is ripping out eyeballs from the victims sockets. That is totally methodical! When the encounter happened 4 years earlier, Jacob killed a rookie cop and maimed the veteran after putting a bullet in his head. How on Earth did Goodnight survive after 4 years? Now he's in the condemned hotel called Blackwell. And this hotel got a lot of stories to tell. I thought this movie was haunting as well as interesting. I liked the part where Goodnight checked out one of the girl's tattoo on her back. And Goodnight himself is really deranged thanks to his maniacal mother. If you think Friday the 13th was something, you better think again. This movie will leave you on the edge of you seat. And I think the eyeball rip was bone-chilling. This movie proves it point,and it wasn't a waste of my time. I enjoyed it. The title don't lie! Rating 2.5 out of 5 stars!",1 -"Eva (Hedy Lamarr) has just got married with an older man and in the honeymoon, she realizes that her husband does not desire her. Her disappointment with the marriage and the privation of love, makes Eva returning to her father's home in a farm, leaving her husband. One afternoon, while bathing in a lake, her horse escapes with her clothes and an young worker retrieves and gives them back to Eva. They fall in love for each other and become lovers. Later, her husband misses her and tries to have Eva back home. Eva refuses, and fortune leads the trio to the same place, ending the affair in a tragic way. I have just watched ""Extase"" for the first time, and the first remark I have is relative to the horrible quality of the VHS released in Brazil by the Brazilian distributor Video Network: the movie has only 75 minutes running time, and it seems that it was used different reels of film. There are some parts totally damaged, and other parts very damaged. Therefore, the beauty of the images in not achieved by the Brazilian viewer, if he has a chance to find this rare VHS in a rental or for sale. The film is practically a silent movie, the story is very dated and has only a few lines. Consequently, the characters are badly developed. However, this movie is also very daring, with the exposure of Hedy Lamarr beautiful breasts and naked fat body for the present standards of beauty. Another fantastic point is the poetic and metaphoric used of flowers, symbolizing the intercourse between Eva and her lover. The way the director conducts the scenes to show the needs and privation of Eva is very clear. The non-conclusive end is also very unusual for a 1933 movie. I liked this movie, but I hope one day have a chance to see a 87 minutes restored version. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): ""Êxtase"" (""Ecstasy"")",1 -"From the first scene you are given clues as to what may be going on here. It becomes more and more obvious as the story rolls on. The acting is excellent throughout and these actors touch your soul. Even though I knew what was going to happen I was extremely puzzled by the motive. I'm still puzzled as to why Ben did what he did. We could see in his face ""second thoughts"", but the ultimate sacrifice seemed to go against his emotion and feelings. It was a very interesting and touching story but it left me confused. Maybe that was the point of the film. I did like the film and Wil Smith can wrack up another good film choice. This guy knows how to entertain an audience!",1 -"This movie is of almost generation-defining importance to some of us born in the early post-war years in that (and especially if you were born between 1946 and 1953 and loved spending Saturday afternoons at your neighborhood movie house) you almost certainly saw it. And the memory of seeing it has probably stayed with you. It's style is the stuff of a brief and somehow gloriously exciting moment in our growing up days.

It had a modern, space-age storyboard for the audiences of it's time. The set was any town with a supermarket and a movie theater that would be packed for a Friday midnight show. It has hot rods and rebellious youth, but in the 'why can't they let us have fun' way rather than the disturbed, histrionic rebel-without-a-cause way. All characters were identifiable to us - teens, parents, the old man, the doctor, the nurse, the mechanic, the boy, the puppy, even the cops - were sympathetic to us. We could relate to them all

It had a singularly horrifying monster. It's first victim is heard moaning 'it hurts.....it hurts' and we were convinced and frightened. The menace grows continually throughout the story. There are intense periods of suspense, colourful effects, a fabulous lead in McQueen, and moments of humour, both intended and not. It even had an almost over-the-top sad part to make the more sensitive of us feel like crying.

I saw it in summer, age 9 or so, double billed with 'I Married A Monster From Outer Space', and was so thrilled by the experience of this particular double feature that I went back a couple more times before it left. Everyone I knew saw it. Everyone I knew loved it.",1 -"Seeing all of the negative reviews for this movie, I figured that it could be yet another comic masterpiece that wasn't quite meant to be. I watched the first two fight scenes, listening to the generic dialogue delivered awfully by Lungren, and all of the other thrown-in Oriental actors, and I found the movie so awful that it was funny. Then Brandon Lee enters the story and the one-liners start flying, the plot falls apart, the script writers start drinking and the movie wears out it's welcome, as it turns into the worst action movie EVER.

Lungren beats out his previous efforts in ""The Punisher"" and others, as well as all of Van Damme's movies, Seagal's movies, and Stallone's non-Rocky movies, for this distinct honor. This movie has the absolute worst acting (check out Tia Carrere's face when she is in any scene with Dolph, that's worth a laugh), with the worst dialogue ever (Brandon Lee's comment about little Dolph is the worst line ever in a film), and the worst outfit in a film (Dolph in full Japanese attire). Picture ""Tango and Cash"" with worse acting, meets ""Commando,"" meets ""Friday the 13th"" (because of the senseless nudity and Lungren's performance is very Jason Voorhees-like), in an hour and fifteen minute joke of a movie.

The good (how about not awful) performances go to the bad guy (who still looks constipated through his entire performance) and Carrere (who somehow says her 5 lines without breaking out laughing). Brandon Lee is just there being Lungren's sidekick, and doing a really awful job at that.

An awful, awful movie. Fear it and avoid it. If you do watch it though, ask yourself why the underwater shots are twice as clear as most non-underwater shots. Speaking of the underwater shots, check out the lame water fight scene with the worst fight-scene-ending ever. This movie has every version of a bad fight scene for those with short attention spans and to fill-in between the flashes of nudity.

A BAD BAD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!",0 -"A man is wrongfully accused of killing his friend in an aircraft plant fire, and must travel cross-country to avoid the police and discover the true sinister nature of the situation at hand. A plot line that was later used to fuel Hitchcock's classic North by Northwest, Saboteur benefits from some very good performances as well as some masterful suspense sequences from the Master himself.

For any Hitchcock fan, the plot is a bit too familiar, but he was always able to infuse the story with its own memorable supporting characters and charades. Here, the likable and charming Robert Cummings is the lead and soon finds himself visiting many strange and quirky characters, not withstanding a troupe of circus performers, a rich businessman with hidden motives, and a blind loner who shows him the best way to judge someone.

In terms of sheer originality and quality, this does lack in some areas, particularly the motive of the antagonists. However, there is some nice chemistry between Cummings and his lead lady, the much under-appreciated Priscilla Lane as well as a truly moving performance as the blind man by Vaughn Glaser. The best part is the final sequence, which perfectly mirrors what Hitchcock would use later in North by Northwest, only this time the climax is atop a statue in New York. Certainly not his best, but the Master of Suspense gives us some great moments to wait for.",1 -"Imagine what it must have been like for John Agar. One of Hollywood's handsome leading men. Married to Shirley Temple for five years. He finds himself doing movies like this. I remember him in ""Tarantula"" where he wasn't half bad. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend this film. The monster is dumb uninteresting and incompetent. The police are boring. The teenagers are boring. The plot is stupid. People run around. There are events that do nothing to advance the plot. There's dancing that goes on and on, and then there is no attack. There is some idiotic love triangle that no one could care the least about. It isn't even campy or outrageous. It's just no worth anything. Agar might as well have been a post. He's given nothing to do.",0 -"If this movie is coming to a theater near you, consider it a threat. I was unfortunate enough to see this movie here in Tokyo. Since I'm Dutch, I was surprised to find a Dutch movie playing in a metropole like Tokyo is. I figured it had to be somekind of special if a Dutch movie makes it all the way to Japan. So I went there with some friends, and we were happily telling the theater's staff that we were Dutch and that we were so curious about the movie. As it turned out, this was one of the most infantile, silly, dumb, worst acted, with worst spoken English movie I've seen in maybe 10 years, and I left the theater trying to avoid the staff, because feeling almost responsible for this disaster movie. Sometimes you get the feeling you know what the director was aiming for: Lola Rennt, Trainspotting kind of like movie. Instead it was more like MacGyver on drugs with outdated breakbeat music as a score. But if I wasn't feeling too annoyed, the movie was unintentionally quite hilarious once in a while, as it showed Holland at its smallest.",0 -"My mate and I chose to watch this obvious piece of junk purely based on its tagline… After nearly 30 years of lousy and rudimentary teen slashers, I can't believe that only just now some nerdy horror brainiac come up with the brilliantly witty slogan ""They Axed for it""! Other than that, ""Miner's Massacre"" is just as random, annoying and forgettable as all the rest out there…. Perhaps even more! The script contains all the typical clichés and features all the dreadfully stereotypic characters you wish a horrible and painful death to. The gore effects are computer engineered and thus beyond pitiable and the obligatory ""big"" stars (Karen Black, John Philip Law and Richard Lynch) are entirely wasted in spite of their top billing. Cursed mines and abandoned ghost towns form an ideal horror setting – the creators of ""My Bloody Valentine"" already figured that out in the early 80's – but his dull film simply hasn't got any innovative ideas or even remotely surprising elements to offer. Bunch of greedy twenty-something losers, which refer to themselves as friends even though they clearly can't stand each other, desecrate an ancient mine in search of the gold that is allegedly hidden there. Of course they unwarily resurrect the zombie miner this way and he just 150 years of rest in order to prepare for a massive teen massacre. Yay! The cast is exceptionally irritating in this one. The girls all have impressive racks but refuse to show anything. Instead, they all prefer endless whining and the taking of needless risks. The dim-witted blokes clearly just serve as screen fillers. In her barely five minutes of playtime, Karen Black still manages to make an utter fool out of herself by depicting the most prototypic and hysterical local nut woman ever. The zombie has a stupid and very unconvincing face, but he looks okay and reasonably menacing when shown in the distant shadow of the moonlight whilst swinging around his pick-axe. Since the best thing about ""Miner's Massacre"" concerns the aforementioned tagline and you can read that on the box in the video store itself, there's very little else to recommend here. Director John Carl Buechler scored a few modest hits during the eighties, like notably the original ""Troll"" and a fair ""Friday the 13th"" sequel, but it's obviously time to retire now.",0 -"I had been wanting to see An American Werewolf in Paris for a long time because I loved its predecessor, but this film didn't impress me as much as An American Werewolf in London. Actually, to be quite honest, it didn't impress me at all.

Tom Everett-Scott and his dude pals are wandering Paris and, in a preposterous bungee stunt off the Eifel Tower, rescuing wolf-babe Julie Delpy from death. Before you've time to work out if the constant mugging and lumpy dialogue is meant to be the stuff of comedy, a full-moon has hit and the brats are being chased by dreadful CGI werewolves down Parisian sewers.

The script is disgustingly poor, the actors were made to make this film, they're horrible performances match the status of the movie. From start to end, this movie is never entertaining, engaging or even slightly watchable. I had trouble watching this whole film without throwing up my dinner, to be quite honest.

The action scenes aren't exciting, the jokes aren't funny and the werewolves aren't scary. In short: Miss out or be haunted forever.

I rate An American Werewolf in Paris 2 out of 10.",0 -"A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!

Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax.

Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.

Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed.

Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.",0 -"This movie started me on a Nick Cage kick. It is a story full of twists and turns- a movie of motives and moves. Of, course, Dennis Hopper was a ham, but J.T. Walsh and Laura Flyyn Boyle are the perfect pair to catch the unsuspecting man who has fallen into their web. Everything about this movie is good - cinematography, story pace and most of all the end. Cage excels at what he does best- it's not to be an action hero but to be an everyman caught in the snares of life.",1 -"This type of show is not supposed to happen on television. This is the type of edginess usually reserved for independent film. This is what only HBO is supposed to do. Fact is that Denis Leary has managed to come up with one of the best television shows ever, easily joining the ranks of THE SOPRANOS, OZ, ED etc.. Kudos the gang at ABC for showing that NYPD Blue was not a fluke, and to Mr. Leary and his gang for creating a truly unique viewing experience. My only complaint is that the show is not long enough ... an hour would make it better, but I can't wait for the next episode!",1 -"This movie is widely admonished as being a copy of the Will Smith feature Hitch. That movie was dull.

This movie isn't so much dull as unbearable. Govinda looks way past his prime. He is not at his best doing roles like this. It is similarly unconvincing as his performance in Deewana Mastana.

Salman Khan is at his eye-aching ""best"". And that's in the few scenes where he remembers to put clothes on. It could only have been through nepotism that this eye-sore's scenes could be saved from the trash bin of any movie's cutting floor.

Another case of Bollywood embarrassing itself with it's shameless cloning. Another case of the Bollywood audience majority embarrassing themselves by making this a hit.",0 -"This is a skillfully crafted piece of cinema that deals with a teenage boys confused sexuality.The cut scenes within can be lengthy but the cinematography is beautiful.This film would not appeal to many people, especially those who are queasy about gay teenage relationships, but the more open minded can sympathize with the puzzled protagonist.",1 -"Peter Falk shines as 90 year old Morris Applebaum, the patriarch who has decided it's time to ""check out"" after holding a final, blow-out bash. His three children, Lauran San Giacomo, David Paymer and Judge Reinhold are notified/invited by letter and immediately arrive on his doorstep to deal with their eccentric father. There is a great father/daughter chemistry with Laura San Giacomo, whose character happens to undergo the most growth from the ordeal. It's a well rounded example of your average, dysfunctional family and their memories, pains, growth and ignorance/tolerance of each others' lives. The musical score is one you'll enjoy and the one liners are well timed and hilarious. Although I found the actual ""Checking Out"" party a let down, the rest of the film is sure to make you laugh, cry and leave the theater with a smile on your face. Move over ""Big Fat Greek Wedding""....the ""Big Fat Jewish Suicide"" has arrived.",1 -"Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called ""movie"".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!",0 -"This is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the scariest and most intriguing episodes of Doctor Who. This is a thrilling psychological ride and you will probably find your own beliefs being thrown into question. Riddled with spine-chilling moments, this is an episode no ""Who"" fan can afford to miss.

Starting from when the pit was opened after the events in ""The Impossible Planet"", the Doctor and Ida are trapped and are running out of air. With no other alternatives, they decide to find what lies at the bottom of the pit, an event which surpasses even The Doctor's expectations. Whilst there, the Doctor is forced to make what he considers to be the ultimate sacrifice...

Meanwhile, Rose and the other members of the Planet try to find a way to fend off the Ood, whose minds have been poisoned by the Beast. Also, is Toby Zed truly cured of his possession by the Beast?",1 -"Ever since I first played it in 1998, GoldenEye has been one of my favourite video games. In fact, I recently bought an N64 purely so that I could own it and play it more often! The game is pretty much near-perfect: the single-player mode does a fantastic job of immersing yourself in Bond's shoes, with varied mission objectives, convincing weapons, and great level design. Even though the enemies' artificial intelligence is pretty basic by today's standards, that only adds to GoldenEye's appeal. The method of obtaining cheats (completing levels within a strict time limit) was also innovative when the title was released, and even now I still haven't cracked some of them!

The game comes with a wonderful multiplayer mode for up to four players, and while this isn't as advanced as the Combat Simulator in the game's sequel ""Perfect Dark"", it is still incredibly satisfying to blast your opponents to smithereens with a barrage of RC-P90 fire! ;-)",1 -"Bank heist / Cop thriller sounds OK right?

Chaos looks good: nicely framed, good production values, high concept action heist...

But...

The plot has the unique achievement of being both smart and incredidly, blatantly implausible in the ""how we actually got the money"" mode and overcomplicated in the ""who done it and why"" section at the same time...

In addtion, Ryan Philippe shouting is NOT, seriously NOT either tough or scary...and he is especially not tough or scary when throwing a tizzy fit. Honestly, his great outburst is the only really funny scene in the whole film. Must make him thrilled that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker and is now doing this....

Stratham is normally good as the tough but silent hard nut with the self-deprecating humor, but here, the extra relationship lines are so laughably bad that even he looks uncomfortable saying some of the clichéd mush required. More silent seems best?

Snipes is actually OK in a typecast way, but another nail in a talented actor's coffin: he needs an actor's role not an action hero rehash. Perhaps that business with his taxes will allow him to break that mold and the public and critics will let him on the sympathy vote. It would be good if he wasn't so typecast all the time.

The lines these guys speak when they're not doing the plot development and detective work can be summed up in one word.... pheeeuuuh.

The film feels all out of whack and it never gels: I found it irritating for the first 45 minutes, and the tighter last part was passable. It should /could have been good but it just can't redeem the awful lines, the overwhelming score, and the general level of irritation with the levels of plausibility.

Overall I nearly didn't make it through: incredibly irritating, and Ryan.... please, please, please get rid of the goldilocks....",0 -"The 1930s. Classy, elegant Adele (marvelously played with dignified resolve by Debbie Reynolds) and batty, frumpy Helen (the magnificent Shelley Winters going full-tilt wacko with her customary histrionic panache) are the mothers of two killers. They leave their seamy pasts in the Midwest behind and move to Hollywood to start their own dance school for aspiring kid starlets. Adele begins dating dashing millionaire Lincoln Palmer (the always fine Dennis Weaver). On the other hand, religious fanatic Helen soon sinks into despair and madness.

Director Curtis (""Night Tide,"" ""Ruby"") Harrington, working from a crafty script by Henry Farrell (who wrote the book ""Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?"" was based on and co-wrote the screenplay for ""Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte""), adeptly concocts a complex and compelling psychological horror thriller about guilt, fear, repression and religious fervor running dangerously amok. The super cast have a ball with their colorful roles: Michael MacLiammoir as a pompous elocution teacher, Agnes Moorehead as a stern fire-and-brimstone radio evangelist, Yvette Vickers as a snippy, overbearing mother of a bratty wannabe child star, Logan Ramsey as a snoopy detective, and Timothy Carey as a creepy bum. An elaborate talent recital set piece with Pamelyn Ferdin (the voice of Lucy in the ""Peanuts"" TV cartoon specials) serving as emcee and original ""Friday the 13th"" victim Robbi Morgan doing a wickedly bawdy dead-on Mae West impression qualifies as a definite highlight. David Raskin's spooky score, a fantastic scene with Reynolds performing an incredible tango at a posh restaurant, the flavorsome Depression-era period atmosphere, Lucien Ballard's handsome cinematography, and especially the startling macabre ending are all likewise on the money excellent and effective. MGM presents this terrific gem on a nifty DVD doublebill with ""Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?;"" both pictures are presented in crisp widescreen transfers along with their theatrical trailers.",1 -Loved it! This has to be the best horror flick of the 90's. I

was at the edge of my seat. I jumped a couple times. Wonderful

acting. It is totally horror but it was funny when it was meant

to be.,1 -"I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.

Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.

The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask.",1 -"I didn't have much faith at the beginning, but as a Costa Rica's citizen I can confirm that the movie shows the reality that we live day by day, and shows a lot of things of our culture, such as our way to speak, our music, our way of standing up for our rights without any fear, without any weapons.

I'm really proud of the job they did and of how they didn't forget along the movie the message they wanted us to receive, not caring for the money, but actually working with a short budget, letting us appreciate the beautiful scenarios and the great photography.

I strongly recommend seeing this movie, you will not regret it.",1 -"Shrek, anyone? Well, imagine Shrek in the ice age. Remember the ending of Shrek? Of cause you do. Now, imagine, that Shrek turns into a human, and so does the princess. Get it? Nice animation, actually, much more of an art work than Pixar and Disney pictures, which are trying to get as close to reality as possible in their drawings. Strong one-liners, some social comments that kids won't understand, the good guys win. One thing more: Scrat. By the way, how does everybody know his name is Scrat? 7/10",1 -"Well I would say that this is a very enjoyable and somewhat touching movie despite its flaws. I didn't believe for a minute that Matthau knew the first thing about being a dentist. Also, Hawn's character seemed to recover from suicidal depression rather quickly at the beginning of the movie. Not to mention the entire thing seemed rather ridiculous. However, the film does succeed due to a good pace, humor, and its stars. Matthau may not have been a dentist, but he was as amusing as he usually is. Bergman brought a great deal of sensitivity to the film (especially during the scene where her and Matthau go out for a drink after work) and also a good deal of humor. I believe it was her performance that made my brother take notice of this movie after overhearing a couple scenes. Hawn's performance is noteworthy, although an Oscar may have been over doing it a bit. Basically, don't take this movie too seriously and you will enjoy yourself.",1 -"If this movie proves only one thing, it's that Keaton is, was and always will be a comic at heart, even when dodging bullets, heading for the electric chair and getting at the wrong end of an information line in prison.

But ""Johnny Dangerously"" goes on to prove even more. In the '80s, the ZAZ boys (Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker) were the pinnacle in the world of genre spoofs. But there were several pretenders to the throne. This time, Amy (""Fast Times at Ridgement High"") Heckerling tries her hand, with an amazing amount of television writers behind the script (go and check).

This slap-happy slapstick spoof of the 1930's cops-and-""gag""sters movies throws just about every cliche for a loop and even adds a few cliches that didn't exist way back when.

And not only is the ever-dependable Keaton on hand as the Johnny of the title, but so are such funny guys and dolls as Piscopo, Henner, Stapleton, Boyle, Dunne, DeVito, Walston and just about every other actor in Hollywood that happened to walk into the immediate vicinity. You'd be surprised by how many faces you'll recognize. I know I was.

And the jokes? Well, when they start out, they come at you fast and furious, like a machine gun. There are too many to count in the beginning, topped off with a crazy theme song by Weird Al Yankovic. But you have to watch for when they reload. And they have to reload a little too often.

Everyone tries, they seem to be having fun and I was laughing a good amount of the time. In the end, though, there was plenty of time to think about how certain scenes could have been funnier - not usually the best thing to think about after watching a comedy.

But for a slow night when there's nothing good on TV, pop in ""Johnny"" and be ready for some ""Dangerously"" serious laughter.

Eight stars. Check out ""Johnny Dangerously""... don't be a ""bastidge"".",1 -"This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.

I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.

It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!

one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ...",0 -"How can this movie be described? Oh yeah I've got it wretched!!!

I'm not big on chop socky, but this is just plain garbage. Anyone who would waste their money to pay to see it, is just too sad for words.",0 -"I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.

The movie begins with promise. I liked ""The Exorcist"" parody, especially the ""come on out, ma"" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, ""It was just a booty call!!"" That was kinda funny. 2) The ""Save the Last Dance"" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.

The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately.

As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.",0 -"My expectations were quite high for this film. Everyone I know who saw this film at the cinema told me that everyone there stayed through the credits because they were so touched. My expectations could not have been any higher, anything short of wonderful would have disappointed me.

I was anything but disappointed by this movie. I loved how it dealt with difficult subjects without going through the usual steps a Hollywood film tends to include. In this film characters worked through problems they had had for decades, they worked through prejudicm, they learned to open up. But it did not come easily, and not just by singing a song or two. It was painful, it took arguments, it took confrontations. It felt like real life.

One scene that really stuck out to me was the scene in which Gabriella sings her song. Helen Sjöholm is one of my favorite singers, her voice is lovely, and you could tell that she was not just lip-syncing to a previous recording during filming (which I often find in other movies), she really sang with her whole body and soul. You could feel what Gabriella was feeling in that scene. Had this movie been made in Hollywood her song would most likely have been sung toward the end, and it would have made her husband open his eyes and see the error of his ways, as well as making the other people in the village realise a thing or two. Instead it came halfway through, and it did not bring any solutions. Her husband did not become overwhelmed and realise what he's putting her through, and it didn't seem to make anyone else in the village more open minded. It was beautiful, it was pure and it was touching but it did not magically solve all her problems. That felt real to me, that's probably what would have happened in real life. The whole movie felt like real life to me, nothing neatly wrapped up but everything with a sense of joy and happiness. You rarely find a movie which feels so realistic.

There were a few things that bothered me, but hey, no movie is perfect. If you haven't already you should go see ""As it is in Heaven"" and be filled with a joy for life, a sense of hope and the feeling that you've been touched on a level movies rarely reach. You will be sad, pained, happy and a dozen other emotions.

Someone once said that if every person in the world sang in a choir there would be no more wars. Having seen this film I might have to agree.",1 -"Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms ""League of Extraordinary Twaddle"". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award ""Turkey"" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.",0 -"Ed Wood is rolling over in his grave. He could have made a hundred cult classics for the price of this waste-hole. The worst script in memory (it makes ""X-Men 3"" sparkle like ""Citizen Kane""); the most amateur directing; pre-K cinematography; the cheesiest ""special effects"" (I'm talking about ""Friday The 13th"" sequel territory); and throw in a pointless, revolting, deeply disturbed, maternity ward sequence. The lack of any talent or sensibility that put this garbage on-screen is astounding. That the ""industry"" might reward anyone involved in this celluloid cess-pool with future projects ought to be cause for serious alarm.",0 -"The movie starts out with three people on a play it by ear holiday who decide to first visit a crocodile farm and then go on to a little lighter activity, a ""fishing"" tour.

You pick up some interesting information about crocodiles during their visit to the farm and the information adds just enough to increase the suspense later during the movie as you recall what was told earlier on.

The action in the movie is well timed and not over done. Suspense is built through the ""what ifs"", the ""unknown"", and the sometimes gut wrenching decisions the characters make in the movie.

I found myself wondering what I would do if I was in the same boat, no pun intended.

The film quality was really good and the effects where realistic, believable and not over the top or cartoon looking and out of place, the way you sometimes get with CGI.

As a horror movie buff I watch just about every horror movie I can get my hands on, in just about every genre, and this is one of the best ""crocodile"" horror movies, if not the best I have seen.

Watch this movie and you will not be disappointed.",1 -"My wife and I saw every episode in this series and loved it. However, the series was cut short without a final episode by the producers of the show. It ended with a typical end-the-season cliff hanger leaving it's fans feeling cheated. A waste of great writing and acting.",0 -"I was very interested in seeing this movie despite the article I read about the director in Tattler Magazine. I don't judge movies by what the director may or may not have done. This debut feature was very difficult to watch. I found the split screens to be a distraction to the drama in the film, some of the supporting characters gave bad performances, and the film to be a copy of several other films I have seen. There really wasn't anything fresh about this",0 -"Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me.",0 -"First off, I am critical of this movie because I really had high hopes and instead, this movie sucked.

*possible spoilers* (if you haven't seen the TV series) Where to begin??? Well, let's start at the quality. The movie was barely better than the original TV series and the two fight scenes were very nicely crafted. However the CGI was horrid.

Then there is the plot holes and questions that still remain after the whole movie is all said and done. This movie does not close off as a successful conclusion to a very broad universe known as FMA and only returns to expand the universe more before leaving us with nothing but our imaginations to decipher what would happen in the future.

And then there is the stories biggest fault. Adding WWII and Hitler... WHY ?? The series was perfect... and didn't need Hitler. It didn't even need Germany.

Overall the entire movie was sorely lacing in what a true FMA movie could have been and if I were the directors, I'd scrap CoS and make a new, more ""ending"", ending.",0 -"I have been a Hindi movie buff since the age of 4 but never in my life have a watched such a moving and impacting movie, especially as a Hindi film. In the past several years, I had stopped watching contemporary Hindi movies and reverted to watching the classics (Teesri Kasam, Mere Huzoor, Madhumati, Mother India, Sholay, etc.) But this movie changed everything. It is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I found it not only to be moving but also found it to be very educational for someone who is a first generation Indian woman growing up in America. It helped me to understand my own family history, which was always something very abstract to me. But, to ""see"" it, feel it and understand it helped me to sympathize with the generations before me and the struggle that Indian people endured. The film helped to put many things into perspective for me, especially considering the current world events. I never thought that a movie could change the way I think like this before... it did. The plot is fantastic, the acting superb and the direction is flawless. Two thumbs up!",1 -"Although a ""woman's story,"" I found this still fairly interesting. It is unusual in that is has three real-life sisters playing sisters in the movie! I am referring to Priscilla, Rosemary and Lola Lane.

Why national critics loved this movie was the presence of bad-boy-rebel John Garfield. In their twisted Liberal-dominated minds, All-American characters are sickening but sour-on- life, poor-attitude types like Garfield played here are people they can identify with. Despite that, this movie still has an overall feeling of goodness, which is why I liked it. Some of the characters may have done stupid things, but they good hearts. Whose heart was bigger than ""Ann's"" (Priscilla Lane) in here? I agree with the IMDb user comments critic in here who says this is Priscilla's film as much as the beloved (not by me) Garfield's.

With a director the caliber of Michael Curtiz, the film is better than it might have been under someone else. Curtiz made sure no scene, soapy or otherwise, went on too long.

In addition to the Lane sisters and Garfield, we have Claude Rains (who adds much-needed humor to the story), Jeffrey Lynn (the main love interest of the girls), Gale Page, Dick Foran, Frank McHugh and Mae Robson.

Apparently, this movie must have been a hit because there were several spin-offs from it, neither of them approaching this one in content and box-office success.",1 -"Apparently this movie was based on a true story. I'm not sure how accurate it is, though. But it really reminded me of how when I see that someone has been murdered on the news, it's amazing how much it doesn't affect me. Sure, I think it's terrible, but I honestly don't care. I move on. It seems that murder is trivial now. This is what River's Edge shows. Nobody really seems to care about this girl and her death, not even the killer. Then what's the point?

The killer in this story is John, and for the large amount of the movie he hides out with another killer named Feck, played by Dennis Hopper. Feck is older, and you can see the generational gap. He says he loved the girl that he killed. When he asks John if he loved the girl he killed, he simply replies, ""She was okay."" The movie only seems to offer one solution: life is more important than death. A character's life is spared, people get second chances, and one hopeless case is killed.

The acting is really good. After watching this movie I could only come to the conclusion that Crispin Glover is either a brilliant actor, or a terrible actor. I still have no idea. He was my main reason to see this movie, though. But the best performance is clearly given by Dennis Hopper.

Even though the fashion is really 80's and characters sometimes mention then-current issues, I still think River's Edge is as relevant today as ever.

My rating: 10/10",1 -"this is an adaptation of a Dirk Wittenborn book, which I did not read. young Finn Earl lives with his Mom Liz (Diane Lane) in a cramped lower East Side New York Apartment. he dreams of joining his Anthropologist father studying a fierce tribe in South America. Liz has boyfriends and does coke. when he is caught scoring coke for her, one of her customers (Liz is a legitimate masseuse) a rich Mr. Osborne bails her out in return for being his full time personal masseuse in his huge estate in New Jersey. They are driven there in a limo with her strung out lying in the back seat with her dress hitched way up and panties showing. (this and a few low-cut dress scenes is the only exploitation of Ms. Lane. some may be disappointed but I'm sorry she had to do all that stuff in ""Unfaithful"" to make the A-List. That lady has more talent in her little finger than Streep, Roberts, and Sally Field do in their entire BODIES and its time she was given her due.) when they arrive Finn makes friends with Osbornes grandson Bryce, and has a coming of age with his new girlfriend, granddaughter Maya. Liz meanwhile joins AA and dates an AA doctor. She miraculously cleans up instantly. Finn however does a lot of drugs along with sex with his new friends. Bryce seems like an OK guy but gets jealous when Osborne takes Finn on a hot air balloon race instead of him, and this leads to tragedy.

the genius of the story, (and movie) is that they cut from the violent acts of the Fierce filthy rich Blysdale tribe to the Yanomano warriors. It's a little implausible though that when Liz finds out what happens to her son she merely demands action from Osborne and does not either contact the authorities or settle it Thelma and Louise style. there are elements of a Gothic Romance with a revelation by the village idiot. Also they do almost no plot or character development prior to the move to Blysdale. Liz, for instance, like Lane's Pearl Kantrowitz in ""Walk on the Moon"" had an unwanted pregnancy with Finn at 18 and felt trapped. This is in the book but not the movie. Still, these are minor shortcomings. The movie will be in full release 12/31/05 over a year after the original release date, and I just couldn't wait.

There were lots of Red Carpet moments in the theater I saw the movie at, with almost the whole cast...except Diane Lane!! $#%#Q$ Director Dunne said she was off filming a movie. I know she didn't promise to be there, but I came from way out of town and it would have been such a thrill to see her in person. The movie is a definite Best Picture contender, as for acting?? Sutherland was quite good, and so was the boy who played Finn. Lane was magnificent as always, but I only recall one or two emotional scenes, when she catches Finn with drugs ""lets get f****d up together mother and son"" and with Osborne ""your twisted grandson..."". She would fare better with a supporting actress nod but it wont work that way. unless they give it to her for a ""body of work.""",1 -"The film starts out very slowly, with the lifestyle of Wallace Napalm, an attendant at a photo-service drop-off station. His wife has been restricted to her home with an ankle bracelet as the result of a sentence for arson. Wallace is a member of the volunteer fire department, and takes firefighting seriously.

As we watch Wallace's rather dull life proceeding, suddenly there comes something new and jarring: a traveling carnival comes to town. One of its stars is Wilder Napalm, Wallace's brother. He's a clown, but he has a special talent.

So does Wallace. They're both pyrokineticists or ""pyrotics,"" people capable of starting fires through mental energy. Wallace keeps his powers secret; Wilder lets his acquaintances know what he can do.

Spoiler: Some of their differences go back to a childhood incident where they inadvertently caused the death of a vagrant. Wallace holds back from using his powers; Wilder wants to go public on national TV.

Complicating the matter, Wilder wants Wallace's wife, whom they both dated years earlier. She becomes a bone of contention, and becomes one of the reason that the brothers finally have a literal firefight.

The film is entertaining, but not laugh-out-loud funny. I think enough of it to have a copy in my library. It's a good offbeat film.",1 -"This show had pretty good stories, but bad dialog. The main character was especially annoying. It's quite obvious why this show was canceled, although, like most UPN shows, I never knew it even existed until it was in syndicated re-runs.

Most of it's plots seemed to be copied from other shows and movies, leading me to think the producers didn't have an original idea in their heads.

I haven't commented enough. You've got to have at least ten lines of text. The special effect were not bad for a 2001 show.

The gnome was a nice character.",0 -"It is always sad when ""fringe"" movies such as this are overlooked by the majority of filmgoers. ""Panic"" is a wonderfully compelling and poignant study of a character who feels trapped in the pointlessness of his own life.

William H. Macy, as Alex, is as convincing as always. This fine actor seems to have a special talent for pulling at your heartstrings, no matter how flawed his characters may be; we may not always condone the lifestyles of the protagonists he plays, but the emotions of fear and confusion that he evokes in us are often all too painfully familiar. The title, ""Panic,"" initially seems paradoxical, given the lack of overt emotion. At one point Alex tells his doctor that he rarely gets angry. Yet, as this story unfolds, it becomes increasingly obvious that rage and desperation, not indifference, are the driving forces behind this man's existence.

More than once I was reminded of his performance in ""Fargo,"" another strongly character-driven movie. In both ""Fargo"" and ""Panic"" we witness a middle aged man who somehow seems to have stepped out of synch with the rest of life. He has lost his way, and the only way back deceptively appears to be though the darkness. He knows he is making bad choices, but desperation overpowers self-control and common sense.

Alex connects with Sarah, a 23 year old woman (mesmorizingly played by Neve Campbell), whom he meets in a doctor's office. Thematically, this union is less coincidence, more the work of fate. Alex finds a certain comfort being with Sarah, sensing perhaps that she is a fellow drifter, like him, someone who has lost her way and is floating aimlessly through the rest of her life, waiting powerlessly for its inevitable conclusion.

Opting for movies such as this is a shrewd and convincing way for Neve Campbell to answer those critics who question her acting abilities. Too often it is the characters she has played who are the weakness, offering Campbell no depth in which to flex her acting muscles. This performance, however, may be an eye-opener for many.

In a perfect movie world, not only would there be many more films like ""Panic,"" but also they would reach and be appreciated by a much wider audience. If you watch movies for the richness and depth of characterization, rather than merely the latest state-of-the-art special effects, then, for you, ""Panic"" is unmissable. A+.",1 -"As interesting as a sheet of cardboard, this dispensable period piece has little going for it. It's overly wordy and fails spectacularly to evoke the tension and fear that the real-life characters must have felt as they dodged the French Revolution's fickle hand of justice. Eric Rohmer at 82? It shows.",0 -"The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.

Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.

This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.",0 -"Jack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross.

As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.",0 -"This is one horror movie based TV show that gets it right. Friday the 13th the series had no connection to the movies. Poltergeist the legacy: I'm not so sure. It may have been loosely connected to the movies. It feels like they just throw a famous title on a show so fans will watch it.

It shows Freddy being burned by the Elm street parents(in the 1st episode I believe) and the amount of parents were disappointing. With all the kids he targeted in the 1st 3 movies, you'd expect there to be more parents. But oh well.

Freddy is basically the narrator for the show. He watches the actions of people in the real world sometimes getting involved somehow. Just like other anthology shows like Tales from the crypt, there's a supernatural or surprise ending twist involved.

The acting lacks but believe it or not: the violence sometimes surpasses that of the movie. This show lasted a couple of seasons and was made around the time of the 4th movie. i heard it was canceled due to protesting parents. I watched a lot of R rated stuff as a kid, so its a shame parents had to ruin it for everyone. 4 more movies came after the series , so it wasn't a total loss.",1 -"This movie contains personalities that so deliciously are playing their parts, I love the final, when nobody knows what are they gonna do about their life, but it's completely great when you see and realize that the priest is right, is jut for two, so what are the other persons doing there? The movie embrace you to a new life, to experiences, to be able of dream with the other person and reach those dreams. Also shows you the life itself, hard like it is. But gives you the option to choose what you want and what you really need. Hope this comment works for you. The movie it did worked well for me. I bought the movie by the way ;) Take care.",1 -"I thought this was a beautiful movie- very brave. Such beautiful imagery-and I liked the use of breaking glasses w/ applause. Also how the best friend repeated the line about ""..and she's one year older than me.."" showed that their friendship has rekindled and grown, but maybe some competition is left...i loved the footage of hands feeling the fabric. The dance concert was beautiful. The beginning seemed slow, though..it took awhile to feel for the characters-the husband could have been more abusive-he just seemed absent so when other characters talked about him-it didn't really fit. The affair btwn. the best friend and husband seemed random..the doctors meeting seemed to hint that there was not much time left(to live..) so when the infidelity was revealed, I didn't feel as much sympathy for the character-more like relief! the ending was so great- the lines btwn. her and the husband, and the scene where she is pulled over is brilliant!",1 -"When I first watched Robotboy, I found it fresh and interesting, but then I noticed, that with each episode this show is trying to teach you how to behave yourself, what is good/bad. Episodes became predictable. And main characters are not interesting. Again we see a hyper-smart boy, beaten by his older brother, parents who don't understand their kid, and his friends: girl and fat boy. Also this show has no logic. A super-modern robot who works on two AA-size batteries, and can use a lot of weapons. But the biggest problem is the difference between activated and super-activated modes. We see two different robots, and it declines main idea of the show: ""Robot must learn how to behave himself in human society""",0 -"Who'd a thought suicide could be dealt with in a way that's palpable by everyone? I saw the film at SXSW at it's premier and it turned out to be the best film there by far. Yes, its warped and it's bizarre, but it makes sense in the world the filmmaker (Michael Parness) creates. If you didn't laugh (most everyone did), then you just ain't getting it and thats a darn shame. Particularly of note, Guillermo Diaz as Hector steals a bunch of scenes and the chemistry between Natasha Lyonne and David Krumholtz is intense. The film reminds one of Harold and Maude, but not really, it takes one bizarre spin after another, and they do all make sense in this crazy mixed up world we all live in. I stayed (as did most) for the Q & A afterward and what was great was hearing that the same things I thought in my head as to why things ""happened"" are the reasons they did. I don't think you can say much bad about the film, unless you didn't get it. I think I got it and it seemed like most everyone else did as well. The film is dubbed a suicidal comedy, but its got a lot of heart, a lot of laughs and offers a lot of hope, yet it doesn't shy away from the horrors of suicide as well. A nice little movie that should get attention when it gets a release, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later.",1 -"This was, undoubtedly, the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen. The first part of the movie, though strange, has a light and amusing quality to it. The journey begins on such a peaceful note, detailing and emphasizing the beauty of the hills of Appalachia. But that is misleading beyond belief. The obvious social problems (inbreeding) and the deformities of the countryside's inhabitants are only the first disturbing aspects of the movie. I can still hear Bobby moaning in pain, and I shudder at the thought. Lewis's leg made me wince. Yet, while the movie was, on the whole, very disturbing and distressing, it posed some interesting questions. When is it moral, or right to take another individual's life? What can morality drive us to do, or not do, in some cases? And are dignity and moral integrity more important than life itself? Whatever conclusions one may draw from the film, it is an achievement in its own right (despite certain aspects that were chillingly real and gruesome).",1 -"When I saw the trailer for this film, I said out loud to no one in particular ""this film is going to bomb."" I also said that about THE MATRIX and look at what happened there. Now I am not a box office guru by any stretch but I usually have a pretty good gut about what is going to be good and what is going to really suck. In this case I was blinded by my complete and utter apathy towards David Duchovney. Let me put it to you a different way: I don't like his as a person ( from what I have read of him in interviews, he is unbelievably pre-madonna like and he is full of himself considering all he has done is X-Files ) or as an actor. PLAYING GOD was a really poor film but he came off thinking that for some reason he deserved big bucks on the big screen. But I am happy to say that even though those things may still be true about the man, Return To Me is delightful and has it's heart in the right place. Bonnie Hunt has directed a beautiful story and she has told it with class and grace. This is one of the most romantic films I have seen and even though it may seem to be a bit sad and maudlin in its premise, give it a chance and you will be hooked.

It has to be said ( and this pains me to do so ) that the reason this film works so well is because of the story and the cast. Duchovney and Driver are so wonderful and believable here that I honestly wanted to cry along with them. There is one particularly powerful scene when Duchovney comes home after his wife has died and he slumps down on the floor of his house. As it always does, the family dog looks to the door to wait for his wife to come walking in. She doesn't and with his shirt collar still stained with blood, Rob ( Duchovney ) tells him that she is not coming home, ever. He then calls the dog over to him and they seem to share a cry together. The dog lets out a small moan and then Rob cries. And this is one of the most realistic moments of pain I have ever seen in any character in any movie. You can feel his pain and at that moment I forgot I was watching an actor that I generally don't like, and I felt that I was watching someone that I knew moarn the loss of his beloved. This is powerful stuff.

Another strength of the film is the supporting cast. Bonnie Hunt has combined an ethnic melting pot of Irish and Italian characters that share a common bond. They share a pub called O'Reilley's Italian Pub. That is a delicious name all by itself. And heading the diametric scale of clashing cultures is Carol O'Connor and Robert Loggia. These are two proud old men that love their homeland but love their granddaughter and niece ( I think it is ) respectively. And that is the character played by Minnie Driver. This scenario is ripe for comedy and Hunt doesn't miss anything here.

Bonnie Hunt and James Belushi also share some funny moments together as the middle aged married couple and Belushi gets top points as he accepts humility gracefully and shows off his ample keg of a stomach for laughs. With his family consisting of three or four kids, there is very little time for him and the wife to have quality time. And again Hunt handles this with perfect elegance.

This is a wonderful story of finding true love, knowing how lucky you are to have true love and the power of friendship and family. Return To Me is a wonderful romance and even though I still don't have a great admiration for David Duchovney, I have to admit that he was perfect in this role and I could not picture anyone else playing his character. He was sensitive and believable and the movie was good because of him, not just because of him, but he sure added to the flavour.

If you are a sucker for a good romance and you want a good cry, then this is the film for you.

8.5 out of 10 I will see anything that Bonnie Hunt puts out with her in the director's chair.",1 -"OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...

I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.

Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of ""running upstairs"" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...

I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a ""Mystery Guest Star"" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize ""the old guy from 'Star Wars'""). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.

People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...

2/10.",0 -"Five Across the Eyes starts as five young teenage girls are driving home in time for their curfew, they stop off at a store & accidentally hit another car & decide to just drive off & leave it. Soon after the other car forces them to stop & a crazy woman with a shotgun gets out & shouts at them, makes them take their clothes off & makes them pee on them & then randomly drives off. Shaken & shocked the girls think their ordeal is over but the crazy woman comes back for seconds as she seems intent on killing the terrified girls who are lost & are low on gas...

Produced & directed by Greg Swinson & Ryan Theissen with Swinson writing the thing & Theissen responsible for the cinematography & editing I have to say that Five Across the Eyes is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen if not the worst, I mean I'm struggling to think of a film I have seen that's worse. Now let me start off by saying that I am sure a lot of the film-making decision taken here were deliberate to try & provoke atmosphere, tension, realism & suspense but there is not one aspect of Five Across the Eyes that I didn't hate it to be honest it looks like a bad home video that has been put up on YouTube & even then it's still slightly embarrassing & a frankly worthless waste of 90 odd minutes of my time that I could have been doing something more entertaining & fun like pulling my fingernails out with pliers. The reviews on the web seem quite positive but on the IMDb (the amount of 1 Star comments is revealing & they can't all be wrong, right?) & it's message board which I think is much more of an indicator of what the average person thinks it's absolutely trashed by just about everyone & the phrase 'the worst film I have ever seen' is used a few times & to be fair most of these negative comments mention th same things & I have to agree with them. The story is terrible, alright I suspect it's meant to be minimalistic but this minimal? There's never any reason or explanation for the events that happen & it just feels totally random. It goes on for ages, the amount of plot here would struggle to fill a thirty minute made for telly program let along a full length feature. The dialogue is awful with these annoying girls who don't seem to have a brain cell between them taking about random stuff & screaming a lot. Oh god the screaming, there are seemingly endless scenes of these girls screaming or crying or whining which not only irritates & annoys & prevents any sane viewer feeling any sort of sympathy for them it also makes what they are trying to say almost impossible to hear properly. Then there's the real killer, the entire film is set & shot within the confines of a mini van, seriously the camera never leaves this car & as you can imagine it gets really boring, add that the low body count of just one person killed on screen & Five Across the Eyes is a film that I hated with a passion.

On a technical level again I can see that the film-making style here was a deliberate choice but I have to be honest again & say Five Across the Eyes is the worst looking film I have ever seen. As a fan of film I like my films to look like proper films as it's a visual medium & I definitely don't want them to look worse than the average YouTube video or my home films shot on a camcorder while I was drunk. It really does look that amateurish & that bad, it's a complete eyesore & I hated every moment of every second of it. Just think The Blair Witch Project (1999) only ten times worse looking & sounding & you will be almost there. There are times during Five Across the Eyes when you literally can't tell what's going on or happening because of the camera-work & the almost pitch black & grainy contrast levels. The violence is tame too with a few splashes of blood & a stabbing at the end.

Low budget doesn't even begin to describe Five Across the Eyes, with a supposed budget of about $4,000 this is easily one of the lowest budgeted films ever given a wide release. The two vans in the film were owned by members of the production & that's basically pretty much the entire budget right there, the locations. The acting is pretty bad by the main cast, I just hated all the fake put on crying & screaming that didn't convince at all but did irritate immensely.

Five Across the Eyes will go down as one of the worst films I have ever seen & I have seen a few films, whenever anyone now ask's me what's the worst film I have ever seen Five Across the Eyes will definitely get a mention. I hated it, every single aspect & wretched moment of it.",0 -"'The Luzhin Defence' is a movie worthy of anyone's time. it is a brooding, intense film, and kept my attention the entire time. John Turturro is absolutely stunning in his portrayal of a tender, eccentric chess Grandmaster, and Emily Watson is spell-binding as the gentle but rebellious daughter of a highly respected Russian family. The chemistry between Watson and Turturro on screen is obvious from the moment their characters meet in the story. All in all, this movie is one of the best in-depth looks at the life of a chess Grandmaster, and Turturro and Watson add a whole non-mainstream, non-cliche feel to the film. Most people will come out of the theater thinking, and feeling somewhat touched by this brilliant look at the most unlikely of love stories.",1 -"Leaving aside the drawbacks and deficiencies of the film mentioned by other viewers I must say that it seemed to me a film about power,which is in my opinion one of the most luring illusions. I saw the drama of an emperor and people. It seems to me that the director wanted to pose a question of what the benefit of nation is and what the price of ""happiness"" for all is. Is there justification for the enforced benefit and ""happiness""? How much can be forfeited for the nation's security and peaceful existence? Is the idea of a powerful would-be empire worth reducing to misery and killing thousands of its citizens now? It seems to me that the emperor himself does not know the answer and seeks to learn it all the time the film runs. He is desperately torn between these desires and at the same time psychologically harassed by the discovery of his true origin. He seems to half hate his subjects for having to renounce his father and his love, half love the people as a good emperor should. No wonder his actions are controversial and emotions confused. It seems to me that as another film presenting the problem of power of man over other men the film is a success.",1 -"SPOILERS. Like other posters, I felt that the ending was a bit abrupt. I would have liked to have seen the crew adjusting to life back on earth after their return. I suppose the writers anticipated this problem by ""front loading"" some Voyager on earth sequences at the beginning of the episode. (Of course, that time line has been eradicated, so it's all moot.) I did like how Admiral Janeway died for the Voyager crew. As fans, we get to have our cake and eat it to, by having Janeway both make the ultimate sacrifice and live on. I admit that the scenes of Janeway and her older self having conversations was bizarre and so easily could have crossed the line into camp. Fortunately, Mulgrew(s) pulled it off.",1 -"Just exactly HOW director John Madden come to settle with Nicolas Cage and Penelope Cruz playing the roles of an Italian Officer and a Greek Villager in an honourable story: ""Captain Correli´s Mandolin"", just escapes me! Witness: a wobbly, inconsistent accent by Cage amid horrendous over-acting, with Cruz -- more adequately cast as a spoiled Latino opposite Johnny Depp in ""Blow"" -- in basically a repeat performance under the guise of a Greek nurse... ay, it was painful. But there were saving graces.

The story itself is thrilling-to-tragic, and Cage does have some (-- redeeming, this is !--) musical ability. Next, a superb performance by John Hurt (Cruz´s father, the village doctor) of Oscar Callibre, as well as by Irene Papas, each as village elders, as well as by Christian Bale (Papas´ son) among the village freedom fighters, go far towards counter-balancing awkward performances (especially at the beginning) by Cruz and Cage. Nicely, the last two seem to grow into their respective roles as the film progresses, but it´s teeth-gnashing early on. Finally, the scenery itself and the photography could garner a technical award, and such provides pleasant distractions when most needed.

John Hurt already has two Oscar nominations and this would be a third; I hope he gets it as his performance as the Doctor makes this film worth seeing. The true test of a supporting actor/actress is whether or not the film would be the same without the personage in question, and in this case, it would most certainly not be... not even close.

Entertainment value but for the aformentioned plus factors which do help raise the bar. See it if you haven´t. Rating = 3.5 stars (of five).",1 -"This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?",0 -"Michael (played by Steven Robertson) has cerebal palsy, and lives a quiet, and dull, life in Carrigmore Residential Home. When a newcomer to the home, Rory (McAvoy), befriends him, he proceeds to show Michael how to live past the disability. Despite, or maybe because of, Rory's crippling disability (unable to move all but his head and a few digits on his hand), Rory is fiercely independent, and extremely rebellious. His affect upon the quiet and reserve Michael is spectacular, and the two soon leave the care home to set up lives in the outside world, where they recruit the help of Siobhan (Romola Garai) as a care assistant.

This film is one of the gems of the year! Much like last year's In America, the film goes from being extremely funny, to distressing, touching, upsetting, and truly moving without once seeming saccharine sweet. Knowing exactly where to tug at the heartstrings, and where to simply let the story, and characters, do their thing, O'Donnell has crafted a wonderful film which tells us all to look past the surface, and see what lies within.

The true strengths of the film come in the lead actors. So convincing are their characters that you truly do believe that they are disabled. To further manage to convey humor and sorrow on top of the already great performances is amazing. The pair really seem close friends, and as their tale unfolds you care completely for them.

This is definitely one of the finest examples of film this year, telling a very relevant story in a simple way. If this film fails to touch your heart, then you must contain pure ice inside.",1 -"In the film, Lumumba, we see the faces behind the monumental shift in the Congo's history after it is reclaimed from the Belgians, and we see the motives behind those men into whose hands the raped and starving country fell.

Lumumba is not a movie for the hyper masses; it demands the attention of its viewers with raw, truthful acting and intricate, packed dialogue. Little of the main plot is shown through action, it relies almost solely on words, but there is a recurring strand that is only action, and it is the stroke of genius that makes the film an enlightening and powerful panorama of the tense political struggle that the Congo's independence gave birth to.

This film is real. It is raw inits depiction of those in power, and those on the streets. It is eye-opening in its content. And it is moving in the passions and emotions of its superbly portrayed characters.

Whether you are a history fan, a film buff, or simply like good stories, Lumumba is a must-see.",1 -"It's difficult to not have a liking for Israeli director Eytan Fox and for his movies, which describe the life in the middle east and the inherent problems gay people can have in these regions. Besides he also gave voice to the young generations, and to the remarkable part of them, who really need PEACE and who want to take no further notice of a war that for too much time marked the existences of people, both in Israel both in Palestine. These reasons, in my opinion, are sufficient to consider Fox a noteworthy director, even when his feeling for the melodrama is a tad out of control. However the fans of his movies (that he realized on team with Gal Uchovsky, his producer, co-screenwriter and also life companion) seem to not being vexed by this, since his new feature, THE BUBBLE (HA-BUAH), is having the same success of the previous YOSSI & JAGGER and WALK ON THE WATER. Announced as a contemporary gay version of ""Romeo & Juliet"", set in the present day Tel Aviv instead of Verona and with two men (one Israeli and the other Palestinian) at the place of the two Shakespearean young lovers, the film actually is quite different from that or, better, it's also something else. In fact the bubble of the title is the world apart in which the leading man, Noam, played by the Fox regular Ohad Knoller (Yossi in YOSSI & JAGGER, but I must confess I miss Jagger, the astonishing Yehuda Levi!) and his two co-tenants, a guy and a girl, chose to live. Around thirty-years-old, restless, witty and firm (despite the protagonist just spent a period as national service in a checkpoint on the frontier with the Palestine) to live a life that won't be only made of war. The two guys are gay and along with the girl they have established a trio in which they brotherly love and support each other. Their lives are destined to change when Noam falls in love with Ashraf (the TV star Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) a young Palestinian who came to live in Tel Aviv. The laws so far in force among the group are neglected, but not the will to aid one friend. Still it won't be easy for Noam and his friends, 'cause Ashraf is clandestine in Israel and in the meantime his family, who lives in Palestine and doesn't know he's gay, is looking forward to settle his wedding with a very beautiful girl, who is a relative of Ashraf's beloved sister bridegroom-to-be, who he is also a terrorist and he will have a strong liability in the development of the plot, with consequences not just for the two men. Because the prejudices against the homosexuality and the peace (interesting dualism, if not automatic) are stubborn and so the tragedy is unavoidable. Even if the film focus on the obstacles the relationship between Noam and Ashraf meets with, it doesn't the overlook the other characters, which turn out well written (for example Golan, the boyfriend of Yelli, Noam's fellow tenant, introduced as a lively boor, and then disclosed as a sweeter and more open minded person) and aptly performed (besides the two leads, we mustn't disregard the funny Zohar Liba and the lovely Daniela Virtzer, the girl of the gang; moreover LATE MARRIAGE's star Lior Ashkenazi appears as himself in a cameo). It also melds the gloomy tones with the more brilliant ones, even if the director can't do without a melodramatic conclusion. I watched this movie more than a month ago and in the meantime I often thought about it, proof that Fox and his pal have a knack to strike home.",1 -"The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.",0 -"The dazzling seventeen-minute dance sequence of George Gershwin's 1928 orchestral piece, ""An American in Paris"", is an indisputable masterwork. Choreographed with precision and unparalleled flair by Gene Kelly, the vibrant combination of color, music and dance is still eye-poppingly startling as the piece is broken down into scenes inspired by selected master artists - Dufy in the opening Place de la Concorde piece, Manet in the flower market, Utrillo in a Paris street, Rousseau at the fair, Vincent Van Gogh in the spectacular Place de l'Opera piece, and Toulouse-Lautrec for the Moulin Rouge where Kelly wears his famous white bodysuit. The 97 minutes that precede this finale are not as exciting, not by a long shot, but there are certain charms to be had in viewing the entire 1951 Oscar-winning musical.

Director Vincente Minnelli and screenwriter Alan Jay Lerner have fashioned a surprisingly sophisticated if rather slight romantic story focused on Jerry Mulligan, a former G.I. who has remained in Paris after the end of WWII trying to make a living as a painter. With his braggadocio manner and athletic dancing style, Gene Kelly can be concurrently ingratiating and irritating as a screen personality, but he seems to find his oeuvre as the carefree Jerry. The love-triangle plot is focused on Jerry's involvement with Milo Roberts, a self-proclaimed art patron but a sexual predator when it comes to young artists. On their first date in a crowded Montmartre nightclub, Jerry unapologetically falls for Lise, a young woman who turns out to be the fiancée of Henri, a professional entertainer and friend of Jerry's pal, Adam, an out-of-work concert pianist. Romantic complications ensue until the inevitable ending but not before several classic Gershwin songs are performed.

The best of these is the most imitated - a swooningly romantic song and dance to ""Our Love Is Here to Stay"" along a faux-Seine River in a blue hazy mist with yellow fog lights. The way Kelly and Leslie Caron circle each other is transcendent as they approach each other tentatively at first and then synchronize beautifully to the music leading to the final clinch. Few films have so elegantly and succinctly shown two people falling in love. ""I Got Rhythm"" and ""S'Wonderful"" spotlight Kelly's nimble tap-dancing and agreeable singing, while ""Embraceable You"" is danced impressively by Caron in a five-scene montage of Henri's all-over-the-map description of Lise to Adam. Designed to show off Caron's dancing versatility, the sequence is similar to the one in ""On the Town"" where Vera-Ellen showed off her considerable dancing skills when Kelly's sailor character described his multi-faceted vision of Miss Turnstiles.

As Lise, the nineteen year-old Caron (in her first film) dances superbly throughout and handles her role with unformed charm with her acting talent not to bloom for several years. Looking quite glamorous, Nina Foch plays older as the manipulative Milo and manages to be likable enough for us to care about her fate, while Oscar Levant is just his sardonic self as Adam. Performing an elegant ""I'll Build a Stairway to Paradise"", George Guétary plays Henri so agreeably that you feel bad that he does lose the girl at the end. This is not the best all-around MGM musical, but there is certainly enough movie magic to make this quite worthwhile. The 2000 DVD contains a fairly pristine print but little else in terms of extras.",1 -"Lonesome Dove is my favorite western second only to The Searchers with John Wayne. I watch Lonesome Dove about every 6 months and never get tired of it. I have read all the LD books, although I cannot remember much of Comanche Moon. I too looked forward to this mini-series and decided to tape it on our DVR so we could fast forward through commercials. Unfortunately, I messed up and didn't record the first part, but decided to watch the other parts and try to pick up.

There is nobody that can ever compete with Robert Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones, and I was expecting to be disappointed and I was.

Although there were so many things that didn't ring true, the most apparent to me was when Nellie died the day before and Gus was out on the range, it switched over to Clara writing him a letter from Nebraska telling him how sorry she was to hear of her death. How in the world could she have known the next day way out in Nebraska? Additionally, it was supposed to be 7 years later after her leaving and her children looked to be about 6-7 years old, maybe a little younger, yet more time went on before they actually moved to Lonesome Dove, and in Lonesome Dove they had been there about 10 years or longer before leaving to Montana. When they stopped at Clara's in Nebraska, which probably took another 6 months on the trail, the girls looked to be about 10-13, since they were playing in the yard like little children. The math just does not add up.

I agree that the man who played Gus had a lot of his mannerisms and looked a little like Gus may have looked as a young man.

I am also a little confused about one thing. The captive white girl that they brought back - was she the one they captured when they raided Austin? They said she had been captured 25 years ago, but if she was the one captured in Austin, it was only 7 years later when this took place in the movie. Was she captured earlier? I remember seeing a captive girl after they raided the town and don't know if this is the same one. If someone can explain since I missed Part 1. If it had been 25 years, she would probably be over 40 years old when they found her since she looked to be grown lying on the ground. Also, the way they were ravaging her when they captured her, it is hard to believe she would have lived to go on to be married and having Indian children.

I have to admit though, nothing is worse than John Voight playing Call in the sequel to Lonesome Dove or the unbelievable marriage of Lorena to Pea Eye in the McMurty sequel to Lonesome Dove, which was never explained either. Also, the way he killed Newt off was I hear from spite for them doing the sequel with John Voight without his approval.

If anyone can clear up these discrepancies, I would appreciate.",0 -"Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.

One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.

You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well.",1 -"Hardware Wars is a hilarious, 12 minute short film parody of the original Star Wars movie which was released just a few months after Star Wars in 1977. This film uses household appliances as space ships and Star Wars look-a-like actors to send you rolling around on the floor in uncontrollable fits of laughter. This film has won many awards at film festivals and was the film which inspired Mel Brooks to write his Star Wars parody movie called ""Spaceballs"".

This is my favorite parody film and I recommend it to anyone who is familiar with Star Wars and has a good sense of humor.

",1 -"For what it's worth, this is a fairly decent Road Runner cartoon, if a little short (just under 6 minutes). The gags are adequate at best, the animation is competent, and the new restored DVD master looks nice. However, that's where the qualities end. Allow me to provide a little backstory: in 1958, thanks to a labour dispute, WB got hold of a bunch of canned music that would be used in 6 of the year's cartoons.

There is only one phrase to describe this short's music, and that is ""it has the 4Kids sound"". I use that phrase to describe music which has absolutely no correspondence to the on screen action, and feels like it was recorded by an orchestra consisting of members of a Sonic Youth cover band. The music in this short feels hopelessly tacked on and incredibly obnoxious, especially considering there are scenes in this short (namely the piano trap) that would have worked best with little or no music.

I didn't think a WB cartoon would be ruined by awful music (even Lava's scores aren't this obnoxious), but considering the cartoon isn't that notable anyway, it becomes almost painful to watch with the music. It's kind of like how late 80's episodes of Doctor Who could be bad anyway, and yet be made unwatchable thanks to Keff McCulloch's unbelievably awful music (which sounded like he hit the demo button on all 5 of his Casio keyboards at the same time).

I am going to have people call me crazy for this, but I'd easily watch one of Larriva's RR cartoons over this. At least the canned music was usually in sync with the action on those.",0 -"The perfect space fantasy film. a group of kids go up accidentally in space and have to get back down, but do they, sure they do.This would not be a family film if they all died. Then it will all be sad. You don't want that Kate Capsaw, the leading lady gives a Golden Globe performance, but sadly, she nor Lea Thompson won one. That sucks so bad.I can't say it enough, this film is so great, Lea Thompson- o lord, a perfect girl for this film. This film is the best for sure.

Sorry, but better than Star Wars. Star Wars is so over- rated and space camp was so under- rated. It should of been the other way around

excellent 10/10- 0r maybe 11/10. Iam not good at math",1 -"I'm a 55-year-old fairly jaded gay white man. Since I don't watch TV, I watch at least 250 films a year, most on DVD. I keep notes on all the films I see and rate them. Since December 2003, I have seen only five films as great as EIGHTEEN. So, I've rated EIGHTEEN better than at least 700 other recent films. Mr. Bell is far too modest in his film commentary. EIGHTEEN is a Great Film. And, it also resulted in two ""firsts"" for me.

I watched the film, the first time, and I was riveted throughout and weepy during the last half hour, something that's only happened to me three times before. (Five minutes into the film I knew it was going to be very good.) When Jason began reciting Whitman, I lost it, and then... The Kiss. Well, that is one of Film's great kisses, and that scene among Filmdom's most poignant and unforgettable. When Pip blows out the candle at the end and the credits rolled, I clapped. I cheered. I love happy endings. I wept.

Then I watched the trailer and the TLA previews and thought, ""Okay, is this $800,000 or so Indie really that Great?"" So, I immediately watched EIGHTEEN again, something that's only happened three times before. And, EIGHTEEN blew my socks off yet again, even more so. Then I watched ""The Making of EIGHTEEN"" documentary and was completely charmed by the cast and Mr. Bell.

So, I thought I'd watch EIGHTEEN again with the Director's Commentary. I have never before watched a film three times in one night. After the third time, at 3:00 AM, I knew I had just experienced a Great Film; EIGHTEEN now ranks #10 on my Top Twenty Films of all time. And, in the very small universe of great gay or gay-subtext film, there is Brokeback Mountain, EIGHTEEN, Mulholland Drive, and Maurice.

Thank you Mr. Bell! EIGHTEEN is brilliant and fully-realized, with a magnificent cast, a wonderfully moving, understated score, excellent cinematography, an entertaining, touching, totally appropriate and hummable song. I can go on, but I won't gush too much more.

This film should have received Oscar nominations, certainly one for Best Picture. The performances, without exception, were all wonderful. Ms. Gill's lovely, sultry voice was a surprising epiphany. And Sir Ian McKellen? 'Nuf said. Awesome.

EIGHTEEN is the reason I slog through over 200 mediocre to utterly horrendous films (some in the $150 million plus range) a year, to find that one treasure, that one exquisite, magical, unique and enchanting, perfect ""Faberge egg"" enfolding an unforgettable heart.

Finally (I promise), my second ""first"" -- I've never before posted a commentary on any film I've seen.

Thank you again, Mr. Richard Bell! Breathtaking genius. Give this man $100 million for his next film! He made $700,000 US into one of the top 50 films of all time. If I had the cash, I'd grant him $75,000 a year living expenses and match any funds raised for his next film. Mr. Bell is already a great director at 31-years old. Can you imagine him at 45-years old?

Wise and witty, tender and brutal, poised, poignant, understated yet edgy, chilling and thrilling, mesmerizing, haunting, unforgettable: EIGHTEEN, THE MASTERPIECE.",1 -"Robin Williams is a national treasure, specially when he cuts loose and puts aside his maudlin approach to drama. He manages to liven up the usual restrained pacing of Barry Levinson, and there are moments in this film when he truly shines.

As the funny elected American president in ""Man of The Year"" Williams recaptures the hilarity and outrageousness that used to be associated with him. What makes him so appealing is his humanity and likability. Here is a man who can lash at his audience but truly loves them, too. His humour is like barbed wire, and yet it is cathartic. It is what makes him very appealing to the people in the film and in real life.

Laura Linney is once again portraying an intelligent woman in distress. She is a fabulous and very talented performer, but I think she has boxed into a stereotype and unfortunately, it would have been more interesting to have a less recognizable performer in this case. Walken pretty much walks through his thankless role, and the climatic scene in the SNL skit barely floats above water.

Go in for a few hilarious moments, and those are priceless. Enjoy Williams and forget some of the deep moments that slow down this otherwise entertaining movie.",1 -"Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them.

""Wilder Napalm"" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics.

Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.

Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire!

Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!

The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. ""Wilder Napalm"" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.

Give this one a look...",1 -I knew next to nothing about this movie until I chanced to rent it. It was a very pleasant surprise. The cast is excellent including Matthau whom I do not normally care for. He makes a credible romantic lead. Hawn is a sweet kook and Bergman is touching as a woman coming out of her shell.,1 -"I just watched the DVD of this award winning film. One Life Stand is a stark drama that through it's pace, black and white shots and atmospheric music, paints a very compelling and honest picture. It's a story about life's dilemma's around power, sex and control highlighted by a few sad lonely lives. The mother (very well acted by Maureen Carr) is uptight and drawn in on herself. The father only appears on the side-lines, and yet is a powerful and pivotal part of the drama. Money is hidden in boxes and shoes.

The writing was superb, and I liked the sensual close-up shots of details such as nails, red lips, a candle, mirrors etc. The way the camera was used made it very intimate. It's a harrowing tale, with sexual undertones, while the Glasgow drizzle on the dark streets adds to the despair of the sad characters.

There are some highly memorable shots conveyed simply by a walk, or a dropped shoulder - such as Trise walking away under the bridge. And the stunned and hurt look on Trise's face in the call centre, which hopes to helps people through using tarot cards, as she listens to a caller talk of her own abuse.

At the start we see John Paul, wide-eyed and innocent, having photos shot as he wants to try modelling. Trise, his mother, is deluded and making poor choices for him, in a way pushing him away while she tries to keep him. John Paul's modelling turns into escort work and Trise's boss offers her money, and eventually they go on a date. There are also moments of humour and subtle irony. One excellent scene is when they are having a fairly normal meal, and starting to open up a bit, when the father appears with his dark presence and clouds everything over. But this, and other things offer moments of hope.

I felt at times the pacing of the film was a shade too intense, but this is a small detail in another wise challenging and memorable film, and something a bit different. It stands in start contrast to most American films which are either total fantasy, or the real' world' as seen through tainted glasses. This film depicts life with all its rough edges and displays unforgettable images.

This isn't 'light entertainment' but a thought provoking and real life drama.

One Life Stand is a truly involving and emotionally honest film.",1 -"Certainly this proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Patricia Arquette is what she is promoted to be: An ACTRESS! This is undoubtedly her finest moment of Acting and she certainly deserves the credit for her work. Never in any of her other movies, with the possible exception of Holy Matrimony, has she been totally believable and authentic.

PLot: A young woman finds herself in southeast Asia and is suddenly thrown into the political havoc of the countryside. She witnesses mass murder and totalitarianism and escapes.

It is one movie that you MUST see or you have not seen all of Hollywood's finest. I rank it 58 in the top 100 films of all time.

Thanks Bob",1 -"Hitch is a light-hearted comedy that will entertain you with some fine performances. Will Smith turns in a believable performance as a cloak and dagger Date Doctor who must remain invisible to protect his clients and his profession. Smith was excellent, never schmaltzing it up too much.

The best piece of acting goes to the actor (don't know name) playing this accountant who has fallen for this woman who is out of his league. This actor did an excellent job of character development as he listens to Smith's directions, but in the end, just can't help being who he really is.

And in the end, that's the main message of this film. Be who you are in love, and you'll be OK.

At the same time, Will Smith meets this attractive lady and the Date Doctor gets a taste of his own medicine as he slowly falls for this woman. Don't know her name, but she was pretty good too.

Overall, this was a delightful, light movie that is definitely worth seeing.",1 -"I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly ""attacked by demons, nothing serious."", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.

I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.

0 out of **** stars.",0 -"this has to be one of the best and most useful shows on TV. keys to the v.i.p. demonstrates some of the best seduction techniques and the humor that goes along with the techniques that are not up to par. to the person who wrote the negative comment, i only have one thing to say. stop hating on us because we are better looking and have more game then you. have you ever seen the inside of a club or do you just watch it on TV. and your so called female friend. she is not attracted to us because if guys like me saw her in the club, we would just walk right by and talk to the hot girls, like the ones on the show.

STOP HATING watch keys to the V.I.P. and improve your game",1 -"This movie is about two guys who made up a sport on the spot trying to get 2 get the hot chick. BASEketball becomes a nationwide sport. Joe Cooper (Trey Parker) is the beloved captain, but is hated when he loses the NBA to some other rival team. He meets the girl of his dreams Yasmine Bleeth, and in the end they kiss. the first time i saw this movie i wet my pants it was so funny. a definite must see for all comedy fans. If you love south park you'll love this! Maybe don't watch with kids it is bit inappropriate for little dudes. some duds give it 6 1/2 out of ten, i give it 11 out of ten. i like coop he rocks i gotta go bye bye thanks for reading this",1 -"I was totally surprised just how good this movie actually is because when I first saw it I was only mildly amused! I must say however, that I am still very disappointed that Donald O'Connor wasn't given a bigger and better role! He was an enormous talent.

There is a great chemistry among all the main cast members and Matthau has never been funnier.

I am tremendously glad that this picture got made because we get to see Lemmon and Matthau team up for the very last time; in a vehicle that puts their talent to great use. Brent Spiner proves that ""Data"" from Star Trek the Next Geeration is not the only good character he can play.

The storyline is really quite simple but the comedy and the characters work really well and I laughed heartily throughout this movie and I highly recommend it.",1 -"A ""sleeper"". I had never even heard of this movie until I was channel jumping one night. I've been a police officer myself for 25 years and thought this was a true to life movie. Non-police critics are rating the movie purely from a critic's point of view and not from a police officer's point of view. This is real.",1 -"This is one of my favourite Disney films. It has everything you could hope for in a Disney animation: cute animals, great songs, a nasty villain and lots of adventure. The story begins in Paris, where aristocat Duchess and her three kittens live with their Mistress in a mansion. Life is perfect for them until the Mistress' fiendish butler Edgar discovers that she plans to leave her entire fortune to the cats. He realises that if he even stands a chance of claiming the fortune, the cats will be out of the way. An excellent, often forgotten masterpiece from the 1970's - a time when the Disney studio made few animations - which features songs such as the title number ""The Aristocats"" as well as ""Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat"", this will enchant viewers young and old with its enduring jazziness.",1 -"Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life.",1 -"I thought this movie was highly underrated. The subject matter does seem like it would be a little strange, and I was put off at first, but once I was watching the movie, it didn't seem strange at all. I was intrigued with all the different possibilities that the story had to offer, and I couldn't wait to find out how it would end. Once it did end....I thought about it for a long time after. I was pleased with everything about K-Pax, from the acting and the story and the scientific elements and psychological issues, to the ending. It's not an especially upbeat or happy film, though it does make you chuckle from time to time, but I found it to be especially entertaining and thought-provoking. I own it now, and intend to watch it many times.",1 -"I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.

cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.

...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.

All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).

The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.

The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.

The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.",0 -"I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!

Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.

On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)",0 -"I had no real expectations going into this movie and I'm glad. Even if I had expected it to be bad I would have been disappointed.

Where to start? First, I think 15% of the movie consisted of stock footage of stationary scarecrows in a dark jungle-field. I get it. There's scarecrows. I think the title ""Scarecrows"" was sufficient.

Second, not a damn thing is ever explained regarding the scarecrows and paranormal occurrences. There's too many times where I was left going WTF?

Third, the movie takes itself seriously. I'm all for a B-movie with buckets of blood, screaming women, and senseless violence that is the result of a simple psychopath or ancient curse. But those movies often know they're B-movies and even flaunt it, like Dead Snow (hilarious Scandanavian zombie flick) or Evil Dead 2. But this movie seems oblivious to its crapdom.

Finally, there should of been more blood and/or nudity. Yea, I said it. If you're going to have a crap horror movie, make with the killing. And if you're going to have one hot and one semi-hot girl, one of them needs to show some side-boob at a minimum.

So, like the summary says, skip ""Scarecrows"" and just poke yourself in the eye. You'll thank me.",0 -"Philo Vance had many affinities with Bulldog Drummond… He was a gentleman with the kind of polish and elegance only usually associated with the British upper classes and he was also independently wealthy…

But there were vital differences… Drummond was an adventurer, charming, gallant, lively… Vance could be pompous, slight1y dull and self-righteous… There was a hint of fundamental cruelty in his manner…

""The Kennel Murder Case"" is the most impressive of the 14 Vance films made between 1929 and 1947… The story of a murdered collector of Chinoiserie, it has all the ingredients of the classic private eye mystery – exotic setting in the blue nose Long Island Kennel Club, three killings for Vance to solve including a baffling ""locked room murder,"" the key to the whole affair, and plenty of suspects…

Usually, a detective story setting have proved too static and talkative to make convincing movies even though they work well enough on the printed page, but here Michael Curtiz's direction and the fine editing give the film a pace and urgency that make it altogether different from similar films of its type…

William Powell's elegance and suavity made him the perfect Vance and although a year later he switched studios, he stayed in the same genre with the enormously successful and popular ""The Thin Man"" at MGM…",1 -"Despite some mildly thought-provoking oddities in the script and the film's overall curiosity value, Fury of the Wolfman emerges as a dull, uninteresting excursion into lycanthropy, saved only by the statuesque presence of villainess Perla Cristal. The rest of the players, including the hammy Naschy, are a complete write-off (though admittedly none are helped by often atrocious dubbing). Although the screenplay packs in enough variations on werewolf/Frankenstein/Dr Moreau themes to flesh out a dozen movies, the plot is so unevenly developed, the characterizations so feeble and the dialogue so verbosely ridiculous (at least in the English version), that any latent interest in the turgid proceedings is soon quashed.

Zabalza's direction seems jerky, even amateurish. His staging is clumsy and ineffective. He is not helped by Villasenor's over-bright lighting. Even promising sets are so unatmospherically photographed that the director's few attempts to give the audience a fright are signaled far in advance

Other credits fall into a similar pattern of ineptitude, though the stridently over-emphatic music score and the laughably crude, totally primitive special effects deserve special condemnation.",0 -"I was lucky enough to get a free pass to an advance screening of 'Scoop' last night. Full house at the theatre and when the movie ended there was spontaneous applause. I didn't speak to anyone who disliked 'Scoop' although two teenagers sitting next to me sighed and fidgeted uncomfortably for most of the film. They were the exception though because everyone else including myself really enjoyed themselves.

'Scoop' is a quickly paced murder mystery. A young female journalism student is unwittingly maneuvered by forces beyond her control into trying to catch a serial killer on the loose. Plenty of hijinks ensue as she partners up with a traveling illusionist and falls in love with a frisky and charming young nobleman.

'Scoop' isn't a bad addition to the Woody Allen filmography. It isn't his best work but it is a very enjoyable and light hearted romp. I'd say it fits quite comfortably into being an average Woody Allen film, right in the middle of the pack. If you're a Woody Allen fan you'll probably enjoy yourself. If you're indifferent to his work then 'Scoop' might be enough to get you interested in seeing more. I don't think that anyone who dislikes his style of film-making and acting are going to change their mind. Woody plays the same kind of neurotic character we've grown so accustomed to although it borders dangerously close to forced and over the top in this film. While potentially aggravating for some who might find themselves wishing he'd hurry up and just spit out the words, Woody Allen fans know what to expect.

Very good performances all around in my opinion although I found myself missing Ian McShane who is excellent and not on camera nearly enough. Hugh Jackman is great as the charming nobleman and I think Woody Allen has found a new regular star to work with in Scarlett Johansson. I think that with 'Match Point' this is their second pairing and she's just magic with the material that Woody gives her. Could be the beginning of a beautiful relationship! I'm glad I saw the movie and definitely recommend it. More sophisticated comedy than movies like 'Scary Movie 4' so if your brand of comedy is the latter rather than the former, 'Scoop' probably isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you like a touch of class, sophistication and fun, 'Scoop' is for you. Probably not the Woody Allen film I'd introduce to a newcomer but all others should give it a try.",1 -"I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?",0 -"Wasn't sure what to expect from this movie considering its amazing collection of stars and directors but in the end it didn't disappoint.

For me one of the highlights was the final episode with the American tourist speaking with a dreadful French accent (which made me feel better about mine) which was actually quite touching and a great way to wrap up the movie.

The story of the paramedic and the stabbing victim was also very moving and for pure comedy the Coen Brothers and Steve Buscemi take the award. The Tom Tykwer clip was also impressive although rather ambitious in its scope.

However, the Bob Hoskins segment was totally cringeworthy and the vampire story was completely farcical. The dialogue in Wes Craven's section also felt very forced and the Chinatown story was completely incomprehensible.

On the whole this film is worth watching for the good bits and has a strong finish. It's not too painful to sit through the bad sections - they only last 5 minutes anyway.

Ca vaut la peine!!!",1 -"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.",1 -"Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.",0 -"I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said.",0 -"Few videos in recent history have been as amateurishly produced as this one -- at least none that have been released by such a reputable distributor. Every frame of this film is a plaguerism of better films of the past. The word 'cliche' is given new meaning by a talentless writer/director who should reserve his imagination for lesser masturbatory efforts that don't victimize film viewers. Assisting in the amateur night 'horror' effort is a number of less than capable technicians who contribute poor cinematography and laughable make-up and special effects. Unfortunately, the one or two of the amateur actors in the film who display a hint of talent that will go unnoticed due to the reputation that this atrocity will produce.",0 -"I love movies. I love independent efforts and major studio productions. I love films with stars and I love those featuring unknowns. I love dramas, comedies, action-adventures, science fiction, mysteries, westerns, any genre except horror. I love foreign films as well as those in English. I love good movies and I even love bad ones, because almost no film ever fails to entertain or amuse on some level. Except for ""Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.""

When I attended a late-night showing of ""Cowgirls,"" I joined an audience of around 10. Less than halfway into it, I alone remained. Soon not even I could tolerate the disturbing mess unfolding before my eyes, and I left as well. To this day ""Cowgirls"" remains the only movie I have ever walked out of.

I don't quite know how to describe this incoherent, vacuous, trashy, meaningless film, or how to adequately convey its lack of redeeming value. Suffice to say that it ranks as one of the worst major films of all time, preposterous and inexcusable on every level. It tries to be clever, but its conception of feminism seems hopelessly anachronistic. It tries to be funny, but its humor is coarse and cringe-worthy. This is one of the few films which manages to profane its own ethos, by depicting protagonists in so off-putting a manner that you revolt against them and their values. If you want to watch a movie, watch ""Waterworld,"" ""Ishtar,"" anything but this. Except for the new ""Alexander."" If you're choosing between that and this, read a book instead.",0 -"Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.",0 -"Jim Henson's The Muppet Movie is a charming, funny and brilliant film that can be watched AND enjoyed by adults and kids. I feel this is my favorite childhood film because it combines great characters, great story, and great wit that it is irresistable. The plot involves Kermit the frog (puppeteered and voiced by Henson) in his odyssey across America to follow his dream in Hollywood. Along the way, he meets Fozzie Bear, The Great Gonzo (my favorite), Miss Piggy, Rolf, and DR. Teeth and the electric mayhem.

This film has so many good things I can't even say them. But it is memorable and every time I think of a puppet or muppet, I will think of this film. Look for cameos from Mel Brooks, Dom DeLouise, Paul Williams, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Steve martin, Edgar Bergen (and Charlie McCarthey), Elliot Gould, Carol Kane and the great Orson Welles. Excellent and spectacular, one of the best films of the 70's. A++",1 -"Icy and lethal ace hit-man Tony Arzenta (a divinely smooth and commanding performance by Alain Delon) wants to quit the assassination business, but the dangerous mobsters he works for won't let him. After his wife and child are killed, Arzenta declares open season on everyone responsible for their deaths. Director Duccio Tessari relates the absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, maintains a properly serious and no-nonsense tone throughout, stages the stirring shoot-outs and exciting car chases with considerable rip-snorting brio, and punctuates the narrative with jolting outbursts of explosive bloody violence. Delon's suave and charismatic presence adds extra class to the already engrossing proceedings. This film further benefits from sterling acting by a bang-up cast, with praiseworthy contributions by Richard Conte as wise Mafia kingpin Nick Gusto, Carla Gravini as Arzenta's supportive lady friend Sandra, Marc Porel as Arzenta's loyal pal Domenico Maggio, Anton Diffring as ruthless, calculating capo Grunwald, and Lino Troisi as the venomous gangster Rocco Cutitta. Silvano Ippoliti's glossy cinematography boasts several graceful pans. Gianni Ferrio's funky score hits the get-down groovy spot. Erika Blanc and Rosalba Neri pop up briefly in nifty bit parts. Better still, there's no filler to speak of and we even get a decent dab of tasty gratuitous female nudity. The startling conclusion packs a mean and lingering wallop right to the gut. A solid and satisfying winner.",1 -"A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger.

""The Blob"" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ""A Bolha"" (""The Blob"")",1 -"Not totally off the wall in a good way, but just totally stupid. ""Killer Tongue"" is an uneasy mixture of sci-fi, horror, and supposed comedy. What this equates to is a mindless and totally incoherent film. There is very little dialog, mainly due to the fact that the script, if there was one, is complete ""pond scum"". I wouldn't even call it strange, more like just ""total nonsense"". This movie is certain to disappoint, and you have been warned. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on this, and if you do, the pungent smell will linger like rotten fish............................................................... MERK",0 -"Sorry for any spoilers that this contains. But if you want to read on anyway: I really wonder why so many people are so high on Kevin Williamson. Let's just take a quick look at his work as a screenwriter, shall we? There's Scream 1 and 2 (plus the story for the next one), which I think are pretty funny but very overrated. Besides, by making Scream into a franchise, it ceased to become a parody of horror movies and simply became another one. Then there's I Know What You Did Last Summer, which is essentially the same movie again. He co-wrote Halloween: H20, but even he had the sense not to take credit for what he did on that monstrosity. Then comes The Faculty, which I can only say was god-awful. (Lots of fun to make fun of, though). Don't even get me started on the ridiculous, soap-operatic Dawson's Creek, I could rail about how bad that is for hours. So then we get to Teaching Mrs. Tingle. First of all, there are tons of little implausibilities in this one. For example: in most high schools that I know of, the valedictorian is NOT the only one who gets to go to college! This idea that Katie Holmes's character would never go anywhere unless she was valedictorian was absurd. Haven't you ever heard of financial assistance, damn it!? Also, I don't think you get expelled from high school or don't get into college because of cheating on one test. There are a bunch of other ones, but I'll skip to the big one now. The ending really bothered me: they committed a crime, but it was ok because the teacher was a bitch. Great. Do you know how many of my teachers I could kidnap based on that logic? I'm sure the police never took any statements to find out the whole story, either. That sure wouldn't be necessary. Helen Mirren was good, she added some nice flair to a character who (as a previous commenter noted) had NO reason for anything she did. And has anyone else noticed that Katie Holmes absolutely can't act? Her self-righteousness became incredibly annoying. ""You wanted me to fail. Blah blah blah."" Her last two scenes with Mrs. Tingle were the worst. The only reason I don't regret losing $8.25 on this disaster is because she got beaten up a bit. No, wait, I do regret losing the money: it wasn't real, and she survived. Mr. Williamson, if you're reading this, you've made the same movie (some violence and/or scary stuff offset by wise-ass kids who make sarcastic jokes and references to other movies) just a FEW too many times now (I count 6 so for, not including Scream 3 and whatever follows it), and I would really appreciate it if you would stop. Otherwise, I might just have to kidnap you and threaten YOU with a crossbow. Ok? :-)",0 -"Being a freshman in college, this movie reminded me of my relationship with my mom. Of course, my situation doesn't parrallel with Natalie Portman and Surandon's situation; but my mom and I have grown up with the typical mother and daughter fights. There is always the mother telling you what to do, or not being the kind of mother you want to be. I was balling my eyes at the end of this movie. Surandon's reaction of her daughter going to the East coast, miles away, after all they've been through reminded me of how I felt, being from a small city in the West coast, going to New York.

The movie is meant for women who have children that are now all grown up. It is very touching, I was moved by the movie. Every feeling out of the characters in this movie was utterly real, you didn't get any phony sentimentality. I was sitting through the credits at the screening of this movie, alone, wishing my mother was sitting next to me so I could hug her and thank her for everything. This movie is a bit corny of course, but everything is trully momentous. Its all about what a mom can learn from her child; and what a child learns from her mother. 8/10",1 -"This is a family comedy -- in the very best senses of the term. Uncomplicatedly about faith and family, Ann Blyth, with the help of everybody's favorite Grandpa, Edmund Gwenn, gets divine help in lifting the O'Moyne's above the would-be vengeance schemes of Goldtooth McCarthy (John McIntire). Pure fun.",1 -"This enjoyable Euro-western opens with a scene that predates a similar scene that Sergio Leone wanted to shoot for ""Once Upon A Time in the West"" but couldn't persuade Clint Eastwood to appear in. Three tough-looking gunfighters ride into a town. One is dressed like the Man with No Name in a poncho. Another is dressed like Colonel Mortimer from ""For A Few Dollars More,"" and the third is garbed like Django, except he rides a horse instead of pulls a coffin behind him with a machine gun in it. Our hero meets them in Main Street behind a wagon loaded with three coffins. ""Any Gun Can Play"" is a spaghetti western with an in-joke on spaghetti westerns since the hero here wipes out the three killers. Aside from a little too much comedy, especially in the acrobatic fight sequences, this is an above-average oater.

The notorious Mexican outlaw Montero (Gilbert Roland of ""Barbarosa"") and his gang of trigger-happy pistoleros rob an army train transporting $300-thousand dollars in gold coins across the frontier. Director Enzo G. Castellari of ""Inglorious Bastards"" stages the hold up from a variety of camera angles that thrust you into the forefront of the action. The bandits seize the locomotive along with the coach carrying the gold and separate it from the rest of the train that houses the U.S. Cavalry. While Montero and his gunmen keep the Cavalry pinned down, Pajondo (Pedro Sanchez of ""Sabata"") commandeers the locomotive, kills the engineer and his crew and trundles it away, leaving the other pistoleros behind to fend for themselves. Essentially, Pajondo double-crosses Montero and steals the gold for himself. Later, Montero catches up with Pajondo at the Rio Grande. Before the bandit can reveal the whereabouts of the loot to Montero, however, a Cavalry sergeant shoots Pajondo dead. Before he dies, Pajondo tells Montero about a medallion that serves as a clue about where he stashed the treasure. The irate Cavalry captain (Ivano Staccioli of ""Commandos"") imprisons Montero, but he cannot loosen the bandit's tongue even after he uses his whip on him. Infuriated by Montero's reticence, the captain threatens to have the Mexican shot if he doesn't talk. Meanwhile, the jailers let a priest speak to Montero, but he really isn't a priest. The six-gun toting Stranger (George Hilton of ""The Ruthless Four"") masquerades as a man of the cloth and rescues Montero from a firing squad. Unfortunately, before Montero is rescued, Clayton (Edd Byrnes of TV's ""77 Sunset Strip"") takes the medallion away from him and keeps it for himself. Clayton is the bank representative that was sent to safeguard the gold. He is horrified that the Captain wants to shoot Montero. Clayton's career at the bank hinges on his ability to recover the gold. The Stranger stages a fire at the fort to distract the firing squad and Montero takes the Captain as hostage and tries to escape, but the Stranger shoots him off the horse. Before the authorities can verify that Montero is dead, the Stranger claims the body for the handsome reward he will receive and he rides out with the Captain's gracious thanks. No sooner have they left the fort than Montero's men show up to rescue him from the Stranger. From this point on, the Stranger, Montero, and Clayton forge short-lived alliances among each other as they search for the gold. Castellari and scenarist Tito Carpi, who has penned a number of spaghetti westerns such as ""A Few Dollars For Django"" and another Castellari oater ""Seven Winchesters for a Massacre,"" rely on clever humor and surprise reversals to keep the action fresh and fast-paced. One cool scene has Clayton seated at a table about to eat his meal when he hears some suspicious sounds from behind him. Clayton pours his drink on the table and sees the gunmen behind him with holstered six-guns.

""Any Gun Can Play"" lives up to its title. In fact, many guns do play, and at least twenty or more corpses pile up before fade-out. This western isn't so much a parody as it is a knock-off of Sergio Leone's ""The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."" Mind you, bad guys and good guys fall as frequently as ten-pins in a bowling alley, but their deaths aren't depicted in the brutal fashion of a Leone western. ""Any Gun Can Play"" doesn't take itself as seriously as the aforementioned Leone masterpiece. The three leads jockey back and forth for supremacy. Each has a piece of the puzzle that will lead them to the treasure, but they refuse to share their information until the shoot'em up finale. Lenser Giovanni Bergamini's colorful widescreen photography is spectacular, especially the opening shots of the train chuffing along railway tracks with distant mountain peaks rearing up dramatically in the background. Another great shot occurs when Montero tests the Stranger's imperturbable calm. This scene happens after the Stranger has rescued Montero and the Mexican's minions arrive to save their chieftain's bacon. Confiscating the Stranger's six-gun, Montero takes aim at the poncho-clad tough guy and empties the revolver, placing his well-aimed bullets harmlessly in and around the unflinching gunslinger. Bergamini, who photographed Castellari's World War II thriller ""Inglorious Bastards,"" frames the scene with the Stranger in the background and his pistol in Montero's hand in the foreground for a pleasing, three-dimensional style shot. Meanwhile, Francesco De Masi's lively orchestral soundtrack is as memorable for its own idiosyncratic melodies as Ennio Morricone's soundtracks were for the Leone westerns. The opening song is reminiscent of a 1950's Hollywood western with its catchy lyrics and guitar riffs. Although it isn't a major spaghetti western, ""Any Gun Can Play"" is always entertaining nonsense with interesting plot twists and good performances, especially the indefatigable Gilbert Roland who was 62 years old at the time!",1 -"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.

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.

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.

Not funny, not sad, not anything. A real ""Stinkeroo""!!!!!

A 0.2 out of 10!!",0 -"This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. ""Love Is a Many Splendored Thing"" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like ""Kiss Me Deadly."" As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like ""On the Waterfront"" and ""Marty"" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and ""Love"" is one of the latter.

This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.

People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved ""All That Heaven Allows,"" released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of ""Love"") is not.

I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.

Grade: D+",0 -"Perhaps the deepest cartoon made in the USA, ""Duckman"" runs short at 70 episodes in four seasons.

Unlike the often innocuous criticism found in ""The Simpsons"" (a pretty good show in its own right), and the rude-for-rudeness-sake humour in ""South Park,"" every bit of this series follows a plan. The criticism of US society, from its mercantilism to its selfishness, carries much more bite than it does in any other animated series.

The cultural references in ""Duckman"" also tend to be obscure sometimes (anyone browsing the fan sites will realize most have not even been caught). In that, it is different from ""The Simpsons,"" which usually uses pop culture instead of the high-brow stuff often hidden in ""Duckman."" As other people writing about it notice, there is a growth in the characters (Bernice, Duckman and Cornfed). Also, by making the main character not just an offensive neurotic but in fact someone who is living a personal tragedy (as is made clear in episodes like ""The Once and Future Duck"" ('You'll love her until the end of your days...') and in ""Bev Takes a Holiday"" (when he takes a chance to tell Beverly all those things he couldn't tell Beatrice), the series is anchored in a deep sense of reality.

One can't avoid feeling sorry for him and his lucid madness.

All in all, in my opinion, the best cartoon ever made in the USA and one of the best series ever. I doubt it will ever be on DVD though. Far too many things the Duck said make much more sense today.",1 -"Every time I watch this movie blood comes gushing out of my eyes. Yes, you read that correctly: I've watched this wretched, foul thing more than once.

Caddyshack 2 went wrong for so many reasons: Harold Ramis dialing in a script and abandoning the direction duties, Rodney Dangerfield (wisely) walking away from the project because they wouldn't allow him to tinker with the script, Bill Murray showing excellent judgement and not being part of it, and a puppet being pushed forward as the feature player of a cast who deserved much better.

I can't help but think of Dyan Cannon in this and wonder why she's perpetually laughing and smiling. The only conclusion I can draw is that she is indeed the face of pure evil. Stay with me a moment. She must have been watching as the film came together and revelled in the untold agony that it would inflict on countless soon to be extremely sorry movie goers who would have this film inflicted on them. She may also have been extremely drunk. That's what I need to be right now to wash the foul taste of this complete and utter failure out of my mind. If I'm lucky it'll be washed out forever.

I have seen this film several times. I blame several of them on childhood and being a very dull and dim-witted boy who apparently had no aesthetic sensibility. Perhaps puppets are just funnier when you're a kid. No, the Muppet show is funnier now ... guess I was just dull. Caddyshack 2 is that rare kind of film that is so extraordinarily disappointing on so many levels that you convince yourself after the end credits that it couldn't have been as bad as all that. It WAS. It IS. It will only get worse with time.

My reasons for going back to this film, mercifully, are becoming fewer. Randy Quaid is limited in his role as Jackie Mason's lawyer. His opening scene isn't bad and brought out my only chuckle. We see him a few more times but it becomes as tired as the rest of the movie and descends with unfortunate rapidity from incidentally amusing to vapid wasteland. Randy Quaid acquits himself well, and this film owes him big time because if there was reason to watch this film as anything other than a torture tactic, he was it.

Maybe that's the trick of the movie. It has enough potentially endearing qualities that people watch it, are horrified at what they've done to themselves but later because the pickings were so slim can remember only what did actually amuse them. Years later they unwittingly watch it again and the cycle repeats.

Jackie Mason takes a lot of the blame for this film but in fairness, I'm not sure he deserves it. He's really trying out there but it is impossible to not to notice that he spends the entire movie doing a Rodney Dangerfield impersonation. That's who the movie was written for but I'm not sure even he could have saved it. Ultimately this fails miserably through terrible direction, bad editing (shall we count continuity errors?) and a rehashing of the same story with none of the wry humour or heart that made the first film endearing.

Dragged kicking and screaming up to a three out of ten instead of two by Randy Quaid's bulldog determination. It isn't even bad enough to laugh at. I've definitely seen worse, but trust your memory -- this one is a dog. If you've never seen it you've made excellent life choices and I salute your excellent judgement.",0 -"I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.

Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.

In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.

I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.

The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.",0 -"There's nothing to say except I want my time back that this movie took from me. I'm not racist against Latinos. Hell, I'm half Brazilian. I loved the movie Kids. It doesn't make any sense. These kids just go around and do nothing. They're not even good at skating. The whole time I'm just waiting for something, anything, to happen! but it doesn't. NOTHING happens the whole movie. Did I mention they suck at skating. I might make a movie called beat up rockers, and the whole premise will be about kicking the sh*t out of poser moron punks like these kids. I'm not even going to get into it, this movie sucks. Please do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you come in contact with it so some other poor soul won't make the same mistake.",0 -"***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this ""deserted"" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused.",0 -"Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. ""Red Shadow"" is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like ""Hot Shots"" or ""Scary Movie"". Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In ""Red Shadow"" the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. ""Red Shadow"" just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time!",0 -"This movie has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant ""Bruck-buster"" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me!",1 -"Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot.

Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him…. he turns her down. AGGH!)

In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.

With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title.

I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.

That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.

Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.",0 -"OK, I admit I watched this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I am a huge fan of), but I am not one of those people who automatically gives an MST3K movie a 1/10 rating. Although I hate many of the movies they play, and some are among of the worst movies I've ever seen, I have actually been able to enjoy some MST3K movies. That being said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. (It is no wonder, in fact, that the MST3K writers themselves commented that this one was one of the worst. Don't believe me? Check out their site.)

To me, this movie is a good example of what NOT to do in filmmaking. The dialogue is very bad, the acting is worse, the cinematography is pathetic the direction (while perhaps being the best thing in this movie) is bad.

The pacing is the worst part in this movie. A few times in this movie, the viewer had to wait literally minutes for something to happen. While minutes may not sound like a very long amount of time, it can be in a movie, particularly in this one. I'm sure it was meant to create a mood, but I was just very bored. It truly felt like ten minutes.

If ""suspension of disbelief"" means ""almost falling asleep during a movie"", then this has plenty of that. But THE SCREAMING SKULL is just so horrible, there is no way I could have possibly even gotten interested in anything that was actually going on in the film, and thus the ""suspension of disbelief"" was indeed non-existant.

One of the worst, and probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.

1/10",0 -"I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.

Very improbable orphanage on Bala.

Cushing and Lee at their height.

Some nice scenery.

Good for face spotting, and I quote, ""look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses"".

Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.

Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.

Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.",0 -"I'm still laughing- Not! I'm still asking my myself what the point was. I barely got a chuckle, this movie sucks. It tries to be charming and touching, but it turns out stupid. I do not recommend it.",0 -"Like a lot of the comments above me, also I though this was the average scifi movie, but unfortunately it was not. I found it rather patronizing, and indeed, preaching.

But that is not the only comment. The scenes are very 'artificial' (not as in scifi, as I will explain a in a few moments). (The next sentence is a small spoiler.) The movie more or less represents a discussion between two groups. The physical setting of a discussion typically involves two or three men standing next to each other, the middle one typically speaking. In the worst case, the other party is represented by one person.

Also the interviews the reporters have are very artificial, sometimes even unprofessional. For example sometimes the discussion is between the reporters (I mean, from a point of the interviewed, 'akward'). Moreover the interview persons always stay calm, they say everything without normal emotions. I.e. you cannot tell whether they lie or not, are mad or not. They show almost nothing.

This is also very unprofessional, the 'Christian' reporters always believe everything they are told by the people they interview.

Bottom line:

All conversations contain:

- facts

- pro/con arguments

There are no lies. Nobody lies. (The next sentence is a spoiler, ignore if you still plan to see the movie) The only lie happening is to demonstrate how 'bad' non-believers are.

This makes me conclude that the movie is a B-movie. It is very similar to 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' (from the 50's), but this movie also has an annoying, wrong set discussion about aliens and Christian belief.

NOTE: I have no intention to insult Christians, people who believe in aliens or whomever else. This is a thought I have about the movie, not about people.

Moreover I would like to note that I don't know whether the actors are bad or were just given terrible scripts.",0 -"[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%).

I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!!

And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]

My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...

Only....

Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....

It reminds of a feminine ""the fugitive"".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....

She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....

In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!

maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....

very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*",0 -"Contrary to what many may believe as this movie being an ""against the system"" type of movie and attitude. It is an excellent portrayal of the ""system"" in question and how ridiculous it truly is. The funny parts in the movie are in fact funny because they speak the truth about the world around us. Anyone who finds this movie to be unrealistic is simply denying the self evident truths about life. And that is to learn what you enjoy. That is what college should be about..

I come to find that a comment must have at least 10 lines. I think I have given my opinion on the matter. So I now write a couple more lines just as filler. I hope you have been entertained during this time. I encourage you to go see the movie. It is well worth your while so long as you follow it and immerse yourself in the movie.",1 -"I remember first watching Sabrina when it came to TV in the UK on ITV1 when i was 13/14. I'm now 24 and still love it now as much as i did when i first watched it. I get a little stick from some of my friends for still watching a ""kids show"" but i don't care! lol Caroline Rhea as ""Hilda"" is my personal favourite character and Later on Morgan also became another of my favourite characters. I remember spending so much time watching various special events honouring Sabrina on the TV station Nickeleoden UK. I love Mellissa Joan-Hart, she was great in ""Clarrissa Explains All"" but so much better in this. I was gutted when they decided to finish it! I hope it will soon be released on DVD here in the UK - I'll be first in line! lol x",1 -"Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 1/10",0 -"A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish.",0 -"Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.

Imanol Uribe makes his best film since ""Días Contados"" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.

A well cared production.

My rate: 7/10",1 -"The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment ""Thou shalt not kill"": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. ""But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it,"" states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, ""the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?"". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. ""Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies"", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in ""Dekalog 5"" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like ""I want to live"" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion ""a crime is always a crime"": according to the principle of ""par condicio"" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do.",1 -"There's a legion of Mick Garris haters out there who feel he couldn't direct a horror film of quality if he had to. And, SLEEPWALKERS(..screenplay written by Stephen King)is often used as an example of this. I like SLEEPWALKERS, though I fully am aware that Garris just says F#ck it and lets all hell break loose about fifteen or so minutes into the movie. Forget character or plot development, who needs them anyway. It's about violent mayhem and bloody carnage as a mother and son pair of ""sleepwalkers""(..feline-human shapeshifting creatures who suck the lifeforce from virginal female innocents, moving from town to town, living a nomadic existence, truly powerful)set their sights on a teenager who doesn't surrender without a fight. Before all is said and done, many will be slaughtered as a mother shan't tolerate the possible death of her beloved son.

Garris wastes little time setting up those to be executed, as a teacher(Glenn Shadix), suspecting handsome, All American charmer Charles Brady(Brian Krause)to be someone entirely different from who he claims, gets his hand ripped off and his neck torn into. Charles lures pretty virgins into his arms, drawing their energy, in turn ""feeding"" his hungry mama, Mary(Alice Krige). The fresh new target is Tanya Robertson(Mädchen Amick), and she seems to be easy pickens, but this will not be the case and when Charles is seriously injured in a struggle(..thanks to a deputy's cat, Clovis), Mary's vengeance will be reaped on all those who get her way. Mary, come hell or high water, will retrieve Tanya in the goal of ""refreshing"" her dying son.

Like many teenagers, I had a crush on certain actresses I watched in movies. Such as Amy Dolenz, I was smitten with Mädchen Amick. She's simply adorable in this movie and I love how she bites her lower lip displaying an obvious attraction towards Charles, unaware of his ulterior motives. I just knew that Mädchen Amick would be destined to be a scream queen, but this would never be the case. Too bad because I would've welcomed her in the genre with open arms.

Krige is yummy as the menacing, damn sexy, but vicious and mean bitch who wipes out an entire police force and poor Tanya's parents in one fail swoop, in less than ten or so minutes. She stabs one in the back with a corn cob! She bites the fingers off of poor Ron Perlman, before cracking his arm(..a bone protruding), knocking him unconscious with his own elbow! She tosses Tanya's mom through a window after breaking a rose vase over her father's face! A deputy is stabbed in his ear by Charles(Cop-kebab!), falling on the pencil for extra impact. Poor Tanya is dragged by her hair from her home by Mary, driven to the Brady home, and forced into an impromptu dance with the crippled monster! The sheriff is hurled onto a picket fence and we see how cats combat the sleepwalkers unlike humans. We see Mary and Charles' abilities to ""dim"" themselves and his car using a power of invisibility. Writer Stephen King even finds time to include himself and horror director buddies of his in a crime scene sequence with Clive Barker and Tobe Hooper as forensics officers, Joe Dante and John Landis as photograph experts.

The film is shot in a tongue-in-cheek, let-it-all-hang-out manner with music appropriately hammering this technique home. It's about the ultra-violence, simple as that, with some deranged behavior and jet black humor complimenting Garris' direction and King's screenplay. The incestuous angle of the sleepwalkers is a bit jarring and in-your-face. Without a lick of complexity, this is closer in vein to King's own demented MAXIMIMUM OVERDRIVE than his more serious works.",1 -"I saw this one at Sundance, and I can't figure out why it won the directing award. It was painfully slow and literally colorless. It's the type of movie that is only appreciated by film fest snobs who think any movie that a lot of people like must be beneath them.

The jury at Sundance this year seemed to be making a conscious effort to reward the underdog, ultra-low-budget films. That's all well and good, but this wandering, dragging mess looks like a home movie. Mini-DV shot in a snow-covered gray winter results in a drab look for a drab movie.

Certain motifs (snakes) are beaten to death in spite of the fact that they add nothing to the story and make no sense as symbols.

Now, it wasn't all bad. Vera Farmiga is phenomenal in her role as a mother with a drug problem. She will be going places, and she deserves it. Her co-star Hugh Dillon also does a fine job. Frankly, there are many fine moments in this movie, but they just don't fit together very well.",0 -"I first watched this movie back in the mid/late 80's, when I was a kid. We couldn't even get all the way through it. The dialog, the acting, everything about it was just beyond lame.

Here are a few examples... imagine these spoken real dramatically, way over-acted: ""Oreegon? You're going to Oreegon? Why would anyone want to go to Oreegon?""

""Survivalists? Nobody ever told us about any survivalists!""

This movie was SO bad, my sister and I rented it again for her 16th birthday party, just so our friends could sit around and laugh at how awful it was. I don't think we were able to finish it then either!",0 -"New York family is the last in their neighborhood to get a television set, which nearly ruins David Niven's marriage to Mitzi Gaynor. Bedroom comedy that rarely ventures into the bedroom(and nothing sexy happens there anyway). Gaynor as an actress has about as much range as an oven--she turns on, she turns off. Film's sole compensation is a supporting performance by perky Patty Duke, pre-""Miracle Worker"", as Niven's daughter. She's delightful; ""Happy Anniversary"" is not. * from ****",0 -"What I miss most of all in this film is that it lets no place for imagination, everything is said. It is like a documentary film, but not as good as a documentary, because it is no documentary. A patchwork film without a continuous story. Very superficial, nothing to think about, because the film tells you already what you are supposed to think. Too many different problems are touched but none is worked out in order to make you think. I do not even know if it is a funny film that wants to be serious or a serious film that wants to be funny. Many scenes are very unrealistic, and the acting is quite poor. The film is quite boring.",0 -"I couldn't relate to this film. I'm surprised that people are lauding it for being so 'realistic'. How many people at your school were victim to incest? How many closet homosexual jocks were there? How many quiet people that you never noticed committed suicide? Hmmm. OK you wouldn't know even if their were. But really these are explosive problems which many us never deal with. And yet there are so many teenagers with subtle problems which could have been explored. But hey, where's the 'entertainment' in that?

With regards to the girl who committed suicide - I found this to be exploitative. I actually think MANY people in High School at some stage feel invisible, ignored and unwanted. But what possesses someone to violently commit suicide on just another day of being ignored and unnoticed? The filmmaker decided this girl would suicide to make the film more provocative. And the graphic nature of the suicide to make it even more provocative. I didn't buy it as a real life scenario.

And the problems of the other students I didn't fully relate to. Bullying is explored but that's been done to death, we all know it goes on and it truly is a matter of resolve within that person. Closet homosexuality? Pfft, another cliché gets rolled out. Thats the thing really, too many clichés. I guessed the ending at the start. There was a predictable unpredictability if that makes sense. You've got all these characters with explosive problems, and one with apparently none. And I thought, what is the point of this character unless she's the unsuspecting suicide victim? And surely enough..

One thing I will say, and it is the saving grace of the film, is that it does NOT glamourise suicide. The suicide is very graphic and heart-breaking to watch. It is a powerful scene (regardless of how contrived it is)and one that dismisses suicide as the easy option. But the film is really not very imaginative and used stereotypes.

Not bad but certainly not groundbreaking OR worthy of a 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes???",0 -"A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)",0 -"This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.

Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch ""For Whom the Bell Tolls"" instead.",0 -"How is it possible to like and dislike the same movie?

The plot is very much like that Jody Foster thing, Sommersby, only not as good. Nicole was great....Jude was adequate. They didn't give him many lines...is there a reason for that? Generally, he's a pretty good actor. She's so elegant, his character is so country bumpkin. It makes one wonder what they see in each other.

Romance between two such was only successful in Lady Chatterly's Lover.

I think the dislike comes about because the movie is too long. They could have told the story in two hours.

The story is good. Good locations, good filming. The character actors were great.",1 -"In following Dylan Moran's star from the charming misanthrope bookstore owner in the surrealist sitcom Black Books, I could see his comic potential begging to be utilised in theater or larger cinematic avenues. This first big screen outing in a starring role (he had a cameo as Rufus the thief in Notting Hill) had oodles of promise, but like the strained Steve Coogan vehicle, The Parole Officer, has too many creases which should have been ironed out in preproduction.

The plot is so convoluted that I shan't bother repeating the finer details (the script has every character do that for us), and the laughs are sourced from show business in-jokes. Michael Caine is a pompous has-been running a production of Richard III - updated to Nazi occupation (one of the few genuine laughs, a satirical jab at Ian McKellen), in which everyone is forever doing the Hitler salute every time they take the stage. Convincing Dylan that acting should be a conceptual act unto itself, the two plot to steal money from some fairly harmless gangsters by way of their acting prowess. Confusion ensues (both on screen and in the audience), there's a romantic sub-plot between Dylan and the daughter of one of the gangsters blah blah blah and Dylan gets to dress in odd clothes and do funny accents. Michael Caine delivers some choice lines, and Dylan's comic timing is on the money, so why isn't it any good? It does have a certain charm that you would expect from Film 4, but it also has a precocious little girl acting as compass in a muddled and irrelevant plot - a no-no in screen writing 101. Exposition overshadows everything else. You just want to see Moran and Caine acting as comic foil to each other the way the were at the beginning, but when they're together toward the end, the the pairing has lost its charisma.

The Actors is an amusing, albeit underwhelming effort. Should it come on telly during a rainy Tuesday afternoon, then have at you. Otherwise you would be better off watching your old Black Books videos, or renting Withnail & I.",0 -"Sure this movie wasn't like. 16 blocks, inside man, an American haunting. etc...

But It was a great mystery that can happen to anyone of us.. i found this movie really great and scary.

I live exactly where they filmed this movie ""san pedro, California"" And we have heard true stories based on incidents of this movie.

I dunno if you've heard of the famous boat in long beach ""Queen Mary"" Well that boat is haunted. i believe in spirts, illusions, and parallel or however u spell that. is real. everybody's in there own universe.

and the mind is a powerful thing.

i recommend to watch this movie. it's great, and not bad directing at all.

for those who rate it a 1. they don't understand the film. its meaning. its plot, its view. and how bad the ocean life can be for each and everyone of us.

Ty.

Victor",1 -"This is yet another pseudo-intellectual ""let's make the Nazis look real bad"" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of ""The Wannsee Conference"" would have been much more interesting.

""Conspiracy"" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too ""staged"" and the presentation too ""common"". It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily ""solved"".

Another thing is the tagline: ""One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour."" As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).

Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering ""leaders"" and politicians.",0 -"as always this is an inaccurate picture of the homeless. TV told a lot of lies about panhandlers in the early 1990s and made everyone look bad, and claimed we all made over $100 a day when $20-40 a day was much closer to reality. when someone drove by where i held up a sign offering to work, and offered me work, i actually went and took the work if i was physically able.and if i would been offered the $100,000 id damned sure invested in in apt prepaid for at least 2 years, and kept most in the bank and still left myself $10-20000 for NL $1-2 and $2-5 cash games at the casinos. i usually always win and could win decent if i just had a bankroll. instead i win about $1000 a month is all playing in always minimum buying in due to not wanting to risk losing it all. i was only homeless cause i didn't wanna risk spending all my money and going broke, sometimes i had over $1000-2000 in my sock while i slept outside. anyone wanting to talk contact sevencard2003 on yahoo messenger.i admit i was different than most homeless people though, due to the fact i never drank smoke or took drugs. im no longer homeless, am now in govt housing for $177 a month and getting SSI and spend most of my time winning at online poker. mom and sunflower diversified worked hard to get me SSI. glad my days of hiding in under the stage in the convention center of the casino at night sleeping, worrying about getting caught by security are finally over. had this TV crew picked me theyd been over a lot sooner. its a shame how they don't better select who they pick.",0 -"In Chicago, four electricians leaded by Dean (Richard Grieco) come to an old building to disconnect power. They accidentally activate a portal and arrive in another dimension, where Chicago was destroyed by a Spider Queen and inhabited by mutants. The group meets survivors leaded by Crane (David Nerman) and Elena (Kate Greenhouse), and finds the inventor of the portal, Dr. Richard Morelli (Colin Fox), who has been living in this dimension for thirty years. They join forces, trying to rebuilt a portal to bring them back home. ""Webs"" is a watchable plagiarizing of ""Sliders"", only worse. Most of the dialogs seem to be written by a person who has not concluded the elementary school, so imbecile they are. Further, the story is illogical, and seems that Chicago is the only city in the world. The scientist trying to start his sophisticated machine with broken wires as if he were stealing a car is very funny. The face of Richard Grieco looks like a white version of Michael Jackson and is horrible. If the viewer shuts-down his or her brain, he or she may like this forgettable TV movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): ""Na Teia do Terror"" (""In the Web of Horror"")",0 -"Well, it is standard Hollywood schmaltz that you can see coming a mile off. It's enjoyable in parts but just oh so predictable. I must confess I did not really enjoy it, but I am pretty tough to please and a lot of my friends loved it.

It is quite sweet, and the actors give good performances. It's a nice backdrop and the eye candy is pretty good. But the irritatingly predictable, unoriginal and really quite dull storyline holds the film back. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend a couple of hours of my life.

The chick flick genre gets some bad press but there are some genuinely good chick flicks out there; this isn't one of them.",0 -"Strange enough, shorts like this get a 10. Why? They are hilarious. This is hilarious. Notice a lot of the quirky humor. Dated and childish to toon naysayers, but they don't know what they're talking about. They got to know that cartoons aren't just for kids. The art in this is probabley the best non-Road Runner art of the 1950's Looney Tunes shorts. It's hard to come across something better than the art in ""The Great Piggy Bank Robbery"", although nothing ever will. This probabley runs a close 3rd or 2nd. Shorts like this one might have spawned witless LT rip-offs like Tiny Toons Adventures to try to squeeze out all the old comedy out over and over again, like how great movies like Scream spawned crap like I Know... which was released just to squeeze out all the old horror from Scream, but like Scream, this is great alone. Chuck Jones has had his faults with shorts once in a while but he does make up for them. Take Hopper for example. Few people like Hopper but it never ruined the LT reputation, but I'm sure this was his make up on things as such. Bottom line: This is not as good as ""Duck! Rabbit! Duck!"", but close. Catch it on Cartoon Network frequently.",1 -"Perhaps I would have liked this film more if I wasn't so attached to the characters in Henry Fool. To those who've never seen Henry Fool, I wouldn't worry. As Hartley jokingly said in his introduction to the film at TIFF, the film has lots of exposition and explanations.

This film is very heavy in plot, which keeps the film moving. There are many humorous moments and the film certainly has Hartley's trademark humour and rhythm of dialogue. Over all, a technically well made film and sure to satisfy new fans of Hartley who are just beginning explore his work. As for the older fans who loved his earlier works like Trust and Amateur, this film could go either way. I have mixed feelings about the film and Hartley's later films in general. What Hartley does best is setting his stories in small situations, focusing on the intimate and idiosyncratic ways in which his characters interact with each other. Since his late 90s and onward, his films have widened in scope in terms of subject matter. Mass media in No Such Thing, Religion in the Book of Life and now Terrorism in Fay Grim. I don't know if Hartley's talents are suited to such big subject matter or if he's able to do it justice.

Strangely enough, the film can still be reduced to intimate relationships, a simple love story about a woman who goes to seek out the husband she loves. The only problem is, I've seen Henry Fool and everyone seems incredibly out of character in this film. You can tell this film was written long after Henry Fool was finished without any intention of a sequel. Somehow, the terrorist plot feels conveniently tacked on through the use of Henry's books of confessions as a macguffin (in the hitchcockian sense). Fay's motivations for finding Henry seemed motivated purely by the needs of the plot rather than what being faithful to who fay was as person in Henry Fool.

I guess I'm slightly disappointed in the film because it's not true to the characters in the Henry Fool and it doesn't exactly work as a straight ahead thriller. There's too much irony and wryness in Hartley's approach to such as big topic as terrorism. It somehow works and doesn't work at the same time. All I could say, you would either love or hate the film depending on your take on Hartley's work and how well you know Hartley's work. Fans of Henry Fool, be severely warned for a disappointment. For the rest, welcome to the world of Hal Hartley and enjoy the ride.",1 -"I was able to hang in for only the first twenty minutes of this low-budget movie. The most glaring absurdity was that while the American inmates in a North Korean POW camp are all supposedly suffering from severe deprivation of food and medicine, going without bathing, shivering in flimsy and filthy parkas, and sleeping on bare floors, and - let's not forget enduring torture - they always manage to sport impeccably coiffed hair. With the exception of a suitably austere-looking Harry Morgan as an army Major, the casting and acting are simply awful. Ronald Regan cannot seem to stick to portraying a single character and instead creates a rather schizophrenic amalgam of past roles. A mostly Caucasian cast portraying the North Korean camp officers might have been forgivable, but when supposedly Russian officers acting as advisors to the Koreans strut around wearing re-badged Nazi uniforms complete with jodhpurs and jackboots (obvious costume-department recycles from WWII flicks) and speaking with accents like General Burkhalter from Hogan's Heroes, well, that's just six kinds of silly. Don't waste your time on this one.",0 -"In what is a truly diverse cast, this show hits it's stride on FOX. It is the kind of sitcom that grows on you. If you just watch 1 show you might not like it much, but once you watch two or three- you get hooked.

This is because some of the jokes hit & some miss depending upon how you view them. As is usual today, the themes are very mature. The humor is usually very mature too. Often the most funny parts are the parts where the mature themes collide with the innocent ones.

Red (Kurtwood Smith) a veteran actor does some very good deadpan type of humor on this show. Debra Jo Rupp plays well in this ensemble cast too. Danny Masterson, the oldest actor of the ""kids"" is very good too. Laura Prepon (Donna) looks better in the earlier shows as a natural redhead (who got the idea of making her a blonde?). She shows very good talent & comedic timing often. She looks good without make up too.

This is one of the better entries on FOX in the sitcom department & it's most successful live action one since Married With Children",1 -"This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the ""art"" of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a ""chick flick"" where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either.",0 -"This film starts with a pedestrian setup before blundering into the standard sort of suspense action where an office worker keeps beating up trained secret service men etc.

I couldn't say the acting was bad - there were some good ""surprised"" faces by Hamilton and Sheen - but then I really wouldn't have to.

Risible finale did at least give me a good laugh for my pains. Still, if my life was flashing before my eyes, I think I would fast forward this 90 minutes.

I have to write two more lines of text just to get this thing published. Yes, very resistant suit that sheen wears. I made a special promise to myself never to watch a film this bad again.",0 -"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.

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.",1 -Hey if people thought ed wood was a bad director then they totally have not seen this movie. I mean there were gaping plot holes and under utilized cast. Shoddy special effects. I mean I cant believe that this movie came out from a Hollywood studio. A high school drama club could probably come out with a better product. I mean they had Erika Eleniak who is gorgeous Casper van dien and under rated actor. Their agents should be shot to ask them to sign on to this dribble don't they read scripts. I still cant believe that tiny lister was a survivor in the movie i was banging my head the whole time at why him and not a descendant of van helsing be the last man standing. I am a fan of vampire movies and this is by far the worst they should stake it so that it never sees the light of day.,0 -"I used to love Sabrina The Teenage Witch and have seen every single episode. I remember when I used to sit at 6pm every night and wait for it to come on Nickelodeon, however when Sabrina left high school the show began to go downhill. The best series has to be when she was friends with Valerie (I'm not sure which one that is). From there the next series (friends with Dreama) was still really good, but when she left high school it just didn't seem right. All the main characters seemed to have left, which meant that it didn't have as much of the old ""sparkle"", however the first series where Sabrina is in college is still relatively good and watchable, however when her aunt's leave and Sabrina moves into their house it just isn't right. She is no longer a teenager, so therefore the name of the show isn't right and without Hilda and Zelda and Josh the show just doesn't seem right, especially when Sabrina nearly marries someone that isn't Harvey. Thank goodness he came through in the last five minutes of the last episode to take her away. All in all I still love to watch the old episodes of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, but I think the writers took it too far and should have left it with Sabrina leaving high school. Because after that the show definitely lost some of it's magic",1 -"I thought this had the right blend of character, plot, futuristic stuff and special effects without going over board. It will take a while to get going, but the acting was good and I was intrigued by the angel who is not to hard to look at. I like the attitude too! Certainly not like other attempts at futuristic stories.",1 -"I used to love watching ""Sabrina, the Teenage Witch"" Friday nights on ABC's TGIF. I think this was one of the best shows on TGIF. My friends and I used to get together every Friday just to watch this show and we never missed an episode.

My favorite character was Salem. He was adorable and sooo funny. I liked Sabrina's boyfriend Harvey, too. He was HOT. I think Melissa Joan Hart played a good teenage witch, too. My favorite episodes were ""Sabrina Through the Looking Glass"" and ""Hilda and Zelda: the Teenage Years"". Those episodes were great.

Overall I really miss this show. I hope one day ABC brings it back with new episodes. I give this show 10/10 stars.",1 -"Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.

I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.

Rating: 0/10",0 -"Ed (Kel Mitchell) is a teenager who lives for his job at Good Burger, a small but friendly neighborhood hamburger stand, while his buddy Dexter (Kennan Thompson) also works there, but lack Ed's single-minded devotion to his job he's there because he accidentally destroyed the car of his teacher Mr. Wheat (Sinbad) and has to raise money to pay the damages. When Mondo Burger, a mammoth fast-foot chain, opens across the street, it looks like Good Burger is history, until Ed formulates a secret sauce that brings hundreds of new customers to their door. However, the monomaniacal manager of Mondo Burger, Kurt (Jan Schweiterman), is determined to get his hands on the sauce and put Good Burger out of business. Meanwhile, Ed and Dexter must rescue Otis (Abe Vigoda), the world's oldest fast food employee, from the Demented Hills Asylum, and Ed might just find love with Monique (Shar Jackson) if he could take his mind off the burgers long enough to pay attention to her. Good Burger is a comedy directed for kids, decent story, acting, and overall a pretty harmless kids movie.",0 -"This film is about a teen who is struggling with his social status in school. He is a ""Good Christian"" and feels that he is missing out on all the fun in high school. So he wishes he had never become one. After getting his wish and trying a worldly lifestyle he realizes that his quality of life has been dramatically diminished and wants to go back to being the person that he was. Good family-oriented film with a positive message of being proud of who you are even if you're not the most popular.",1 -"This movie, with all its complexity and subtlety, makes for one of the most thought-provoking short films I have ever seen. The topics it addresses are ugly, cynical, and at times, even macabre, but the film remains beautiful in its language, artful with its camera angles, and gorgeous in its style, skillfully recreating the short story of the same name written by a master of short stories, Tobias Wolff.

Not wishing to spoil anything of the movie, I won't go into any details, other than to say that this movie is magnificent in and of itself. It takes pride in what it does, and does it well. It shows the most important memories of life, all of which can be topped by the single most elusive feeling: unexpected bliss. This movie, of its own volition, has created in me the same feelings the main character (Tom Noonan) felt when words transformed his very existence, and that is one impressive feat.",1 -"I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian.",1 -"This movie could have been an impressing epic, but the makers seem to have done their utmost to make it appear foolish. Even God Himself is not spared in this movie, in that His words are drenched with childish jokes. The result is blasphemous and annoying. Only people who don't care to see a cheap parody on the biblical story may perhaps watch this film without embarrassment. The makers of this tasteless production should see 'Il Vangelo secondo Matteo' (The Gospel according to Mathew), a film of Pier Paolo Pasolini, who shows that it is unnecessary to pervert the words of the Bible to make a good story; the most impressing result is obtained by a sincere rendering of the plain text itself.",0 -"Here is proof of why Mary Pickford was `America's Sweetheart.' In this rather complex drama, Mary plays the young daughter of a squatter that dare to dream of a relationship with the son of one of the `hill-toppers.' The scenes where they steal a kiss and otherwise fall in love are simply delightful. She is even willing to take a bath. That Mary could pull this role off at the age of 30 is simply amazing and somewhat due to her diminutive stature (5').

Tess must face numerous physical and emotional challenges. She does so with spunk not seen in many heroines of the time. Tess packs a wallop and is not shy about fighting with anyone. Why she agrees to help the `hill-topper' daughter is beyond me, but she sacrifices her own happiness in order to keep a deep secret. Pickford's close ups are wonderful.

Danish-born Jean Hersholt is simply wonderful as the villain. The scene in which he manhandles a small baby is enough to make you throw vegetables (or whatever) at the movie screen. If Forrest Robinson (who plays Daddy Skinner) had worn a beard, he would have been a match for the model used in those World War I recruiting posters of Uncle Sam – Wants You!

Although the story is somewhat predictable and slow in the beginning, it is worth the investment in your time to see the piece or pure `Americana.' The film highlights choices available to us all involving making someone else happy and what it is to be a real Christian. Recommended.",1 -"A woman borough a boy to this world and was alone. They both were alone because a boy had a gift and a curse in one package - he was capable of withdrawing sword from his arm. There was always a wound on his wrist in the cause of this ""gift"" - the wound of the deadliest weapon inside of his body. First he kills his constantly drunk stepfather who hurts his mom every time. Then he grows up and decides to find his real father. Just as simple as all the time for a superhero - he reaches the justice....but the society decides this justice is not necessary and dangerous which is indeed right 'cause it is not like in Hollywood movies that the character does not try to kill anyone - Sasha (he is the main hero acted by Artem Tkachenko) kills if the person who in his opinion deserves to die but gets blames from authorities and runs. In such a runaway from authorities and Mafia he meets a girl (acted by Chulpan Hamatova) and falls in love with her. Everything else is to be watched...not told. Be aware that this film is more about feelings and emotions but not about actions. This film is full of pain of the main character full of him and his vision of life.",1 -"This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.

The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come ""right out of left field""--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the ""knuckle-busting"" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent.",1 -"This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller.

It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame.

As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of.

As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.

Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible.

Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?!

In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't.",0 -"A bad movie ABOUT a bad movie. Is that original, or what? If it is, then that's the only good thing about it. The lovely Ally Sheedy couldn't stop this bomb from destroying movie theaters and VCR's everywhere. It should also be noted, that she, and the other actors hired by Danny Aiello's character were billed as themselves, as well as the characters they played in his D-rated film. Calling it a B-rated film, is too much of a compliment, and would lead to delusions of grandeur.",0 -"I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in ""the family"". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as ""The Rose"". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to ""the family"". If only the script did justice to the actors.",0 -"`The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10",1 -"do you still love woody allen's humor and sense of the absurd? do you wait patiently for movies that get the plot going in the first five minutes instead of making you wait around? if so, you will adore this comedic murder mystery. it has all the elements of a good mystery: sharp plot, a handsome suspect, romance, and intrigue, mixed together with enough laughs and winks at fate to keep even the most jaded of movie goers happy.

with beautiful people and gorgeous homes and landscapes to ogle, this frothy movie is just the thing to take your minds off your troubles. as woody might say, what's not to like?",1 -"...But not this one! I always wanted to know ""what happened"" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare ""Scarlett"" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with ""Scarlett"" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.

Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.",0 -"DOWN TO EARTH / (2001) * (out of four)

By Blake French:

""Down to Earth"" is such a mislead and desperate comedy it makes sitting home on the couch watching a Chris Rock standup-comedy act on TV look like heaven. Speaking of heaven, the film is based on the 1978 movie ""Heaven Can Wait."" That was a good movie, and this is good-to demonstrate how a group of aspiring screenwriters can take decent material and turn it into garbage. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz miss nearly every target. From concept to storytelling, ""Down to Earth"" fails miserably; this is one incredibly bad production.

Chris Rock is a lousy standup comedian, both in his role in this movie and in the real life. He plays Lance Barton, whose manager, (Frankie Faison) even feels sorry for him when he is booed off stage during amateur night at a local theatre. Soon after the script establishes his lack of talent, the character is killed by a speeding truck. Death, played by Eugene Levy, has made a mistake, taking Lance before his number was up. God's assistant (Chazz Palminteri) is very angry and decides to let Lance make up the remainder of his time on Earth, as long as he takes the only available body of a 60 year old white millionaire.

The old man's name is Mr. Wellington, whose life has problems of its own. His wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is having an affair with his assistant (Greg Germann), who is robbing him of his money. But that's all right because Lance, inside Mr. Wellington, has fallen in love with a young black woman named Sontee (Regina King.) Meanwhile, there are plots to kill Wellington, Lance attempting to get a better body, and Sontee's confused feelings dealing with a hospital situation involving Mr. Wellington's finances.

""Down to Earth"" has some good ideas, but they are in a pointless and unconvincing love story filled with contrivances and recycled material. The biggest problem it runs into is how we perceive Lance as Mr. Wellington. Chris Rock is the actor with popularity and publicity, so he is not going to be absent from most of this movie; all of the characters see the new Lance as Mr. Wellington, but we see him as Chris Rock. This is convenient for the love story; we believe a young woman would fall for Lance, but in reality, he is actually an old, gray-haired geezer. That is not so convincing.

The one-joke comic situation is supposed to be watching an old man doing funny things that are really done by a young black man. But what inspires laughter is when characters run into conflicts without their knowledge. Just look at ""There's Something About Mary."" In the funny scenes the characters are exposed to awkward experiences, and not at their will. Here, Lance knows he is in an old man's body, and does things old men would not normally do. If Lance did not know the body he was in then that may have had potential.

Another problem with the concept: we never knew Mr. Wellington in the first place, so how can we compare Lance in his body when we do not know what he was like originally. To top everything off, Chris Rock needs to be the center of attention here, and makes the character too much like Rock. He recites simple standup routine jokes that are tedious and painful; his dialogue is so obvious, wooden and straightforward. I hated the film's sense of humor. There are so many unfunny jokes and horrible comic situations. It is like watching Chris Rock being Chris Rock, not a character in a movie.

Let's emphasize the positives in ""Down to Earth."" Mark Addy does not do any worse here than he did in ""The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas."" Eugene Levy and Chazz Palmentari are well cast, but they are at the mercy of a scalped script. Those are all the good qualities I can mention at this time, and if you give me another week to recollect, it is not likely that I will come up with any more.",0 -"There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.

I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.

Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.

I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull?",0 -"I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.

Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.

This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.

My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.

But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing.",1 -"HOLLOW MAN is one of the better horror films of the past decade. The sub-plot is original and the main plot is even better. The special effects are brilliant and possibly the best I have ever seen in a horror film. Kevin Bacon proves again that he can handle any role that comes his way.

Claude Rains shocked the world with THE INVISIBLE MAN in 1933, well now, Kevin Bacon has shocked *us* with HOLLOW MAN. One of the most thrilling horror films ever. The action is intense and the chills are true. You may actually find yourself jumping if you are watching it in the dark on a stormy night. The supporting cast includes Elizabeth Shue, Josh Brolin, Kim Dickens, Joey Slotnick, Greg Grunberg, and Mary Randle. All of whom do an exceptional job.

---SPOILERS---

Dr. Sebastian Caine (Kevin Bacon) and his team have discovered the secret to making someone invisible. After animal testings, they move on to human testing. But someone has to be the subject. Volenteering, Caine is turned invisible. But when his team is unable to bring back into visibility, Caine is driven mad by his condition as he seeks his revenge...*end spoilers*

The film has created memorable shock sequences and is destined to become a classic well into the next century. Becoming the basis for a spoof joke in SCARY MOVIE 2, this film grabs you by the throat and never lets go. The first 45 minutes or so are slow, developing the characters and showing how their experiments work. The second half is exciting and appealing to most action and horror fans. Think of DEEP BLUE SEA. Then change the sharks into an crazy invisible man. And then change the water into fire and explosions. A rehashing of a killer shark movie. Interesting... HOLLOW MAN gets 5/5.",1 -"The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.

Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.

Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.

This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it.",1 -"WWE's last PPV of 2006, proved to be a hit with the fans, but for one reason only, the ladder match which was only scheduled to be Paul London and Brian Kendrick against William Regal and Dave Taylor. But with the recent crap PPV being December to Dismember, WWE knew that it had to do something to get the fans talking again, this proved useful when it introduced MNM and The Hardy Boyz to the mix and announced that the match was going to be a ladder match.

The match was brutal and one of the best ladder matches I have ever seen, but Joey Mercury's face was a total mess. Johnny Nitro didn't even check on his partner, they just carried on like nothing happened, and Taylor and Regal did nothing during the match except hit people with a few ladder shots. In the end London and Kendrick retained the titles.

Elsewhere on the show Kane defeated MVP in a decent inferno match when he set MVP's stupid costume on fire. Chris Benoit downed Chavo Guerrero in a decent match, Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the WWE Cruiserweight Title in a solid effort.

But the main event was a total mess, King Booker teamed with Finlay to take on John Cena and Batista. The action was shoddy and no one cared who Batista picked for his partner.

Overall Results: Kane defeated MVP in an inferno match.

Paul London and Brian Kendrick retained the WWE Tag team titles against The Hardy Boyz, MNM and David Taylor and William Regal in a ladder match.

Chris Benoit defeated Chavo Guerrero to retain the US title in a decent match.

Gregory Helms defeated Jimmy Wang Yang to retain the Cruiserweight Championship.

The Boogeyman beat The Miz in a terrible match.

The Undertaker defeated Mr Kennedy in a last ride match.

John Cena and Batista defeated King Booker and Finlay in an abysmal match.

Overall Grade - B",1 -"till HBO began rerunning it this month. I remember laughing out loud in the theater back in 1991, and now again in my living room. If I see that it's on, I have to watch it. There's just no question. This is so much more entertaining to me than other, more popular spoofs like Airplane! (which I really like, BTW). Cathy Moriarty steals the show in my opinion. Quotes like ""Sudden speech! The last symptoms of brain fever! She could blow at any moment!"" put me over the edge. And Whoopie Goldberg hasn't been this funny since 'Jumpin' Jack Flash'. Kevin Klein, Sally Field, Robert Downey Jr. all turn in superb performances as expected. I started out giving this 9 out of 10 stars, but then I realized that for the type of film it's supposed to be, there isn't one thing I'd change or improve upon. So 10 it is. I have to get this on DVD, that's just all there is to it.",1 -"Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show.",1 -"Words can scarcely describe this movie. Loaded with ridiculous stereotypes, a silly plot, and poor music, this movie lacks in just about every category.

Don't be fooled by the IMDB credits. This is not a Michael Dorn movie. He's a secondary character in the grand scheme.

Also listed in the Credit's is an actor named ""Prince"" - which makes me wonder if it's the same artist formerly known as.... Then again, I'm not sure this movie is worth watching just for that.

Big summary... bunch of teams... one has kidneys... one has $35,000.... one has an ""Illegal Substance"".... and one has $350,000. Add some confusion and mixups as to who needs to meet who, revenge on being taken, and such, and you end up with this mess of a movie.

Given a choice, I'd pass on this movie.",0 -"Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)

One saving grace was a song performed at the ""talent show"" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called ""I'm A Heat Seeking Missile"". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a ""so bad it's good"" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear.

Rating: 1 out of 10",0 -"i don't believe it sixty percent of voters voted this show as ten now how the hell is the rating a five point eight it impossible i don't get it, its totally pathetic i mean how. anyway the show is great the story is great and the characters are interesting, definitely a ten out of ten from me i think the creatures are cool they look great and i wish i had a nimrod great show great cgi hope there's a second series as a lot went unanswered in the first season and when is nimrod gonna get any bigger as the rest of the creatures are huge, again why is the rating so low when the votes were so high

10/10",1 -"I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.",0 -"The best thing I can say about ""Quintet"" is that it's not quite as bad as I remembered it being on my first viewing.

But that doesn't mean it's good.

This weird, sci-fi thriller is not quite like any other movie I've ever seen, which I guess at least gives it the stamp of novelty. But it's a borderline disaster of a movie, and one of the worst Robert Altman ever made. On the DVD special feature about the making of ""Quintet,"" it's clear that even Altman didn't know what the hell the movie was supposed to be.

It's set in some distant future when the world is in the grip of another ice age. The film was shot at the abandoned site of the Montreal Expo '67, and I do have to admit that this gives the movie some interesting production design elements, even if much of it looks like it's being filmed in an iced-over shopping mall. Paul Newman, looking zonked out and absolutely disinterested in anything going on around him, and Brigitte Fossey, play drifters who wander into this futuristic city looking for Newman's brother. Soon Newman is caught up in a deadly game of ""Quintet,"" which all of the bored inhabitants play for lack of anything better to do, and the rules of which are never made clear to the audience. All we know is that the object of the game it to kill everyone else you're playing with and remain the only person alive. This gives these nihilistic inhabitants their only thrill, because as one of them says at one point in a psychobabblish soliloquy, only by being near to death can one appreciate being alive.

The movie is slow, ugly and actually uncomfortable to watch due to its unrelenting gloominess. It's almost as if Altman was purposely setting out to make a movie no one would want to sit through. There aren't characters -- oh sure, actors walk around speaking lines, but none of the lines really means much and the impressive list of international actors Altman assembled for this register not a whit. Only Bibi Andersson gives the closest thing to a memorable performance as could possibly be found in a movie like this. But nevertheless, it does succeed in establishing an atmosphere, even if that atmosphere is one of pure awfulness, and it is oddly fascinating in the way that watching a man slowly starve himself to death would be fascinating.

Altman really hit a dry spell after nearly a decade of superb films. ""Quintet"" followed close on the heels of the atrocious ""A Wedding"" and was followed in short order by the not bad but mostly forgettable ""A Perfect Couple,"" the by-all-accounts terrible ""Health"" (which I've never seen because it's not available anywhere TO see) and the disastrous ""Popeye."" Thank God he rebounded.

Grade: D-",0 -"FOLLOWING the business coup of the year of 1941, Max and Dave, the Brothers Fleischer were removed from their own Studio by Paramount Pictures Corporation. Former employees such as Seymour Kneitel and Izzy Sparber were put in charge of the new operation, now renamed Famous Studios by Paramount. Early on, the finished product of Famous was indiscernible from that of the recent output by Fleischer. The existing series (Popeye, Superman) continued as if nothing at all had transpired.

TODAY'S subject, JAPOTEURS is one of the earlier Famous Studio's SUPERMAN Shorts.

AS had been the custom, the SUPERMAN Cartoons were a great combination of fine, fittingly fashioned music in the score. That goes for the theme (overture) as well as all the multi-mood background (incidental) music. It was if each cartoon short had its own background music, as all was kept fresh by apparently recording it anew with each picture.

WITH regards to JAPOTEURS, we must remember that this was filmed during the first year of the United States' involvement and the characterization of the enemy was very stereotypical, short-handed and outright evil. The dialogue and personality of the villainous Japanese saboteurs was strictly from the stock characters of the old pulp magazine stories, with their every word being said in a sarcastic, totally insincere politeness as the characters would flaunt their cold bloodedness as they made the most demonic of threats and outrageous acts toward the occidental world.

JAPOTEURS is visually bright and uplifting, stunningly laid out and makes use of some multi plane or table top animation in order to give its flying sequences a real depth.

MAKING good use of the tie-ins between the animated cartoons, the SUPERMAN Radio Show then heard over the Mutual Broadcasting Network; the cartoon bears a close resemblance to the Comics Page and uses the very same talents of voice actors Bud Collyer and Joan Alexander from the Radio Show.

WE rate it with a *** ½ stars.

POODLE SCHNITZ!!",1 -"A very well made film set in early '60s communist Yugoslavia. The five young actors who are the teenagers at the center of the story give strong, sincere and emotionally deep performances. A clear depiction of how the natural trust and naivete inherent in teens can be easily manipulated and how that impacted the rest of their lives. Highly recommended.",1 -"This movie is banned in just about every foreign country I can think of. The Japanese people (?) who star in this must have been really desperate for a job, or we're just friends. Here's the scoop:

Three thugs torture the hell out of a helpless woman, they use all kinds of things to eventually kill her, they burn her, kick her, spin here around in a chair (over 200 times!), they use sound torture (by forcing her to listen to a static sound for over 20 hours! It don't sound that bad at all, but it CAN make you go nuts). They throw guts (probably from an animal) at her while shes knocked out, and she freaks when she wakes up. And who can forget the grande finale the GREATEST EYEBALL TORTURE I HAVE EVER SEEN!

If you have not heard of these films, and watch one without knowing that it is a simulated snuff film, you will think it is! (just ask Charlie Sheen) This is guaranteed to freak people out and make some sick! Like I said pure underground. Check it out if you are a fan of underground horror, or foreign gore. If your not I highly recommend you read-up on the series before watching! From the gore, shock, and creativity aspect it gets a 10, but from the storyline and all that stuff it is a 1. An underground classic...

My final rating is a 8/10

",1 -"One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful.",0 -"**Warning - this review may contain spoilers **

The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.

However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.

He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.

Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.

When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.

Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.

Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.

Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who ""owns"" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.

Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.

In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.

As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.

Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.

4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous.",0 -"The Black Castle is one of those film's that has found its way into a Boris Karloff collection and is mistakenly expected to be an outright horror movie. Whilst some horror elements exist within Nathan Juran's movie, this really is a multi genre piece that's tightly produced and effectively portrayed. Joining Karloff, in what is a small but critical role, are Richard Greene, Stephen McNally, Lon Chaney Jr, Rita Corday, John Hoyt & Michael Pate. It's produced, unsurprisingly, out of Universal International Pictures. The plot sees Greene's English gentleman travel to the castle home of the sinister Count von Bruno {McNally}. He's following an investigation into the disappearance of two friends, an investigation that is fraught with danger and surprise at every turn.

This has everything that fans of the old dark house/castle sub-genre could wish for. Genuine good and bad guys, a fair maiden, dark corners for doing dark deeds, devilish traps, ticking clock finale and we even get a good old fashioned bit of swashbuckling into the bargain. The cast are all turning in effective performances, particularly Greene and the wonderfully sneering McNally. Whilst Jerry Sackheim's writing is lean and devoid of the pointless filler that has so often bogged down similar film's of this ilk. A very recommended film on proviso that Karloff fans understand it's not really a Karloff movie, and perhaps more importantly, that horror fans don't expect blood letting to be the order of the day. A fine atmospheric story with a sense of dread throughout, The Black Castle is a fine viewing experience. 7/10",1 -"This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1/12 hours of my life.",0 -"This movie was good. I can't say it was one of the best, but it still was good. The only reason that I watched it was because of Ryan Phillippe. He is soo hot! (Don't get mad Reese). But I think that it was sort of funny- not a laugh your head out kinda thing, but still O.K.",1 -"I think part of the reason this movie was made...and is aimed at us gamers who actually play all the Nancy Drew PC games. There's been a lot of movies lately based on video games, and I think this in one of them.

So this movie does not follow any book. But it does follow parts of the games. I buy and play every Nancy Drew games as soon as it comes out. And the games are from HerInteractive and are for ""girls who aren't afraid of a mouse!"" And some of these games actually won Parents' Choice Gold Awards. They are not only fun but you can actually learn a thing or two while playing.

I took two of my step children with me to go see it and they loved it! The 10 yr. old had started playing her first Nancy Drew game a day before I took her to see the movie, and she was having so much fun playing the game I thought she would enjoy the movie as well. And I was right...she not only loved this movie but couldn't wait to get home to finish her first game and start another one.

My other step daughter is only 7 and she also loved the movie but she is still a little to young too play the games yet, but she enjoys watching her sister play at times just to see what's going on.

The games are based for children 10 yrs and older. All the games usually get pretty descent reviews and are classified as adventure games. For more information on the games just check out HerInterative Nancy Drew games. So personally I thought the movie was pretty good and I will buy it when it comes out on DVD.",1 -"Not to be confused with Lewis Teague's ""Alligator"" (1980) which actually IS an excellent film, this ""Il Fiume Del Grande Caimano"" laboriously ends the exotic trilogy Sergio Martino made around the end of the seventies (including the rather watchable ""L'Isola degli uomini pesce"" and the not so good ""La Montagna del dio cannibale""). Tracing outrageously the plot of ""Jaws"", the script fails at creating any suspense what so ever. The creature is ludicrous and its victims are simply despicable. Stelvio Cipriani's lame tune poorly illustrates the adventures of these silly tourists presented from the very beginning as the obvious items of the reptile's meal. No thrill out of this, rather laughters actually! And we could find this pitiful flick quite funny if the dialogs and the appearance of the natives were not so obviously inspired by pure racism. Very soon the giggling stops in favor of a sour feeling witnessing such a patronizing attitude. We could excuse badly made films and poor FXs, but not that kind of mentality. Never!",0 -"""The Cat's Meow"" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible.

Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in ""Paper Moon"", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., ""Yes, We Have No Bananas""). When Hearst insists everybody ""Charleston, Charleston!"" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot.

The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time.",0 -"Years after the fall of the last of the great corporations, the world has fallen into a new dark age where cyborgs are harvested for their parts. Cash, a female cyborg, travels to a wasteland doctor to receive news that she is pregnant. On the run from Recyclers (bounty hunters who hunt cyborgs), Cash tries to find her way to Cytown, the mythical refuge for cyborgs.

""Cyborg 3: The Recycler"" is the third (& last so far) entry in the CYBORG trilogy. The first film was originally planned to be a sequel to MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, but was quickly rewritten into a standard post-apocalyptic martial-arts fest that became something of a cult classic due to its cheesy action scenes. CYBORG 2: GLASS SHADOW was a sequel that actually improved upon its predecessor but was not widely seen (& was dismissed by those few who saw it as cheap fodder).

This film, for one thing, tries to be a meld of the first two films (the first was a cheesy action film while the second was a smart Cyberpunk story) but unfortunately falls short on both counts. The budget was obviously lower than CYBORG 2, with the film being set in the desert wastelands (like so many post-apocalyptic action films of the 90s were), shot around old industrial buildings to conserve costs.

The film's story centres on a plot device, that of a pregnant cyborg, that is as interesting as it is absurd (this film is not the first to try that idea; the anime OVA series ARMITAGE III uses it to a greater extent). But the film falls into the same trap that so many low-budget sci-fi action films fall victim to, in the fact that the snags (synthetic organisms) featured are nothing more than androids. The visual effects amount to nothing more than prosthetic arms & makeup effects.

The acting is pretty standard for this kind of film, with the lead actress (Khrystyne Haje) being the single worst performer on display. Instead of being joyed at the news she is pregnant, she acts all whiny & sullen. Her co-stars are much better, Malcolm McDowell being the usual gangster type who enlivens the scenes he appears in & Richard Lynch has a lot of fun as the chief villain. Of particular note is Andrew Byniarski, playing Lynch's right hand man, who would later appear in THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake & its prequel.",0 -"Ying, a Chinese girl who speaks Czech, invited us to screening of a Czech movie (with English subtitles) in the Department of Visual and Environmental Studies (VES). It was the first time I saw Samotáři (Loners, 2000) and it was pretty good.

Much like in many other Czech movies, the seven central characters seem to have a pretty difficult, dirty life; the web indicates that this theme was popular among the U.S. movies in the early 1990s. Their relationships are breaking up, combining, and recombining. Another typical feature of the Czech movies is that neither of the characters is designed to be a universally negative one and neither of them is a permanently positive character either. Also, you can see how the characters judge the features of others depending on the context; that's a very realistic feature of the movie's psychological analysis.

Ondřej is a talented and married young surgeon who has two daughters. Nevertheless, you learn that he has only studied neurobiology to prove how much he loved another woman, Hanka. He is so obsessed that he repeatedly dresses up as a plumber to get into Hanka's parents' house - a house that he repeatedly burns.

Meanwhile, Hanka has a very mixed relationship with her parents. She just decides - by tossing up a coin - to break up with Petr who works in a private radio station. Hanka does not view her parents' bourgeois life as a good example but seems rather unsuccessful in creating a better environment. But she is a very flexible figure, as far as the type of her boyfriends go.

For a while, Hanka seems to have serious plans with Jakub, an innocent drug addict whose memory seems to be rather devastated by the drugs. However, the friends from his band inform Jakub that he already has another girlfriend. Hanka is disappointed and returns to her parents.

When Hanka and Petr break up, it is organized by Robert, a matchmaker who also works for a travel agency where his job is to show the life of ordinary Czech people to Japanese tourists. Robert - who also provides Jakub with marijuana - is never serious about anything and he usually sleeps with many different women; eventually, his mother dies in a hospital and he has his own ways to deal with the depression.

Vesna (a Slavic word for ""Spring"") who came to Prague from Macedonia works as a barmaid - and you won't learn whether she came to Czechia in order to see her dad or UFOs. She seems pretty confused but sometimes helps the other characters from their problems.

Petr works in the radio station and he is the only one who likes his job - a job that he eventually loses. He announces to his audience that he broke up with Hanka - which is how Ondřej learns about the news that make him very happy.

Finally, Ondřej's wife Lenka is always ready to forgive him and stabilize their marriage - even after Ondřej asks a magician to make him disappear so that Ondřej can try to capture Hanka again. (The magician pays his debt because he is a brother of a victim of an important car accident - Jakub and Hanka bring the victim to the hospital and Ondřej saves his life.) Lenka also works for the travel agency - as a translator - and eventually she has to translate some hysterical scenes for 20 or so Japanese tourists who are shooting their movies during Hanka parents' dinner.

The seven characters interact in interesting and exciting ways that would be natural if Prague were smaller by four orders of magnitude. Given the actual size of the Czech capital, it looks a bit unlikely that all these events would take place among seven people, but it is fun.",1 -"This movie is one of the worse movies of all time. I'm kind of upset this movie isn't on the bottom 100; it deserves a spot at least number 60 or 70 on that list. This isn't just a film I think is bad in a campy-fun sort of MST3K way; it's just bad. This is one of the few films that I really, really HATE. Freddy Got Fingered is in the same category of bad.

So the story in this one goes that the daughter (Gugino) goes to California to go to school and comes back with Crawl (Shore) and he tries to learn to be a farmer. Then the boyfriend tries to set Shore up so that the girl will leave Crawl and go back to him. It ends and what's left of the audience can leave.

The main purpose of this movie is for Pauly Shore to mug for the camera and try to be funny; but I'd say about 100% of the time he fails at that. Their horrible inaccurate and out of date view of farms and farming is offensive and there's nothing in this movie worth seeing. If you think of seeing it: don't. The one time I saw the movie it felt like I was watching it for 5 or 6 hours. If you've already seen it; you have my sympathy.",0 -"I bought this thing used at a video game store's ""clearance bin"". I wanted to get that guilty feeling from watching something I've been warned is too intense to watch; I wanted the shock value. I wanted to feel guilty and bad about watching a ""banned film"". I was very disappointed.

Cannibal Ferox does not work because it is so campy and fake. Most of the time the camera does not show you the ""shocking"" stabs, chops, slicing - you just see the aftermath. (They do show a breast hooking in detail). The special effects are just OK. Nothing here that tells you any of the violence is real. The ""cannibals"" are obviously poor people from central / south America who were dressed up as jungle savages and told to act mean. These people were obviously in on the whole picture to get a little money, or food, or both. Again...just not convincing.

However, like everyone else has said, there is some real killing of animals going on here. That is the extent of the realism. To me, that was more shocking than any gutting, chopping of scalps, or castration, and even then, the animal deaths are not that gory at all - maybe just sad.",0 -"The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the ""I am not amused"" impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.

As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.

Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt!",1 -"Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Kathryn Grayson, and Jose Iturbi star in ""Anchors Aweigh,"" directed by George Sidney.

Kelly and Sinatra are Joe and Clarence, two navy guys on leave in Hollywood. They meet a little boy (Dean Stockwell) and on taking him home, they meet his aunt (Grayson). Clarence falls for her. She wants an audition for Jose Iturbi. They try to help, but there's a mix-up.

This is a very energetic musical with great dancing and singing by Kelly and Sinatra. Kelly gets to dance with Jerry the Mouse in a delightful sequence. Grayson sings Jalousie and My Heart Sings. Not one of my favorite voices, but she does well. Iturbi's piano work is beautiful.

Sinatra gets to show his versatility and why the girls swooned over him, with those big blue eyes and boyish face. For Kelly, this was a major break for him at MGM.

Wonderful movie, very buoyant.",1 -"There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.",1 -"It would be so easy to dismiss an alien abduction movie before even seeing it - as I did - but this is well worth a look. If you think about it, its not an easy subject matter to handle but this film manages to suspend disbelief which in itself is a feat for such a way out subject. Casting the main character as a doctor was a sensible move which lends credence to his willingness to believe in the possibility of alien abduction. Vosloo plays it very sensitively involving us in his pain and confusion at the weird events that befall himself and his wife. Special Effects are used sparingly but to shocking effect and at times the movie is totally gripping but sadly there are a couple of points where the plot wanders and leaves some confusion. Also, after building to a tense climax the ending is something of a let down. The supporting characters were unnecessarily weak (the alien hunter) or menacing (the psychiatrist) which also served to detract.

But all in all it raised some interesting issues amongst which was a telling line ""How do think animals feel when we experiment on them"".

The concept of ""lost time"" was also thought provoking.",1 -"This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.

The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.",0 -"The focus of the key relationship in a young man's life, that of his relationship with his father, was excellently portrayed in this movie, ""The Greatest Game Ever Played."" The movie captured the essence of how important it is for a father to validate his son and let him know that he has what it takes to follow his dream.

It didn't matter that economic and social class mores presented obstacles to be overcome by both father and son. It also didn't matter that others were acclaiming the son in exuberant celebration. What mattered the most was that he saw his father's hand and then his face of approval. The real life challenge for both father and son had been met.

Considering that in real life the hero of the story kept his amateur status and became a businessman pretty much verifies that all that went before the match was the training ground for a valid father and son relationship.",1 -"This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal ""Elvira's Haunted Hills"" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience!",1 -"Not one of the better pokemon movies.

Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.

Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.

The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.

Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.

Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.",0 -"My sister, a friend and I went to see this film for my birthday on the 24th of September. We had all seen the first ""Jackass"" movie a while back, and we all enjoyed it. We were really looking forward to Number Two.

We were not disappointed.

From start to finish I was laughing hysterically. It is equal parts shocking and amusing, however, and is definitely not for those with weak stomaches. It is obscene, but it is also groundbreaking American cinema... well, perhaps that's a bit too much praise for a movie where men intentionally get their scrotum's stuck to ice sculptures, but it IS groundbreaking in that it shows us obscenities whether we like it or not, things that no other ""decent"" American movie released nation-wide would dare show us.

There was only one scene in particular that I felt was unnecessarily obscene, and it involved a horse - I'll not elaborate.

I laughed, I nearly gagged, and I came damn-close to crying (out of a physical reaction to viewing a scene involving a leech and an eyeball, not sadness). In my humble opinion, ""Jackass: Number Two"" is THE film of '06.

Does that make me a jackass? Perhaps. But if it does, I could really care less.",1 -This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.

,0 -"Gender Bender sexes things up a bit for the x-files. This episode has an interesting premise, a good story, but an ending that is wanting. Gender Bender is also the x-files debut for actor Nicholas Lea, better known as Alex Krycek. In this episode he plays Michael, a man attacked by one of ""The Kindred"". You need to see this episode just to see Nic Lea's less than spectacular beginning. An interesting thing about the Kindred's ""power of seduction"". When Marty does it to his victims, they become turned onto him/her. However, when Andrew seduces Scully, she only because disoriented and groggy, and does not become attracted to Andrew. Maybe it's because Marty has more experience at it than Andrew. This episode reminds me of why it would sometimes be miserable to film up in British Columbia. Throughout the episode it is so wet, soggy, and muddy, it could not have been that much fun. Despite the disappointing ending, Gender Bender is still a decent episode to view.",1 -"One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?

So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.

",1 -"I just came back from the Montreal premiere of Zero Day...and i'm surprised as hell to find a negative comment on the movie. Basically the blame is about Coccio doing an easy and overplayed social message...well, Mr-I'm-a-reviewer, it's an easy and overplayed critic of movies with a social charge.

Not that I want to expose my life here, but I come from a small town with a similar school than these guys go. Reject & ignorance on the menu. Thing is...I understand how can young kids can be driven to do such horror. High schools have became battle fields of conformity. It's a real ugly sight. You need to fight your way into being like the others. It's hard to explain, bit a lot of people dosen't realize that high schools are becoming cemeteries of human intelligence. Meanwhile, parents are closing their eyes and smiling about how their life in their comfortable suburb is perfect.

The real motive of the movie isn't about what is driving them. It's about this death-like calm suburb and everybody closing their eyes and trying to create this atmosphere of a perfect town. Cal expressed it well. It's a wake up call. Drama is everywhere and it can take every shape. In that case little dramas(like Andre being called a faggot for wearing a J.C Penny shirt) are shaping into being the worse nightmare of a whole town. Andre & Cal took the most extreme way to express their pain. The malaise of unconformity in an era where you need more than ever to be like the others to be accepted.

I like particularly the last scenes where some guys are burning the crosses of Andre & Cal, like if with the pain they communicated, Cal & Andre have communicated their blind rage to their community, their refusal to think about the causes of some acts.

It might seemed aggressive as a movie, but Coccio is meditating more than whining or enunciating. What Andre & Cal are living is a reality...and a scary one that might get to other kids.

Disturbing movie...Home making and strong feeling made Ben Coccio do a very very disturbing movie.",1 -"I think the comments regarding the show being cheesy are a bit too exaggerated. When a person comes to watch a TV show, what does he look out for? It is to enjoy that he watches a show, unless he/she is a critic or a person who analyzes story. But most of us are not so and watch the shows to relax and enjoy. FULL HOUSE is an ideal show to watch after having a heavy day in the office/school. It makes you laugh and it is not just humor.

Yes, the Tanner family is a perfect family, a perfectly hypothetical family. If any such family existed in real world, it would be a role model for us to follow. But this is a TV show, and not a real family, and there is nothing wrong in depicting a hypothetical family on television. The very fact that the show could run so long shows us that people enjoyed watching it, whatever be the comments later on.

Another good point about the show is that any person of any age would not only enjoy watching it, but would take back a message however childish that message be. Those Jesse's talks with Michelle are extremely touching, if one doesn't think of it as childish.

Overall I would say after watching every show of Full House, there is a contentment in your heart that is rarely present after many other shows.",1 -"After a big tip of the hat to Spinal Tap, this movie is hilarious. Anyone who grew up watching MTV will love it and if you didn't, rent it anyway,the ""My Peanuts"" and ""A Gangster's life"" videos are worth the three bucks alone.",1 -"Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic "" Rope"":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

""Murder by numbers "" does not take place in a single room,like ""the rope"" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in ""primal fear"" .

Well,you know ,"" Rope"" was so good ....",0 -"Andaz Apna Apna is by far my second favorite comedy of all time, first being Namak Halal (even though that was technically a drama). Story is nothing groundbreaking, but the complications that are added to it make it awesome. Aamir Khan is a total cartoon. Just watch his expressions in the song Yeh Raat aur yeh doori. He is amazingly good at comedy, I never knew. Salman Khan was also good as the somewhat dimmer of the two characters. The noises he makes are almost as funny as Aamir's faces. Raveena and karisma serve their purpose but are nothing amazing. The real pick of the lot is Paresh Rawal as usual.

The plot is rather simple, Amar (Aamir) and Prem (Salman) are useless sons of poor fathers. They don't believe in hard work and just want to get rich the easy way. So both their brains come across an idea to woo a rich man's (Paresh Rawal) daughter (Raveena Tandon) who comes to India to look for a husband. So Amar and Prem meet on the trip and join hands to drive off the hundreds of other men trying to marry this girl. When they succeed, they now have to get rid of each other. Somehow both of them get into Raveena's house, Amar as an injured guy and Prem as his doctor. From here on they try to oust each other. But things are complicated as Raveena's friend (Karisma Kapoor) falls for Prem and pursues him. And rich man's evil twin brother (Rawal also) tries to get rid of the heiress and her father so he will inherit the money and sends in his two most trusted but bumbling fools to do the dirty work.

This is a movie you do not want to miss. Watch it! It will be worth it. I even own the DVD, its that good. And if you like this movie, I'd also recommend Gol Maal if you haven't already watched it. Other good comedies are Namak Halal and Hera Pheri (new).",1 -"One of the finest movies I have viewed...Good script, original plot of a man who is haunted about JFK's assassination when he was assigned to protect him on that Cold November day in 1963. Thirty years later another anti-social lunatic wants to assassinate the current president. The secret service agent loses his partner along the way,to the crazed gunmen who schemes,lies and murders anybody in his path who'll stand in his way of his mission.

The movie accompanies with a great memorable score,and a restrained but meaningful romance between Russo and Eastwood....which displays how difficult it is to have a romantic life in that kind of work. Malchovich is great,sure many other candidates could have played the role that he played,but how many could acted with such craftiness,and intellect that he displayed in the movie?

Needless to say,I thought this was a great movie...everytime it's on television I have to watch it..and I own it on dvd! I'm a big Eastwood fan,this only boosted his already fabulous career,and Malchovich's best role to date!

",1 -"some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.

the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can ""hook her up."" the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.

while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1/10.",0 -"This movie is excellent and I would recommend renting it for anyone whose local video store owns it. Or, even better, you could buy it because chances are you're going to watch this over and over. I can remember watching this movie as a kid and it was great back then. But after watching it again yesterday I've found it to be amazing.

A good blend of comedy (although not as great as ""Mr Magoo""-another one of my favorites) and action. This deserves 10/10 and I'm hoping that they will make a sequel soon (fingers crossed). If you do babysitting or have to look after young children for anything then I'd recommend renting this movie as it will keep them entertained for hours :).",1 -"This movie came as a huge disappointment. The anime series ended with a relatively stupid plot twist and the rushed introduction of a pretty lame villain, but I expected Shamballa to tie up all the loose ends. Unfortunately, it didn't. It added more plot holes than it resolved, and confused more than it clarified. The animation and voice acting were great, but with an idiotic plot, dull setting (most of the movie doesn't even take place in dull WWII Earth rather than the Alchemy world), and disappointing ending (Ed is useless for the rest of his days in a world with no alchemy, and he ditches Winry?), it was altogether pretty lackluster. Do yourself a favor-- disregard the last half of the anime as well as this movie, and read the manga.",0 -"This is without doubt the worst film in the Hamilton saga and the worst actor to do Carl Hamilton.Peter Stormare just cant pull it off,with his psychotic looks and no style at all.He may be good to do killers and psychotic maniacs like in ""Fargo"" or ""8mm"" but in this type of roles,he is just useless.

Lena Olin's presence did no use for this film.She couldnt save it from being what it is:an americanized copy of big budget action movies like ""Goldeneye"",""Die Hard 3"",""Broken Arrow"" etc.This film has nothing swedish in it but the actors.Its clear that some norweagian upstart director with McTiernan as model director has made this.

Mark Hamill's presence is only laughable. 2 out of 10",0 -"If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on ""facts"" that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of ""racist"" judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one.",0 -"A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being ""seen and not heard"" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove.",1 -"This is an excellent tub-thumper from the war years.

John Mills leads a fine cast of regular British B-movie stalwarts in a solo submarine attack upon a fictitious enemy battleship.

Filmed in black and white, it's well paced and also well placed considering that a war was going on at the time. If anything, it shows how seriously the authorities took positive propaganda.

The mission-side of the movie takes place in genuine submarines. Things are cramped and claustrophobic. The actors look suitably grimy and sweaty without being too offensive to the heroic palate. Other commentators have already drawn attention to the authentic little details like keeping the vessel trim and forgetting to read instruments, as well as the engine-room activities.

This probably is the first movie in which debris (and a dead German) is blown from the torpedo tube to fool an enemy destroyer. And it's the ONLY time I have seen part of the vessel exposed in a pretence of sinking - a high risk gamble if ever there was one.

I'm a little sceptical as to whether or not a submarine could punch its way through a wire-rope net. Submerged speed was barely twice that of human walking speed, and the net would have had a great deal of 'give'. Also, the engineer was at the same work-station and operating the same levers both on the surface and submerged. This, too, seems implausible as either diesel or electric engines were used and they were in different sections of the ship - or so I'm told.

There was a wee bit too much shore-side drama for my tastes. But then, this was a propaganda effort, and clearly contained a subtle message for civilians to mind their behaviour as it could adversely affect service morale and therefor the war effort.

These niggles aside, it's a pretty entertaining little adventure. Nowadays movies of such vintage tend to be screened in the afternoon, whilst far more modern and inferior movies enjoy prime-time. But then; it's no longer politically-correct to mention the war in the presence of our European friends (Too many of them have guilty consciences), or our own left-wing fascists (non of whom have ever fought for the freedoms they now take for granted).

As a submarine movie it is eminently collectible. Better than 'The Enemy Below', I think, though less demonstrative. Not so authentic as 'Das Boot' by any means, but not so gross either.",1 -"Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat...",0 -"At initial thought, the concept of this show seemed to be a joke and a gag, just for Stan Lee's amusement. I expected nothing more than a sleazy, animated version of Barb Wire with low production values, much like those short pieces of crap you see on Adult Swim for short term amusement, but can never taken too seriously. Boy was I wrong!

Stripperella has even better production values than similar Marvel Toons. The animation is very good and it seems that they've taken this series very seriously and given it a full effort to make it a professional production as possible.

The humor is good too, on the sexy, suggestive and sleazy side. It is very similar if not exactly like the Simpsons style. You may encounter clichés and a lot of predictable humor but its still fun nevertheless. If this were running today, I'd surely see it regularly. Its surprisingly one of the better toons ever made.",1 -"I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about ""A Christmas Visitor"". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.",0 -"While I would say I enjoy the show, I expected something completely different from when I first saw 'What I like about you' I expected to find something along the lines of 'All That' (I am not sure if it is going on anymore) but I have to say I do like the show and while i don't classify it as a breakthrough show, it is very charming and I do like the chemistry between the characters as well (including the supporting cast)

I would definitely say that it is great to see Wesley Jonathan back on the screen because I really loved him in City Guy. I had also seen the woman who plays Valerie's friend in Popular and while I think that was an okay show, I do not really like her character in this show because she's just not my cup of tea but she rounds it out pretty well",1 -"OK. Who brought the cheese. I love it. During it's run it became a phenomenon. The Anorexic Twins became popular.Bob Saget started making a paycheck (Instead of his REALLY funny stand-up). And people knew who Dave Coulier was. This is when life was good and simple. This is one of the great American classics. It was humorous and always brought home a good lesson. And this is where I differ from the norm: I liked the last few seasons. Like Home Improvement, when children get older there are a lot more you can do with the script. This is why I dare say...It could have gone much later than it did. But anyway. I gave it an 8/10 because of its wholesome, funny story lines, and because of Bob Saget!",1 -"Watching this movie was the biggest waste of time and 2 bucks for rental in my life. If nothing catastrophic happens before I die, this will be the biggest regret of my life. Who ever even thought about this movie, or financed deserves a kick between the legs, because that's where they were thinking when they made this movie. It's about an overweight guy who is a hopeless romantic, and writes pretentious drivel that tries to pass off as poetry. He joins his amorous friend in a trip to the coast. Where they meet girls and such. Only the fat guy doesn't get a girl. Skin flicks don't annoy me, I take 'em for face value. But this movie tries to be more than a skin flick. It's about Fat guy looking for love in some girl, but then meets another bikini silicone girl that enjoys his poetry. He finds his talent for volleyball which gets money for his family and impresses the ladies, only he has his lady anyways. The dialogue is super-horrible for even a C movie. It supports a ton of black stereotypes, no character development, it's a glorified porno movie, without any porn in it. Never ever watch this movie.",0 -"For those who think it is strictly potty humor and immaturity, you are in fact the mindless one. While the show does contain its share of potty jokes it also contains a lot of satirical material and pokes fun at social problems, racial barriers, cliché's,stereotypes etc. You just need to read into some of her material a bit more to get it.

What I also love is that not everything is a punchline. For those expecting a formulated joke like Friends (I LOVE friends fyi), you won't find it here. Instead Sarah uses situations and other ways to achieve her humour which is more realistic. We don't walk around in this world and have witty punchlines for everything said, which is in most comedies. Instead the Sarah Silverman Program makes it more realistic in this sense.

So don't take it as mindless humor because it is so much more than that.",1 -"Reporter Kimberly Wells presents the minor side of the news; puff pieces that don't hold much news merit. While shooting footage on alternative energy at a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs. Friend and cameraman for Kimberly, Richard Adams illegally films the men controlling the incident in the control room. Jack Godell, head of the control room, prevents the reactor from disaster. After an investigation into the incident shows nothing is wrong, Jack can't help but feel something isn't right. On discovering that the weld seals on the generator pump are cracked, Jack with Kimberly and Richard seek to tell the public and shut down the unsafe plant.

Nearly made thirty years ago, The China Syndrome is a riveting drama that still holds so much relevance today. Nuclear power has always been a hotly debated subject, whether it is the safest source of alternative energy, radioactive waste, and are nuclear plants waiting to be the next Chernobyl. Just not about nuclear power, The China Syndrome explores freedom of speech, right of press and big business. On Jack's findings of falsified information, his knowledge halts a massive investment on the construction of another nuclear plant, which many men seek to profit from. Kimberly, desperately wanting out on the puff news, sees the fight for truth is more important than boosting her career; constantly pushed by Richard, never wanted to be silenced demanding the public be told of the accident.

Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon are simply flawless. Fonda shows Kimberly as a fragile woman on her exterior, yet emotionally hard and determined to reveal this cover-up. Douglas brings a strong performance as Richard, fighting for honestly and truth. Lemmon shines over all as Jack., his performance is highly charged drama.

The China Syndrome is riveting viewing, that still holds much relevance today as it did when first released.",1 -"This is one of the funniest series ever! I laughed till my sides split and rolled around on the floor. If only someone would release in America. Region 0 or 1 - Non-PAL please.

I know it being released in the UK but that's Region 2 and PAL besides! Let's give this series its fair shake. America must know this series. Moffat is a genius. I loved Tracie Bennett's quirky, goofy role in this. Of course I liked Fiona Gillies! But Tracie was a treasure!

Release this show in America! or Show it again on the PBS stations. I need to laugh and laugh again! Please indulge us, please! Please!

Thanks for reading.",1 -"I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.",0 -"There are bad movies and then there are movies which are even worst. Saw is just that.

The movie is simply bad on all points. The plot, the acting, the camera work, the music and everything else is absolutely terrible and I cannot begin to comprehend how such trash made it to the big screen.

The simple fact is that Saw is riddled with plot holes. The beginning is enticing and leaves much to be expected but it does not hold up and the plot becomes absolutely ridiculous and absurd. The film is not creative and will not leave you with a single bit of credibility. People that claim that this movie is gory, violent, sadistic and scary are sissy girls who have nightmares after watching CSI because it is far from that.

So I am warning you know, do not attempt to watch this if you have any form of intellect, because you will be disappointed. A true bore and a mediocre film as can be.",0 -"Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.

Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative.

You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is.

For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of ""Survivor"" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked ""reality.""

It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game ""Quintet"" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?",0 -"I really think that this movie is great, personally. But, in every movie there is a downer. Now, some of you may not have watched Hilary Duff's 'Raise Your Voice', but If you think about it, those two shows are very very similar, if you know what i mean. In 'Brave New Girl', Holly wants so bad to get into Haverty Conservatory. In 'Raise Your Voice', Terri wants to go to a conservatory in L.A.(don't remember the name of the conservatory there). They are both in the music field, and they both have to sing at the ending of the semester. It's really funny how these two films are alike. I personally like 'Brave New Girl' better than, 'Raise Your Voice' though.",1 -"Many years ago I saw this movie (on television maybe?) and loved it. So I decided to rent it on DVD the other day to see whether it still held up in my estimation. It did.

Set in Sydney's notorious King's Cross district (where prostitution, drug abuse and sex stores thrive), it tells the story of ""Jimmy"" (played by Heath Ledger). Jimmy is a young man...maybe late teens or thereabouts, who hasn't had a stable family background. He is on the fringes of society, and works as a 'tout' for a sex club (encouraging people to enter the store). He is aware of an underworld figure called ""Pando"", who is a local bigwig in the Cross. It's Jimmy's hope that he will find himself on Pando's radar and get 'in' with him...a short-cut to upward social mobility, he hopes.

One night Jimmy meets the beautiful young woman Alex (played by the charming Rose Byrne). You just know that a love story will play out between them. On that night as well, Jimmy is first contacted by Pando (played by Bryan Brown). Pando has a 'job' for Jimmy. It's the 'foot in the door' that Jimmy has been waiting for!

To reveal too much more would spoil the many surprises that this movie has in store for the viewer. Stylistically, if you like Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie movies, you should be in tune with what to expect...twists and turns and black comedy.

What's so great about this movie is its very 'Australian-ness'. It's no mere knock off of Tarantino or Ritchie, but a genuine Australian contribution to the genre.

A fascinating aspect to this movie is how it all hangs together. Sometimes you are introduced to characters who you wonder what the hell they're doing there. In the end, all these 'loose ends' tie together beautifully. It's sort of like a celluloid Moebius strip.

A highlight of the movie is Bryan Brown's character of Pando. Pando likes puzzles, and it's fun to see him play games with his cronies. It's the little details revealed about him which are so enjoyable...his taste in music, for starters!

Of the Heath Ledger movies I have seen (The Dark Knight, 10 Things I hate about you), this is perhaps his best role. Wasn't taken with ""10 things"". If you are a Heath Ledger fan (Ledger recently died a tragic, accidental death), this is a chance to see him in his greatest Australian role, I think. There is great chemistry between Ledger and Byrne in this movie-so, on one level, it functions as nice love story.

This movie doesn't have some of the horror of Tarantino and Ritchie underworld movies, but it does have some adult themes...scenes that surprise you with their coldness and beauty. In that sense, it's not an ideal movie for very young viewers, but it's not a movie that gore-hounds will get excited about either.

Lastly, I have to say that it is great that Australia can make great movies like this. Usually the kind of movies my home country makes can be uniniviting. This movie has strengths where many Australian movies have weaknesses...i.e. it has a great story, great acting and a great script. We need more popular, quality movies like this to be made here in Australia.

Highly recommended. Other Australian movies I have loved include:

Breaker Morant (10/10) Mad Max 2 (10/10) My Brilliant Career (not reviewed here by me yet) Proof (nr) The Devil's Playground (nr) The Year My Voice Broke (nr) Bad Boy Bubby (nr. A great, dark comedy) The Dish (nr. A great, charming comedy)",1 -"This film suffers horrendously from its direction ""Julian Grant"" , and its incompetent lead, Steve Guttenberg, who's putting a solid effort to win a Bruce Willis look-alike contest! The writing is reckless Hollywood action thriller; Sean Bean --whose one of my favorites-- David Fraser, and Kim Coates give a decent performance. The film is definitely below average. 3 out of 10! I wonder what Hollywood studios thought, actually giving the go ahead, to weak director such as Grant. And I'd say to Sean Bean ""what were you thinking even considering participating in a film like this, after such great films like GoldenEye, Ronin, and Patriot Games!",0 -"One the whole, this movie isn't perfect. It doesn't 'hang well' together as the story line is basically a bunch of hooks to hang jokes.

Some of these jokes are a little 'too 80s' and tend to date the picture.

But some of these jokes are classic.

You know a movie has something special when you and your friends still reference silly quotes from it over 2 decades later.

Plus, there are a bunch of familiar faces; Michael Keaton, Danny Devito, Joe Piscapo, Peter Boyle, Marilu Henner, Maureen Stapleton, Bob Eubanks, Griffin Dunne, and one of the last roles of Alan Hale Jr., the Skipper from Gilligan's Island.

Also, there are some great absurdist moments, like when Johnny is labelling the puppies with a pricing gun, or the Pope making an appearance in Johnny's neighborhood. Also, the scene where the fake priest makes up a lot of words in Latin is excellent. (""Summa cum laude, magna cum laude, the radio's too louda... Post meridian, ante meridian, uncle meridian"").

Other Classic Scenes include Ramone Maroney butchering the English language Danny Devito urging Griffin Dunne to 'Play Ball' Peter Boyle thinking he lost his manhood The fake VD movie

This movie is no home run. But like 'Porky's', it has enough classic comedy bits to make it memorable.",1 -"I can't believe how bad this ""film"" is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave ""The Untold"" a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant ""fading to black"" in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from ""Blair Witch Project"" (The video scene) and ""Predator"", to ""Alive"". This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD.

I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!

And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10*",0 -"

This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti.",1 -"I had actually considered investing in this movie when Gorman was out drumming up funding. I loved most of the script but did not like the ending. Gorman insisted the ending was as it had to be.

Seeing the completed movie I have to say I am amazed. Reading the script I had not imagined the acting (and Gorman's directing) would be as powerful and moving as it is here. The two leads did an amazing job. They were very believable and this movie is well worth watching just for the performances of these two amazing stars.

Now, for the spoiler and if you have not seen the movie please don't read further as you need to see the movie first. (I actually wish I had never read the script just so I could have experienced the movie ending first hand.)

----------------------------- SPOILER

I have two main problems with the movie. First off, and I'm sure I mentioned this when I read the script, the wife should have died. If she were dead the ending would be much more believable. As it is, we have this guy who has been agonizing over a woman who left him 'years ago.' If she left him and he is still in love after so long he'd have to be seriously delusional. But he doesn't come across that way in the script. (There is also the problem of why he did not expend all this energy going after the wife he still loves.)

Plus, if the wife were dead we would actually be able to believe that they had a fulfilling, reciprocating love, and therefore believe that the guy is devastated enough for the ending to be reasonable.

However, I don't buy Daphne doing what she does in the ending. I'd need a heck of a lot of convincing to believe that this naive girl (very naive for a whore but believable due to Bohl's performance) did what she did. The character is simply not cold enough. And if she did this out of some kind of love, or something else, then there is a whole piece of the movie/story missing.

Much of this movie is reminiscent of ""Sex, Lies, and Video Tape."" I think it could have been as popular if Gorman had chosen to give the movie a more believable ending.

So watch the movie, enjoy the performance. And make up your own mind.",1 -"Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10.",0 -"This is absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.",0 -"I was permanently scarred by this terrible film.

The main action of the movie is nothing special. It seems there's a tribe of snake-worshipping people in a remote mountain region of Northern China, where women rather than men are the leaders and decision makers. I suppose among some men, this is enough to make ""Succubare"" a horror movie... Anyway, occasionally Chinese men would wander into the village, take a fancy to the local girls, seduce them and then abandon them. Unfortunately for the men, the women had put them under a spell, derived from snake venom, which would make them die horribly in 100 days -- their bellies swollen like a pregnant woman's with live worms and snakes -- if they did not return.

Forget the cover of the US video. This has nothing to do with vampires, though there is one inept blood-drinking scene. The title itself is only marginally appropriate: ""Succubare"" is the Latin verb meaning ""to lie beneath"", and it's the root of the word Succubus, a female demon who would seduce men in their sleep. Actually, it's the MEN who are the seducers here.

But it's not the main action of this ludicrous film that's so objectionable. It's the little side-incidents. I'll overlook the slaughter and butchery of an ox that's performed on-screen. The participants seem very experienced, as though this is an unpleasant duty they actually do in real life; and I'm sure they really ate the animal afterwards... though I resent having the act thrust in my face as ""entertainment"".

What I WISH I could overlook (or HAD overlooked) are the numerous, totally extraneous shots of an unidentified man, who from time to time interrupts the story by eating living animals. He starts the movie by tearing apart a live snake with his teeth. In the course of the movie, he devours a bug, a lizard, a toad (I had to leave the room after this), and a whole mouse (I stopped watching at this point, and lost my appetite for days). Let me stress that this was totally unexpected, and had nothing to do with the movie... unless it's a cynical reference to love as it's portrayed in the film: a blind, selfish, predatory survival mechanism that tears apart the helpless... but then again, I'm probably just rationalizing to get the vileness out of my head...",0 -"This is a wonderful thriller I watched many times and never can get enough of.It's all about the obsessive love 5 people have for eachother in Paris, (un)lucky coincidences, false identities.The music makes it really gripping.There are hardly any flaws in the characters,just the end is not very credible,but a definite ""must-see"" still.",1 -"This hodge-podge adapted from a Gore Vidal novel (actually one of the great American writers) makes THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like Fellini art-works. Raquel Welch, with an incredible body (and she's actually not very tall) in a lead role (except for KANSAS CITY BOMBER when she was quite good) playing Rex Reed's (bad movie reviewer; not critic) alter-ego, only to be surrounded by drag queen (great chick) Mae West, horny John Huston, a young and ""naive"" Farrah Fawcett (pre-Lee Majors; what a shame), and other various creep-azoids to pretend to spoof WAY too may things has nothing going for it except inter-spliced old films clips (i.e. Widmark in KISS OF DEATH, Lena Horne)...JUST so they can continue to bleed the life out of everyone.

A 2 out of 10. Best performance = ?. It's so bad, it's worth seeing!",0 -"Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after ""Crimson Tide"" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics (""De-Lovely"" and ""Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,"" for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of ""mystique"" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, ""Domino"" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior ""Rules of Attraction,"" Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, ""entertainment"" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on ""Jerry Springer""), and I found myself wishing they would all get the ""tails"" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. ""Domino"" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.",0 -"I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.

The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.

The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.

I would avoid this film at all costs.

The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.

Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself ""Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie....""",0 -"The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious ""in your face"" homages to Sam Raimi and ""Evil Dead"" would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed.",0 -"Friz Freleng's 'Snafuperman' is one of the lesser Private Snafu shorts. A warning of the importance of studying your field manual, 'Snafuperman' makes it point rather clumsily. The story, in which Technical Fairy, First Class makes Snafu into a superhuman in order to help him see the error of his ways, is predictable and unfunny. Freleng's earlier Snafu short 'Rumours' had been bursting with ideas and laughs but here the director is lumbered with a rather boring topic and he struggles to make an entertaining short from it. Even at around three minutes long, 'Snafuperman' seems to drag and, unlike the best cartoons in the series, it feels like an instructional film first and entertainment second. Though they were knocked out more quickly than the usual Warner cartoons, the Snafu shorts largely maintained a surprisingly high standard. 'Snafuperman' is a reflection of the sort of quality you'd more reasonably expect from a less talent bunch of creative minds.",0 -"By no means a masterpiece, and far from Errol Flynn's best, Istanbul still has much going for it. The locations and beautiful technicolour cinematography, bring us back to a time long since past. Errol Flynn does show moments of his past glory, and is OK as Jim Brennan, a pilot who's past comes back to haunt him. The picture is actually a remake of 1947's ""Singapore"", and the story seems awfully contrived and cliche' by today's standards. Also many of the supporting cast seem to be simply ""going through the motions"" in this picture. Many people have also compared it to one of the all time greats, CASABLANCA. While watching the film, I could see many of the similarities, but hey, Casablanca has inspired countless imitators, so take that for what it's worth. In closing, if you are a fan of Flynn, or old fashioned love stories, you might want to give this film a look. Otherwise, I'd recommend Casablanca, or The Maltese Falcon, as a good introduction to some of Hollywood's classics....",1 -"Honestly, this movie is weak. Very weak. Only capital character can something. She's work like supercharger on bad engine...so, if you like red-haired Valkyries - see that. But better find picture of Brigitte as Sonja and put it on desktop. It will save of disappointments. Well, Arnold also do his deal...but it definitely not best his role. Other characters - bad is not that word. Sword fights? Monsters? Ridiculous. Plot is really shame. Why was necessary rape she? Especially, we don't see it.

Anyway movie is weak. Though worse movies exist...Without main characters it would be just ******. And if somebody even discusses it, maybe...",0 -"

I take issue with the other reviewer's comments for the simple reason that this is a MYSTERY FILM, not a supernatural one! It is not the only film to have a seemingly ""supernatural"" explanation (""vampires""), but turns out to be a very mundance one.

Other films that come to mind are Edgar Wallace's ""Before Dawn"" and the (more famous) ""Mark of the Vampire"".

The film does a WONDERFUL job in creating a very ""spooky atmosphere"", similar DRACULA, when Renfield meets the Count on the staircase of his castle, or in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, when the two people look thru the windows of the castle ruins and see a ""corpse"" playing an organ, while Luna descends using wings! VERY surreal!

If one likes these (often silent) atmospheric touches, THIS film is a MUST!

Norm Vogel",1 -"Some people might consider this movie a piece of artwork - to be able to express your imagination on film in order to create a movie filled with antagonizing pain and death.. I personally think that this movie is a disgust, which should have never been released. This movie is repulsive, illogical and meaningless. Not only is it a complete waste of time but it makes you sick for days to come. The appalling images shown in the film not only make you grasp for air but they set in your mind and it takes days to forget them. Such a shame that people waste their imagination on such inhumane suffering.. ""Kill Bill"" would be another example but at least ""Kill Bill"" has its purpose, meaning, climax and resolution..",0 -"My friends and I have watched this so many time I have lost count. This is worth seeing for those in the right frame of mind, meaning that this is not so much a good horror film as a film to lampoon for its funny quotes and bad effects. This film is best watched with other like minded individuals so you have someone to laugh with.

You'll laugh as Greg leaps and shuffles around the lab, petting his pet rabbit, while his hunchback shifts from right to left on his back. ""Greg, stop clowning!"", scolds Dr. Brandon. You'll laugh as J.G. Patterson gives hand signals to direct Greg to the other side of the operating table, while his hand is in the shot. And you'll probably chuckle when you realize that the final woman has none of the features he used to construct her with.",0 -"Antonioni was aiming for another hip masterpiece, this time on the other side of the Atlantic than ""Blow up"". It wasn´t the success with critics and youth like the former though. Why? Maybe because it was a European´s view of America filled with clichés that didn´t work then and that have not aged well. (The revolutionary students at the beginning is embarrassing.)

Maybe when it was released big blockbuster movies and those aimed specifically at the youth market seemed dated. If it had been released a year before maybe hippes in deserts would have seemed fresh... It´s a very interesting film tho, very beautifully shot with some brilliant and Antonionian scenes in between, like the love-making in the desert, the stillness of the desert mansion and the explosive ending... That the leads were two amateurs didn´t help. They were beautiful but inexperienced. Mark Freshette is slightly better than Daria Halprin. It would have been so much better with proper actors! Maybe Michelle Phillips or a young Jessica Lange... The dialog is actually quite funny and poignant at times, tho you wouldn´t know the way the lines are delivered...

A very intersting document of the late sixties definitely worth a look for the photography and the soundtrack....",1 -"Robert Colomb has two full-time jobs. He's known throughout the world as a globetrotting TV reporter. Less well-known but equally effortful are his exploits as a full-time philanderer.

I saw `Vivre pour Vivre' dubbed in English with the title 'Live for Life.' Some life! Robert seems to always have at least three women in his life: one mistress on her way out, one on her way in, and the cheated wife at home. It helps that Robert is a glib liar. Among his most useful lies are `I'll call you tomorrow' and `My work took longer than planned.' He spends a lot of time and money on planes, trains and hotel rooms for his succession of liaisons. You wonder when this guy will get caught with his pants down.

Some may find his life exciting, but I thought it to be tedious. His companions, including his wife, Catherine, are all attractive and desirable women. But his lifestyle is so hectic and he is so deceitful, you wonder if he's enjoying all this.

Adding to the tedium is considerable footage that doesn't further the plot. There are extended sections with no dialogue or French-only dialogue. We see documentaries of wars, torture, and troop training interspersed with the live action. When Robert's flight returns from Africa, we wait and wait for the plane to land and taxi to the airport terminal.

Annie Girardot is the standout performer in this film. Hers was the most interesting character and she played it to perfection. It was also nice to see Candice Bergen at the beginning of her career. I can't find fault with Yves Montand's performance of what was basically an amoral bum.

I enjoyed some of Claude Lelouch's novel techniques. In a hotel room scene, the camera pans around the room as Robert and his mistress argue. We catch sight of them briefly during each pass around the room. In another scene set on a sleeping car of a train, Robert is lying on the upper bunk while his wife is on the lower. Robert is giving his wife some important but distressing news, but we hear only parts of it because of the clatter of the train. I sensed that his wife was also unable to absorb every word due to the shocking nature of the news. I also liked the exciting safari scenes in Africa. The cinematography of those scenes and of those in Amsterdam was superb.

I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.

",0 -"Hi

my name is Jessica, i'm Italian!

Some time ago I have seen this film : ' For the very first time', with Corin Corky Nemec. It was the story of Micheal and Mary Margaret. I need to know the title of the song of the most important love scene in Micheal's bedroom.

In Italy this film hasn't been programmed for many years and I don't know how to find the song. A lot of thanks for who can help me! I love this film! Is Very romantic! The soundtrack is beautiful! I love Cheryl Pollack! Jessica",1 -"I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON?",0 -"Tess of the Storm Country was a Mary Pickford vehicle I had intended to get for some time. I finally found a VHS copy for a reasonable price and got to enjoy it.

Mary gives her typical spunky, innocently sexy portrayal of a wrong-side-of-tracks girl who wins the heart of a rich heir. Only this time the stakes are higher: a false murder charge, an illegitimate child (and ensuing case of mistaken motherhood) and contemplated suicide.

One can see why Pickford wanted to redo this one. The story is a real morality tale, the kind that she loved to star in. The controversial topics aren't always spelled out plainly; a viewer has to pay attention and pick up on hints to catch everything that is being implied on first viewing – although everything is more or less explained in the end.

About the only negative remark I can make would be concerning Jean Hersholt and the dog. Hersholt, whose character, Ben Letts, looks to be about 6-2, 200 pounds (bigger next to Mary, of course!), is sent fleeing in panic when a 60-pound chocolate lab charges toward him! Then, to top it off (or maybe to justify his perplexing fear of the dog), it manages to pin him to the ground and somehow injures him so badly that he is still struggling to get up much later, as a bad storm hits! This is the same lovable lab that sleeps with Frederick (Lloyd Hughes) and cuddles with Mary! Yet Mary later throws boiling water in Ben's face, which barely slows him! OK, I've vented about Ben and the chocolate lab! Other than that, the movie was quite touching and certainly held my attention. Pickford's supporting cast was strong and believable. This is certainly among her better films.",1 -"If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a ""direct to video"" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.",0 -"This film, with only two characters, takes you closer to these two people, the interrogator and the prisoner, than most films take you to any character, however well-crafted.

The sheer confusion, terror and pain which Madeleine Stowe's character undergoes is deeply disturbing, as is Alan Rickman's sadistic yet charming interrogator.

This film is all too possible, and builds to a shocking climax, the effect of the film as a whole leaving you sitting in silence at the end. It'll haunt you for a long time.",1 -"I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE MAD MONSTER is one of the movies in the set.

I am sure that George Zucco was a good actor; but, this was only the second film in which I saw him, the first being DEAD MEN WALK, in which he played two parts. However, even good acting couldn't save THE MAD MONSTER.

Zucco plays a mad scientist, Dr. Cameron (who was banned from academia because of his unethical and inhumane experiments). He believes that he can control evolution by bringing out the characteristics of one animal into another.

In this case, like so many others of its ilk, it is a transfusion of (I assume) wolf's blood into humans. His goal is to create an invincible army, which he can control through the antidote. The subject of his experiments is his hired hand, a retarded gardener, whose dialogue slows down this snail-paced classic to almost a full-stop.

Beyond his experiments, Dr. Cameron also plots revenge on those who discredited him, using his transformed gardener. However, he loses control of his subject, who begins to transform without the transfusion -- yikes!

The werewolf transformations are classic Hollywood stop-action / makeup effects. No doubt these were groundbreaking techniques of the time; but, in today's digital age it's hard to imagine audiences being scared by this.",0 -This is the second film I've seen of Ida Lupino as a director after 53's the hitch-hiker. I think this one was a better film then that one. This one has a girl who is about to get married and she is then sexually assaulted and doesn't like everyone looking and talking about her so she runs away and and is taken in by a family. I think Leonard Maltin's review is right only to give it 2 and 1/2 stars.,1 -"Bette Midler is indescribable in this concert. She gives her all every time she is on stage. Whether we are laughing at her jokes and antics or dabbing our eyes at the strains of one of her tremendous ballads, Bette Midler moves her audience. If you can't see it live (which is the best way to see Bette) then this is the next best thing. An interesting thing to look at is how incredible her voice has changed and matured over the years but never lost its power. Her more ""vocally correct"" version of ""Stay With Me"" never loses anything in spirit from THE ROSE or DIVINE MADNESS, Here it is just more pure and as heartfelt as ever. I will treasure this concert for a very long time.",1 -"The first, and far better, of Kevin Kline's two gay roles. (The second is the dreary ""De-Lovely"" in which he played Cole Porter.) Inspired by Tom Hanks' emotional acceptance speech for ""Philadelphia"" in which he outed his high school drama teacher, the nominated film in this version was obviously more ""Forrest Gump"" than ""Philadelphia"". Here the Hanks character is played by Matt Dillon.

The reaction scenes in most of the film are very funny and, as has been often pointed out, are especially effective as done by Kevin himself, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck (a brave move since he was himself the target of such rumors, which he denied!), Bob Newhart and Joan Cusack as the eventually jilted bride-to-be.

Tom Hanks' actual teacher criticized the graduation scene saying people don't act that way in real life. But this is a farce and not real life. That being said, it is not as effective as it might be and the misdirection of the final ""wedding scene"" which makes it look like Tom and Kevin are about to get hitched I found rather pointless, annoying and a cop out.

The highlight of the film for me is, of course, Kevin's scene with the how-to-be-a-real-man audio tape and it is hilarious but certainly not at all realistic when the tape reacts to Kevin's actions.

On the whole, a hoot!",1 -"Spunky journalist Holly Hunter produces investigative news reports for a major news network. She's a motor-mouthed maverick, dazzlingly good at her job and with little time for romantic relationships. Enter William Hurt and Albert Brooks, two men who vie for her love.

Brooks is an old school journalist who adores Holly because she represents everything good about journalism. They both believe that the media exists to test the Gods, educate the public and fight for truth. Children of the sixties, they embody hippie values. They're defenders of the public good. Knights who fight valiantly with pen and camera.

William Hurt, in contrast, is a far more complex character. Initially awkward, clumsy and self-depreciating, he gradually reveals himself to be a sexy and manipulative high achiever, skilled at climbing the corporate ladder. Unlike Holly and Brooks, he's symbolic of modern media values: news as spectacle, journalism as entertainment, news anchor as celebrity, truth as subject to editing board. We want to despise him and his blip-time junk food journalism, but we just can't quite manage it. He's playing the game by its own rules. Do we condemn him for lacking a moral backbone? Do we condemn the game? Can the game exist if its rules are disobeyed? How have these rules evolved?

This isn't Lumet's and Chayefsky's ""Network"", and so the film never bothers to answer or raise these questions. Content to keep things on the level of light comedy, it ends with Hurt being promoted to London Division and Brooks being booted to a tiny community network. Holly, having rejected both men, remains caught between them. The last bastion of media integrity, this spunky reporter remembers her roots, mourns the loss of Brooks and warns herself to be on the guard of future William Hurts.

It's a cute ending, but compared to ""Network"" the film seems positively trite. Chayefsky's vision is one in which global media, despite its ubiquity, offers less meaningful information. He foresees a world in which globalisation has homogenized cultures, information has become subject to corporatisation and a handful of media monopolies control all international news. This is a world in which the truth is subject to shareholder meetings and economic interests. A world in which viewer ratings determine content and opinion polls dictate top stories.

Perhaps this is why ""Broadcast News"", which longs for the glory days of journalism, ends on such a bittersweet note. It knows what the future holds. Made in 1987, its been living it for at least a decade.

But today, in the digital age, things are even worse. Mergers and acquisitions have left a very small number of massive firms dominating the communication landscape. With this has come the hyper-commercialism of content, the barrier between the creative/editorial side and the commercial side all but collapsed. Today everyone might be able to start their own blog or website, but these are grass roots affairs. As the communication reach of the individual increases (due to technological progress - email, internet, electricity, air mail etc) the size of the individual's world increases likewise. He must project his voice both further and louder, futilely battling that deafening white noise, the incessant verbal static that is the global community.

So ultimately you need two things according to democratic theory. Firstly, you need a rigorous coming of people in power and people who want to be in power, both in the private and public sector. Secondly, you need a wide range of informed opinions on all important issues of the day. In a democratic society the media system as a whole should produce this sort of culture. Unfortunately, the structure we currently have in the global system works directly against the needs of democratic journalism and a democratic society.

8/10 – This is lightweight stuff, but a witty script, some funny moments and a brief cameo by Jack Nicholson, elevate it above most other films about journalism. Interestingly, unlike most films about the media, it never dips into satire, and instead plays things as a straight love triangle.

Worth one viewing.",1 -"REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere...........",1 -"

The author tried to make a Kevin Smith´s style movie , but he definitely failed. The result is a boring film that cannot sustain itself using only the dialogues. Fortunately I had my remote control and could see the tape using the 2X speed.",0 -"Deep Sea 3D is a stunning insight in to an underwater world only a few have had the opportunity to view first hand.

From the opening sequence when a wave rushes towards the audience momentarily engulfing us in the ocean, the filmmakers make full use of the IMAX format. A jelly fish field appears to fill the whole theatre, a shark powers towards us, predators pounce from behind rocks and devour their prey. It is a beautifully captured under sea feast for the eyes.

Our ears on the other hand, are not given the same treatment. The film is narrated by Hollywood stars Jonny Depp and Kate Winslet. Both sound so ridiculous it positively spoils the enjoyment of the visuals. Depp sounds slightly bored whilst Winslet sounds as if she is reading a bedtime story to the village idiot. I was shocked that an actress of her status could have pitched her performance so wrongly. The script is fairly silly and contains very little depth. The soundtrack is filled with strange, unrealistic sound effects which I assume are meant to be funny but in fact detract attention from the material which should have been allowed to speak for itself.

Danny Elfman has provided an excellent score which gives plenty of impact to the ups and downs of life under the sea, when it is allowed to play out without the silly bubble sounds or crayfish footfalls which pepper film.

The film is a technical marvel but with it's childish script, annoying narration and misplaced sound effects it cannot be taken seriously.",0 -"I saw this movie on Mystery Science Theater 300. It sucked so much. If I hadn't been watching it on MST3K, I probably would've thrown it out the window. The characters were incredibly lame and it didn't provide much of a plot in my opinion.",0 -"Definitely an odd debut for Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Cecil Moe, an alcoholic family man whose life is crumbling all around him. Cecil grabs a phone book, looks up the name of a preacher, and calls him in the middle of the night. He goes to the preacher's home and discusses his problems. The preacher teaches Cecil to respect the word of God and have Jesus in his heart. That makes everything all better. Ahh...if only everything in life were that easy. The fact that this ""film"" looks as if it was made with about $500 certainly doesn't help. 1/10",0 -"Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there’s no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it’s unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment – though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled “The Colonel’s Lady”). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it’s still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

“The Verger” tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) – for which the story’s title is another word – who’s dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he’s illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered – and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter’s lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were – to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, “Mr. Know-All”, is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most – the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick’s attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their ‘revenge’ on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn’t appreciate)!; still, it’s here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character – told by Crawford that the necklace she’s wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its price…but the latter realizes immediately that it’s the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford’s position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, “Sanatorium” deals with the myriad patients at such a place – run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot – one humorous (the ‘feud’ between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naïve but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a ‘lifer’ while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).",1 -"This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.

""You're an angry little elf!""",0 -"`Mad Dog' Earle is back, along with his sad-sack moll Marie, and that fickle clubfoot Velma. So are Babe and Red, Doc and Big Mac, and even the scenery-chewing mutt Pard. The only thing missing is a good reason for remaking Raoul Walsh's High Sierra 14 years later without rethinking a line or a frame, and doing so with talent noticeably a rung or two down the ladder from that in the original. (Instead of Walsh we get Stuart Heisler, for Humphrey Bogart we get Jack Palance, for Ida Lupino Shelley Winters, and so on down through the credits.) The only change is that, this time, instead of black-and-white, it's in Warnercolor; sadly, there are those who would count this an improvement.

I Died A Thousand Times may be unnecessary – and inferior – but at least it's not a travesty; the story still works on its own stagy terms. Earle (Palance), fresh out of the pen near Chicago, drives west to spearhead a big job masterminded by ailing kingpin Lon Chaney, Jr. – knocking over a post mountain resort. En route, he almost collides with a family of Oakies, when he's smitten with their granddaughter; the smiting holds even when he discovers she's lame. Arriving at the cabins where the rest of gang holes up, he finds amateurish hotheads at one another's throats as well as Winters, who throws herself at him (as does the pooch). Biding time until they get a call from their inside man at the hotel, Palance (to Winter's chagrin) offers to pay for an operation to cure the girl's deformity, a gesture that backfires. Then, the surgical strike against the resort turns into a bloodbath. On the lam, Palance moves higher into the cold Sierras....

It's an absorbing enough story, competently executed, that lacks the distinctiveness Walsh and his cast brought to it in 1941, the year Bogie, with this role and that of Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, became a star. And one last, heretical note: Those mountains do look gorgeous in color.

",1 -"This is right up at the top of my list of the most hysterically funny shows I've ever seen. I laughed so hard, I'm sure I missed half the jokes. This showcases Izzard as the brilliantly gifted comedian he is. What I particularly like is that he seems never to be ""dumbing down"" the material for his audience. His timing is impeccable and the routine is tied together as a performance piece rather than just a series of gags. Thumbs way up.",1 -"The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002.",0 -"When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world.",0 -"At first sight The Bothersome Man seems like several other movies/books rolled into one. Kafka's The Trial, Melville's Bartleby, The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin and Groundhog Day instantly spring to mind. A man, Andreas, arrives in a nameless city where he is immediately given a job in an office and finds a beautiful new girlfriend. However, there's a catch: his colleagues are all friendly, bland and utterly characterless, and everyone he knows, including his girlfriend, seems to have only one topic of conversation -interior design. Welcome to the hell of modern consumerism, in which people throw themselves from buildings and no one raises an eyebrow, or spend their days reading furniture catalogues and eating food that tastes of nothing.

Andreas quickly realises his predicament and spends the rest of the film trying to escape, in various ways. Suicide turns out not to be an option, and when he finds a new girlfriend she is just as bereft of feelings as the old one - there is a wonderful scene in a restaurant where he asks her to move in with him and all she can say is, 'I don't mind'.

In fact, much of what The Bothersome Man has to say has been said before, and after about 45 minutes you begin to feel that you indeed are experiencing a certain sense of deja vu. Yet its point is one that is probably worth repeating, over and over again: an unexamined life is one that is not worth living. Added to which, it provides a decidedly modern take on the perennial theme of how capitalism is destroying our souls. More than one character reminded me of people I've known, especially his furniture-obsessed girlfriend, and if by the end of the film the film-makers have run out of ideas, maybe that's the point - there will no end unless you can find other people who share your sense of alienation.",1 -"My mother told me not to go to see ""Kadosh"" -- but who ever listens to one's mother?

I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.

While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).

The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies.

(originally written 4/29/2000)",0 -"James J. Corbett's autobiography ""The Roar of the Crowd"" was the starting point of this lively and well-remembered fictionalized biography. The author was heavyweight champion of the world, succeeding John L. Sullivan, before the turn of the century. The events of the narrative depict Corbett as a brash but likable and intelligent young man whose conquest of the world of boxing and social prejudice in his time, when he was considered merely the son of Irish immigrants, a lowly bank teller and a nobody surprised everyone. It took him several hours of exciting and often amusing screen-time to prove his compeers were wrong. He is an bank teller when the film opens, but he somehow wangles an invitation to a sporting club for the well-to-do. He falls in love with a beautiful but snobbish girl, with whom he always seems to be quarreling, and he lives at home with a brawling clan of Corbetts who seem to fight with one another as often as with others. When he defeats the club's best and a professional fighter borough in to embarrass him, he finally decides to become famous by fighting. he sets out on the road with his friend, who acts as manager and trainer, and despite a few near setbacks, he wins all his bouts and attracts attention. Coming home to pursue his girl again, he contrives to annoy the Boston Strongboy, mighty John L. Sullivan, who enters bars and claims he can ""lick any man in the world"". Few believe he can win a bout against Sullivan, but Corbett, dubbed ""Gentleman Jim"" for his gracious manners and patrician appearance surprises everyone by moving, dancing out of range, and negating the furious Sullivan's power. The film's finest scene perhaps comes when a beaten Sullivan comes to congratulate Corbett. The new champion rises to the moment, tells Sullivan a few years before it might have been different, and shows him nothing but admiration and respect. He gets his girl as a result of his two performances, but by the end of the film, as they visit his s parents, his manager is able to tell the world, ""The Corbetts are at it again"". The films is attractive and has a consistent style without being flashy. The script was written by veteran Horace McCoy and Vincent Lawrence from the Corbett novel. Sidney Hickox did the cinematography, with period set decorations by Clarence Steensen and art direction by Ted Smith. Heinz Roemheld did the music and Milo Anderson the gowns. The film was ably directed by action-film specialist Raoul Walsh. Flynn also liked working with Walsh but did not care for the other director he worked for most often, Michael Curtiz. Among the cast,were Ward Bond as John L. Sullivan, in one of his best performances lovely Alexis Smith a bit spotty but intelligent as the girl Corbett loves and a very able Errol Flynn as Corbett, a young man he seemed to relish playing--he later said it was his favorite role from the period...Jack Carson was his manager, Alan Hale his charismatic father, John Loder a rich foe, with William Frawley, Minor Watson, Madeleine LeBeau, Rhys Williams, Arthur Shields, Dorothy Vaughn and Mike Mazurki along for the enjoyable proceedings. It is hard to say enough about the logic and light-hearted fun this movie's makers have generated; it is one of the best-liked of all sports biography films, and by my standards one of the most enjoyable as well.",1 -"I'm biased towards any movie that paints a luxuriant picture of Italy - in my opinion the most romantic country in the world. Unfortunately the movie was rather short, unusually so for a period piece, and a little sparse on the cinematography aspect. However, the excellent story makes up for it. The four ladies embark on a much-needed relaxing vacation with problems on their minds. Over the course of the movie, they realize their problems and begin fixing them. They believe San Salvatore, the castle they stay in, has an enchanting effect on people. ""It's a tub of love,"" says Lottie Wilkins. You can watch their gradual change from dissatisfied to exuberant as the Italian seaside works its magic on them.

All their problems and their solutions are plausible. The actresses were great. The background music seemed very appropriate for an romantic Italian locale. All in all, a 10/10 movie for me.",1 -"I bought this because it was $1.99 and Harry Carey was in it and a friend of mine was in it, and for $1.99, how bad could it be? Then I read some comments here on the film and began to get excited -- maybe this really was a lost gem, one of those terrific little B-movies everyone had forgotten about but which deserved to be resurrected. WRONG! I'm not sure how anyone else can give this thing the praise it got from some quarters here, but I found it one of the most tedious and blatantly bathos-filled movies I've ever seen. And I'm not talking about Richard Carlson's hokey Texas accent (straight from the Georgia part of Texas, I guess). It's just dumb. No one in the film behaves like a real human being. No one. And no one does anything believable or interesting. It's not even a cliché-fest. It's just 80-something minutes of frames going by. It even managed to make Harry Carey, Maria Ouspenskaya, and C. Aubrey Smith boring. Now THAT'S unbelievable.",0 -"Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.

I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.

It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.",0 -"DOUBLE EXPOSURE was a tremendous surprise. It contains outstanding acting (particularly from the underrated Callan), fine cinematography and a compelling storyline. In other words, it's one of the finest horror efforts to emerge from the 1980s.

Callan plays a fashion photographer who experiences dreams of murdering his models, at a time when he is reunited with his psychologically volatile brother (who happens to be missing an arm and a leg). When the models Callan dreams about killing actually turn up dead, the photographer begins to doubt his own sanity... but there is more to the picture than he is seeing.

This film never received the praise it deserves. Most critics and filmgoers lump it in with the horde of slasher films released at the same time, but it stands high above the bulk of that sorry lot. It's clever and unique, which isn't something one can comfortably say about most films of this genre, but it's also passionately crafted and performed. DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a gem of its kind.",1 -"When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.",0 -"This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.

I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.

It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: ""Let's remake a classic with worse everything!""",0 -"To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER

3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.

4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.

rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale

thank you I am as always

JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN",0 -"Why, oh, why won't they learn? When you've got a nice, juicy exploitation gimmick, use it! Don't go messing around trying to get all deep and thoughtful; you're only gonna wind up looking foolish.

Christmas Evil is the story of Harry Stadling, who saw a little bit too much of Mommy kissing (Daddy-dressed-as-)Santa Claus back when he was a kid. So, of course, Harry grows up obsessed with Christmas, and finally, when his disillusionment becomes too great, he flips out, dresses as Santa, and wanders the city giving out toys to good little children, and viciously killing anyone he deems naughty.

Simple enough, and not a bad place to start. (After all, how many other holiday-themed horror flicks use the same schtick?) Unfortunately, this film wants to be more ""Santa, Portrait of a Serial Killer"" than ""Silent Night, Deadly Night"". Two-thirds of the film are spent documenting Harry's slow but inevitable breakdown, when I would have been willing to buy the premise by the time the opening titles were rolling. You know a slasher film is in trouble when you find yourself urging the killer to just get on with it already.

Perhaps Harry's descent into madness could have been compelling in the hands of a competent director, but alas, we've got some guy named Lewis Jackson. Apparently, this is his only film, and it shows. The action jumps giddily from scene to scene, without establishing shots or clear views of the actors to let us know where we are and who we are seeing.

Even once the film gets rolling, we're still treated to heaping helpings of Harry's self-pity, insecurity, and neurotic behavior. More depressing than frightening, Christmas Evil is one to avoid.",0 -"Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.

It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.

It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.

Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.

In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars.",1 -"The Ten Steps has basically a reasonably good premise for a scary short but the execution is simply appalling. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is of the kind so regularly witnessed in Irish short films. Really really embarrassingly bad. The girl has to go down the 10 steps of the cellar to change the blown fuse. She telephones her father who is entertaining his boss at dinner. The mother, an ""actress"" with very questionable acting skills, answers the phone and in a loud scolding voice tells her not to be ringing as Dad is 'trying to impress his boss'. The actress playing the boss's wife very successfully emulates the mother's poor acting when she tells them that their house is haunted. The rest of the film consists of the father coaxing his daughter down the stairs on the telephone. The Ten Steps employs the stock techniques in camera movement, lighting and music that one would expect in a below average horror film. Poor.",0 -"(Sorry for my faulty language, i am no native speaker ...)

Yes, this is a movie that almost demands an overwhelming reaction. Personally i agree upon all those superlatives that are around. But i won't use this rather sematically void way myself to describe the movie here. Because those ""perfect! the one-and-only! best-ever!""-reviews make some people turn away (including me).

So if you are looking for another 'Hamlet' that has the potential to rival with many theatrical and all cinematic ones - Then don't miss this one, if you happen to find it anywhere. (Unfortunately not too many people will have any chance to see it. It seems there is no DVD out there, and the German language version - which is quite well done - is not available in any format.)

Just in case you decide to get a copy: Spare out that cut down two hours (or so) version of this movie. It is no use and no fun, and gives a wrong impression of a movie, that deals in an interesting way with flow and architecture. And its also crippled down to 4:3 aspect ratio.

Greetings from Germany, F.L.",1 -"I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw ""Semi-Pro"" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???",0 -"This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).

The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this ""peaceful"" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many ""diseases"" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).

Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.

Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth.",0 -"A terrorist attempts to steal a top secret biological weapon, and in the process of trying to escape, he is infected when the case containing the deadly agent is compromised. Soldiers are able to retrieve the case, but the terrorist makes his way to a hotel where he attempts to hide out. They eventually make it to where he's hiding, and ""cleanse"" the hotel and its occupants. Unfortunately they dispose of his body by cremation, and if you've seen Return of the Living Dead, you know what happens next.

Zombi 3 has been widely panned by critics and zombie fans alike, as a complete mess of a movie. While that's a fair assessment, it's not without it's high points. For one thing, it has plenty of bloody deaths to keep gore-hounds happy. There's an abundance of zombies that seem to come out from everywhere possible. They're in the water, the rafters of houses, hiding in trees, and for some reason, they like to hide under a bunch of dead brush, only to spring out to attack as the heroes try to escape. There's even a flying zombie head that hides inside a refrigerator. You have to see it to believe it, as that scene alone makes Zombi 3 required viewing IMO. It may have some terrible editing and some very questionable acting, especially from the doctor who has to be one of the worst actors I've seen, but Zombie 3 is still a very entertaining movie. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch a movie that doesn't require anything more than your time and an open mind. Zombi 3 fits that bill, and then some. It's even more enjoyable if you pop open a few beers, and watch it with some like minded friends. I give it an 8/10, just because of sheer enjoyment.",1 -"I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzz

Pop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills.",0 -"It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned...

What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

Avoid it like the plague.",0 -"Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations ""Masque of the Red Death"" and ""Pit and the Pendulum"") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like ""Creature from the Haunted Sea"" and ""She Gods of the Shark Reef""). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and – simply put – nearly impossible to judge properly. ""The Trip"", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled ""Gas-s-s-s"" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a ""trippy"" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. ""Gas-s-s-s"" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?",0 -"Depardieu's most notorious film is this (1974)groundbreaker from Bertrand Blier. It features many highly sexual scenes verging on an X-rating, including one of Jeanne Moreau doing a hot 1970s version of her Jules and Jim menage a trois with the two hairy French hippies (Depardieu and Deware). There is no such thing as a sacred territory in this film; everything is fair game.

It's very odd that Americans tend to not like this film very much while many French people I've met consider it a classic. Something about it goes against what Americans have been programmed to 'like.'

Gerard and the late Patrick Deware are two bitch-slapping, hippy drifters with many sexual insecurities, going around molesting women and committing petty crimes. They're out for kicks and anti-capitalist, Euro-commie, slacker 'freedom.' Blier satirizes the hell out of these two guys while at the same time making bourgeois society itself look ultimately much more ridiculous. Best of all though, is the way the wonderful Stephane Grappelli score conveys the restless soul of the drifters, the deeper subconscious awareness or 'higher ideal' that motivates all the follies they engage in.",1 -"Inspired by a true story tale is full of 1970's feeling but is disjointed in the telling. This is the tale of a black college swimmer who ends up in Phillie at a closing rec center in a bad neighborhood and somehow puts together a swim team. The film staggers around blindly for the first half hour until Terrence Howard, as our hero, gets the kids into the pool.It picks up at that point by becoming somewhat engaging, though it still staggers about. There is a good story in this and its clear why Howard and Bernie Mac took part in it, but the script is poor and most of the direction seems intent on making it feel like 197something instead of making us feel anything for the story.

Not the disaster that some reviews made it out to be, it instead suffers by all of the recent sport true stories-Coach Carter, Invincible, Glory Road, etc, which at least knew that you have to at least work with the story to make a movie as opposed to just letting the audience suffer because ""its true"".",0 -"Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And ""Maniac Cop"" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.

When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, ""What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death.""

1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. ""A black rainbow of death"" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.

This is what you're in for.",0 -"Eric Valette is obviously a talented film-maker, and so are the two guys who wrote the script. Therefore Maléfique is a great flick, made with just a few bucks but also tons of imagination. Well, I'm a bit exaggerating, but nevertheless I'm sincere. So, if you like dark, gory movies, go and see this one. It's really worth it.",1 -"Anyone who does not find this movie funny, does not understand simple comedy. This movie is not a complex comedy, it is full of one liners, and sight gags, and will make anyone who wants to laugh, laugh... The alien who is doing a Nicholson impression will crack you up!",1 -"If a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next film.",0 -"That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.

'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.

It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.

All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.",0 -"It was easy for Sir Richard Attenborough to make Gandhi (1982)—he was merely narrating a story of a great individual who walked on this planet not so long ago. Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son. The events in the film are mostly real. Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow. Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.

The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals. For Gandhi, his mission was larger than his family's aspirations. He loved his family and cared for them, though his thoughts for their appeasement were blinkered by his ideal of caring for the masses. He stood for equality and dignity among all persons and in his view to give special undue advantages to his own son overlooking other deserving persons went against the basis of what he preached. The film looks at an unusual case of parenting—where an idealist parent places receding goalposts for a less-than-brilliant offspring.

The film presents an unusual scenario that happened. A son marries his childhood sweetheart, upsetting his father. The father upsets his son's educational aspirations at several key junctures. The fragile link between a devoted son and a father breaks, as the son wants to stand on his own feet and care for his nuclear family. While the father gradually becomes the father of a nation, the son stumbles in valiant quest for identity and survival. His marriage breaks and seeks solace in religion, buffeting between Islam and Hinduism. Through all his tribulations his link to his mother remains, until she chides him for being drunk.

Feroz Khan is essentially a director of plays making his foray into cinema. He wrote and directed the play Mahatma vs. Gandhi that had considerable impact on the Indian theater community. The play and the consequent film were based on two biographies, one by Chandulal Dalal and another by Nilamben Parekh, The success of the staged play was an evident reason for the commercial Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor to produce this noteworthy film. Every time a good director of plays attempts to direct cinema there is an evidence of a lack of confidence with the medium. Peter Brook is a great director of plays, but less competent as a film director. The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinema—a derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation. The hospital authorities do not recognize him to be Mahatma Gandhi's eldest son, dying in poverty and loneliness. Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette. For an Indian film it does present some high production qualities that go hand in hand with a lack of interest for details (the clothes of most Indians in the film seem dust-free and freshly laundered, modern hairstyles of actors, and even Shefali Shetty playing Mohandas Gandhi's wife a century ago with plucked eyebrows), the bane of Indian cinema. Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).

Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally.

With all its mix of greatness and faults, Gandhi, my father throws several questions at the viewer. Is a mother-son bonding stronger than a father-son bonding in parenting? Is one's immediate family less important than humanity at large? Does one seek refuge in religion and alcohol only when worldly troubles are encountered? In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures ""Forgive them for they know not what they do"" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.

The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics. Feroze Khan and Anil Kapoor have handled a sensitive subject very well and elicited above-average performances from the ensemble of actors. I do hope the international success of the film paves the way for some able director to film another brilliant Indian play Girish Karnad's Tughlaq some day meeting international quality standards.",1 -"I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title ""Lethal Target"" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a ""Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film"" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.

I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say ""professionals"") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?

I guess I'm just asking for too much.

Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?

I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this ""crap"" than they did.

C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.",0 -"No one would ever question that director Leos Carax is a genius, but what we wonder about is: is he an insane genius? So many people hated this film! I am normally the first person to accuse many French directors of making offensive, boring, disgusting and pretentious films (such as the horrible recent film 'L'Enfant' and the pointless and offensive 'Feux Rouges'). But strangely enough, I actually think that 'Pola X' is an amazing film, made with great skill and passion by a master of his craft, and containing remarkable performances. The film does carry melodrama to more extreme lengths than I believe I have ever seen on screen before. But then, Carax is extreme, that we know. The film also contains what I consider way over-the-top Trotskyite or Anarchist fantasies and wet-dreams, what with a mysterious group of young men training to fire machine guns at the bourgeoisie in between playing Scott Walker's rather fascinating music in a band which has its recording sessions in an abandoned warehouse filled with squatters and fires burning in old steel barrels. Guillaume Depardieu plays a rich young man in a château (whose step-mother is Catherine Deneuve, and he wanders into her bathroom while she is naked in the bath, by the way). But he suddenly 'snaps' completely when he discovers that his deceased father, a famous diplomat, had fathered an illegitimate daughter who had been effectively disposed of by Deneuve as an inconvenience. This is because the sister suddenly turns up as a kind of Romanian refugee with wild dishevelled hair, expressionless face, and little ability to speak French coherently. Depardieu then transforms himself into a 'class hero' of the far left and wants to kill or destroy his family for their hypocrisy and corruption, and lives in squalor and extreme poverty, while scorning a vast inheritance. He then commences an incestuous sexual relationship with his half-sister, which is shown in an explicit sex scene which has offended many people, though I have no objection to it, as I think people are far too hysterical about sex, especially in America, where apparently it never happens. The intensity of the acting and the filming make this unlikely scenario come off as an experience of powerful, if depressing, hyper-melodrama. The differences between Carax making an extreme film like this and the numerous extreme French films which I think are pretentious and disgusting are (1) that Carax is an excellent filmmaker, and (2) he is seriously attempting to explore a meaningful, if harrowing, extreme emotional condition, whereby a human being disintegrates and turns against his background. Many would say that the extreme elements in this film were gratuitous, but I don't agree. I believe Carax was genuine, and was not making an exploitation picture at all. It is very difficult to defend a man who goes that far and who, for all I know, may be a complete madman, but I believe he deserves defending for this remarkable cinematic achievement.",1 -"To quote Flik, that was my reaction exactly: Wow...you're perfect! This is the best movie! I think I can even say it's become my favorite movie ever, even. Wow. I tell you what, wow.",1 -"A friend of mine recommended this movie, citing my vocal and inflective similarities with Des Howl, the movie's main character. I guess to an extent I can see that and perhaps a bit more, I'm not very sure whether or not that's flattering portrayal.

This is a pretty unique work, the only movie to which this might have more than a glancing similarity would be True Romance, not for the content or the style of filming or for the pace of dialogue (Whale Music is just so much more, well, relaxed.) But instead that they both represent modern love stories.

In general I'm a big fan of Canadian movies about music and musicians (for example I highly recommend Hard Core Logo) and this film in particular. It has an innocent charm, Des is not always the most likeably guy, but there's something about him that draws a sterling sort of empathy.",1 -"This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.",0 -"Saw this movie when it came out in 1959, left a lasting impression. Great group of actors. A little short timewise but a great movie all the same. Have only seen once since then and that was some time ago. Hopefully they'll put it out on DVD if they haven't already.",1 -"Let's think people , quit bad-mouthing the original , for it's time the original Battlestar series was a masterpiece , even still with all the stars , story lines and art . Lorne Greene was great as Adama and Richard Hatch was perfect as Apollo and Dirk Benedict was funny as Starbuck , but I dare say , not as pretty as Katee as Starbuck .

I loved the episode with the Pegasus and Greetings from Earth was good John Calicos was great as Baltar , War of the Gods , the best was Experiment in Terra , I thought that was a tribute in a way to Heaven Can Wait , then you had the women of Battlestar , not to compare them to let's say Tricia who is outstandingly beautiful as Number Six , but Jane Seymour's beauty could not be compared to . Let alone Loerrta Spang as Cassiopea was fantastic .She had beauty that a rainbow would be embarrassed by . I loved the original as much as the new .

Can you imagine if John Calicos had a number six ? :)

Thankyou for listening .",1 -"This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!!",0 -"Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original ""Open Your Eyes"" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.

It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.

He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.

2/10 Major disappointment.",0 -"I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.

Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of ""cloth"", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...

Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in ""9"". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...

And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and ""9"" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...

Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like ""No, don't do it!"" ""I will do it!"" ""But... you cannot do it alone!"" ""We can do it together!"" ""But there are rules!"" ""But we have to save him!"" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop ""Ahh"" and ""Ohhh"" and""Ehh"", and ""Oooh"", and ""Whatchout"", and ""Run!"" and ""OhOhh!"" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.

Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO!",0 -"I'm certain that people from USA don't know anything about the rest of the world, but I think they mustn't talk about what they don't know. And they must remember that the rest of the world is not as hypocrite as the USA. The only places where consented sex between teenagers are illegal are the USA and Islamic nations. In France, for instance, the age of consent is 15. In Brazil it's 14. In Spain it's 12. So the teenagers actors, 16 and 17 years old by the time of production, aren't doing anything illegal. Nudity isn't considered big deal in almost all civilized countries. And only a freak could consider a teenagers' love as child molestation.",1 -"I have heard an awful lot about 'The English Patient' and I finally decided to get the CD and find out what all the ballyhoo was about. What I found out was a cinematic delight and should, I repeat 'should' always be watched with an open mind. If you are a religious, moral zealot, I am afraid this is not a film for you as you will fail to see the beauty of this cinematic masterpiece as you will keep on harping on the moral dilemmas this film creates. As I remember correctly before I watched this film I read the review in this site and was thoroughly disgusted by the views of that person who I quote said 'that the protagonists thoroughly deserved what they got'. When it comes to morality I agree with him but this is not the way to comment on a film of this magnificence.

I must admit rarely have I seen such a wonderfully crafted film. I keep on hearing the background soundtrack in my subconscious. First and foremost this is a love story and yes it's an extramarital affair (moralists beware) but lets not keep focusing on that. Instead let's focus on how the story was told. It's an admixture of flashbacks and the present. Its set in the world war II and tells us the story of a survivor of a plane crash (Count Almazhy played wonderfully by Ralph Fiennes) who is looked after by an army nurse (Juliet Binoche) in war torn Italy just before the beginning of the end (defeat of the axis powers). The burn scarred patient very much in pain kept on remembering the torrid affair he had with an English woman Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas) shown in flashbacks set in pre-war Africa. The past and the present are interwoven so adroitly in the story that you're sort of transported in the story and get the feel of a first hand viewer. The locales in the desert and in Italy are beautiful and so are the characters. I am a romantic and am not ashamed to say I had tears after it ended. Watch it with someone you truly love. The movie starts and ends with the same shot of the desert where the sand dunes twist and curves like a woman's body and it was breathtaking. The sense of loss and grief was conveyed so overwhelmingly by the actors that it makes me wonder why god! Why do we have wars that destroys beauty and the most unforgivable of all, the destruction of Innocence.

Anyway it deservedly won a bunch of Oscars and I will go hunting for other works of director Anthony Minghella.It kind of brings back the romanticism in the David Lean genre of films.It almost reminds me of 'Lawrence of Arabia' which was also based in the desert.Happy viewing folks.",1 -"I saw this movie at midnight on On Demand the other night, not knowing what to expect. I had heard of this movie, but never really any opinions on it.

I have to say, I was impressed with what I saw. I was genuinely freaked out in some parts and I definitely recall jumping up in my seat a few times.

The Blob was scary looking. Now, I look in a jar of jelly and wonder if it'll latch itself onto my hand.

Steve McQueen was really good as Steve Andrews, the protagonist of the film. I also liked the old man in the beginning.

For a 50's horror movie, this was very well done even by today's standards.

8/10.",1 -"This film is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.

The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.

The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.

The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.

Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K version.",0 -"As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: ""Then I woke up"" and ""Then I Got Run Over by a Truck."" I am now going to add, ""Then I got a bump on the head."" I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.",0 -"I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its ""killer cut"" of ""more gore! more sex!"" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?

It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they ""cut"" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.

From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.

I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!",0 -"I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective ""advanced"" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to ""protect"" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.

Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.

Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.

Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved.",1 -"""Broadcast News"" is directed by James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As It Gets) and has a great cast, including William Hurt, Albert Brooks, and Holly Hunter. Everyone gives a good performance, but they're all too unlikable to really care about them.

Some parts of the film are really brilliant, such as the prologue, and the short scenes with Jack Nicholson. The main reason it doesn't entirely work, is it's a film that relies on the characters being amusing rather than amusing things happening to them.

You could consider it nothing more than a drama, but it's often too silly to be successful there as well. Still, the script makes it worth a watch. Certainly not for everyone.

7.0 out of 10",1 -"You can call this one a flop, and that's a very big one too! Quality isn't associated with the words National Lampoon, but at least the Vacation and Animal House entries were fun, but this offering has got to be their most inane feature to date that I've watched. Ugh! The three piece story crazily attempts to parody the clichés and stereotypes that flooded Hollywood genre films, which turns out to be completely unfunny and boorish dross.

""Growing Yourself."" - Jason a corporate lawyer decides to quit his job and split up with his wife so they both can grow and do what they always wanted to do. That's life, as Jason sees it and he takes over looking after the children, but his decision to follow this path might not be the right one.

Talk about leaden, boring and stiff. There only real interest is the small performance of the lovely Diane Lane. The satirical element here seems to be pointing out something than actually just delivering it. The silly humour is strained, flat and particularly senseless. Peter Riegert's keeps it very deadpan in the lead role and Teresa Ganzel bubbles along in her role.

""Success Wanters"" - After just finishing collage Dominique Corsair gets a job as a stripper and is rape with some butter by the Dairy Company Presidents. For payback she becomes interested in the margarine industry and virtually works her way to the 'very"" top.

Probably the best one of the three, but the competition wasn't too great. The gags seem to want go more subtle with its sexual and power orientated tone, but still they do feel more tacky and forced. The idea had something promising and inventive to build on, but the languid pacing begins to wear thin by the end and disastrous dialogue don't do it any favours at all. The humour tries, but more often doesn't come off, despite the hunger. The seductively Ann Dusenberry is pretty cold and manipulative throughout (well after the painful ordeal) and likes to gracefully bare it all quite a bit. Even the skimpy stripper outfit seems to get full workout for the opening half of the story. Popping up in amusing minor cameos ranged from Dick Millar, Mary Woronov, Olympia Dukakis, Fred Willard, Robert Culp and a favourite turn by Joe Spinell.

""Municipalians"" - A serial killer who leaves copies of his driver's licence behind after each murder, is being tracked down by an enthusiastically naive rookie cop and his old grizzled partner. However the young cop learns that being tough is the only way to go, when the pair encounter one situation after another.

Stupid! Oh yeah. Sure if you're going to spoof something extremely over-the-top, make sure laughter will stream off it. Obviously they forgot that! Even at its 30 minutes running, boy does it drag! Robby Benson's gratingly mock performance got rather overbearing with a wearied Richard Widmark doing very little as his partner. Christopher Lloyd underplays the role of serial killer, but his creepily wry and sympathetic performance works well and pretty much shows up the other leads. Elisha Cook Jr., Rhea Perlman and Harry Reems appear. When the jokes come, they truly feel out of sync and get rather stale with its repetitiveness of making fun of these cop clichés.

In all, the idiotic material laced with its skits comes across as disposable, and the unbearable script is basically inept and witless. Only one or two few gags make it out each segment, but really there's too many cheap stinkers or plain misses which stick in your head. This is because it virtually becomes what it's trying to poke fun at and this basically shows in each story. It loses sight. The performances range from hot to cold, but who can't deny the embarrassment that's felt on most of their faces. Director Bob Giraldi's first taste is a vapid one for ""Growing Yourself"" , but ""Success Wanters"" showed some minor flourishes of mild effectiveness. Henry Jaglom does a labouredly jaded job on ""Municipalians"" . Rick Meyerowitz's vividly crass drawings that opens the film, are neatly devised and go on to set the style and mood.

This low-brow comedy flunks it by overplaying it, with the main interested being derived by the familiar cameos. But really, is it worth going through this putridly lame and restless get-up, just to spot them. Well, that's up to you.",0 -"While there aren't any talking animals, big lavish song production numbers, or villians with half white / half black hair ... it does have 1 thing ... realistic people acting normally in a strange circumstance, and Walt & Roy did in their eras with the studio. If you thought think ""The Castaways"" or ""The Island At The Top Of The World"" weren't identical, or you hold them to a higher authority than Atlantis, then your idealism is just as whacked as keeping your kids up till midnight to watch a friggin' cartoon.",1 -"Although I love this movie, I can barely watch it, it is so real. So, I put it on tonight and hid behind my bank of computers. I remembered it vividly, but just wanted to see if I could find something I hadn't seen before........I didn't: that's because it's so real to me.

Another ""user"" wrote the ages of the commentators should be shown with their summary. I'm all for that ! It's absolutely obvious that most of these people who've made comments about ""Midnight Cowboy"" may not have been born when it was released. They are mentioning other movies Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman have appeared in, at a later time. I'll be just as ruinously frank: I am 82-years-old. If you're familiar with some of my other comments, you'll be aware that I was a professional female-impersonator for 60 of those years, and also have appeared in film - you'd never recognize me, even if you were familiar with my night-club persona. Do you think I know a lot about the characters in this film ? YOU BET I DO !!....

....and am not the least bit ashamed. If you haven't run-into some of them, it's your loss - but, there's a huge chance you have, but just didn't know it. So many moms, dads, sons and daughters could surprise you. It should be no secret MANY actors/actresses have emerged from the backgrounds of ""Midnight Cowboy"". Who is to judge ? I can name several, current BIG-TIME stars who were raised on the seedy streets of many cities, and weren't the least bit damaged by their time spent there. I make no judgment, because these are humans, just as we all are - love, courage, kindness, compassion, intelligence, humility: you name the attributes, they are all there, no matter what the package looks like.

The ""trivia"" about Hoffman actually begging on the streets to prove he could do the role of ""Ratzo"" is a gem - he can be seen driving his auto all around Los Angeles - how do you think he gets his input? I can also name lots of male-stars who have stood on the streets and cruised the bars for money. Although the nightclub I last worked in for 26 years was world-famous and legit, I can also name some HUGE stars that had to be constantly chased out our back-street, looking to make a pick-up.

This should be no surprise today, although it's definitely action in Hollywood and other cities, large and small. Wake-up and smell the roses. They smell no less sweet because they are of a different hue.

Some of the ""users"" thought ""Joe Buck"" had been molested by his grandma. Although I saw him in her bed with a boyfriend, I didn't find any incidence of that. Believe-it-or-not, kids haven't ALWAYS had their own rooms - because that is a must today should tell you something kinda kinky may be going-on in the master-bedroom. Whose business? Hoffman may have begged for change on the streets, but some of the ""users"" point-out that Jon Voight was not a major star for the filming of ""Midnight Cowboy"" - his actual salary would surprise you. I think he was robbed ! No one can doubt the clarity he put into his role, nor that it MADE him a star for such great work as ""Deliverance"". He defined a potent man who had conquered his devils and was the better for it: few people commented he had been sodomized in this movie. The end of the 60s may have been one of the first films to be so open, but society has always been hip.

I also did not find any homosexuality between ""Ratzo"" and ""Joe"" - they were clearly opposites, unappealing to one another. They found a much purely higher relationship - true friendship. If you didn't understand that at the end of the movie, then you've wasted your time. ""Joe's"" bewilderment, but unashamed devotion was apparent. Yes, Voight deserved an Oscar for this role - one that John Wayne could never pull-off, and he was as handsome in his youth.

Hoffman is Hoffman - you expect fireworks. He gave them superbly. Wayne got his Oscar. Every character in this film was beautifully defined - if you don't think they are still around, you are mistaken. ""The party"" ? - attend some of the ""raves"" younger people attend.....if you can get in. Look at the lines of people trying to get into the hot clubs - you'll see every outrageous personality.

Brenda Viccaro was the epitome of society's sleek women who have to get down to the nitty-gritty at times. If you were shocked by her brilliant acting, thinking ""this isn't real"", look at today's ""ladies"" who live on the brink of disrepute....and are admired for it.

The brutality ""Joe"" displayed in robbing the old guy, unfortunately, is also a part of life. You don't have to condone it, but it's not too much different than any violence. ""Joe"" pointedly named his purpose - in that situation, I'd have handed-over the money quicker than he asked for it. That's one of the scenes that makes this movie a break-through, one which I do not watch. I get heartbroken for both.....

John Schlesinger certainly must have been familiar with this sordidness to direct this chillingly beautiful eye-opener- Waldo Salt didn't write from clairvoyance. Anyone who had any part of getting it to the screen must have realized they were making history, and should be proud for the honesty of it. Perhaps ""only in America"" can we close our eyes to unpleasant situations, while other movie-makers make no compunction in presenting it to the public. Not looking doesn't mean it isn't there - give me the truth every time. Bravo! to all......",1 -"Once again Jet Li brings his charismatic presence to the movie screen in the film Black Mask. In this film Li plays Tsui, an escapee from a super soldier program who seeks to regain the humanity that the program had taken away from him. To do this Tsui decides to become a librarian in order to live a normal and peaceful life, but fate demands that he clean up problems from his past before he can continue to seek peace. Other members of the super soldier program had escaped at the same time as Tsui, but they want to get even with the world rather than find inner peace. Thus Tsui becomes the only thing that can prevent his former team mates from releasing information that could cost many innocent people their lives. This film screams across the screen at a frantic pace and never lets its audience go. The martial arts is amazing, but because it uses wires it may not be appreciated as much as it deserves by American audiences. If you like action movies that have an interesting story and demand good acting performances because they deal with psychological as well as physical conflicts, then Black Mask is for you. I am glad to see that some of Jet Li's movies are finally getting main stream release in the United States and look forward to seeing how the changes that that release will require (things like dubbing and soundtrack) will affect the film. This is one of Li's best films, go out and see it on May 14 when it is released in America.",1 -"Love this little film, that reminds me somewhat of the original Japanese gem, SHALL WE DANCE? (not the overblown Gere/Jlo remake...) Luckily I found it and taped it when it was showing on a STARZ Promo Weekend, because as far as I know, it's not available on DVD. I'll watch just about anything with Yancy Butler (anyone remember the short-lived TV series MANN AND MACHINE ???) in it, and she positively shines in this. She does a dance routine to a disco song that is verrrryyyyyy HOT!! Loved all the other characters in it, especially the ones played by Patrick Stewart and Leslie Caron (where's she been all these years?). This is one of those films that I take out from time to time and always come away smiling after watching it. Recommended highly!!!",1 -"This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.

Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)

Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally.",1 -"Jack Higgins' straightforward thriller about a guilt-ridden IRA bomber forced into ""one last job"" (where have I heard that plot before?) gets a snarky treatment from cult director Mike Hodges. Mickey Rourke, with alarming red hair, confesses all to the priest (Bob Hoskins, of all people) who accidentally witnessed the shooting. The rules of the church keep Father Bob from talking, but then Rourke goes and falls in love with the priest's blind niece. They bond at the church organ. What? Really, that's the plot. Alan Bates is around as the top dog mobster who's calling the shots (literally) and he seems to be the only actor who's on to the jokey tone Hodges is aiming at. Bates is all set to do a sort of U.K. PRIZZI'S HONOR, but no one else, including an effortlessly charismatic Liam Neeson in a supporting role, has been informed.",0 -"I saw 'Descent' last night at the Stockholm Film Festival and it was one huge disappointment. Disappointment because the storyline was potentially powerful, the prospect of seeing Rosario Dawson in a smaller intimate movie was exciting and, being a fan (sounds pervy, I'm not!) of 'rape/revenge' flicks of the 70's, I was needless to say very curious to check this movie out. My conclusion: let's stick to the classics! Yes, the storyline has potential but the dialogs are flat, the actors unconvincing. Even Dawson is empty. Some would say that it's a right depiction of the college world in the US, that the emptiness of the characters serve a purpose and all that jazz but it just makes the whole movie unsubstantial. Just like the scene where Dawson gets raped: it seriously lacks intensity! I wasn't expecting anything 'Irreversible'-style but still, aren't we suppose to feel compassion for her? I didn't. Not for a minute, she was so lame all the way ;-) And I read that the photography was impressive. Well, it is good indeed but nothing ground-breaking either. I must admit that the screening at the festival wasn't so good so maybe I missed out something here but at the end of the movie, I couldn't help thinking 'I feel like watching Argento's 'Inferno' again. lol. More seriously, the first scene in the club is beautifully shot and all but I had the bitter sensation of watching a longer and more boring version of the scene in the filthy bar near the American-Canadian border in Lynch's 'Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me'... the crude red and blue lighting, the heavy bass music, the general lascivious/decadent atmosphere... No, I just couldn't get into this movie. Too bad.",0 -"I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!!",1 -"Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.

It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.

The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.

Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.

Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in ""The Lady Vanishes."" She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.

George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.

It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable.",1 -"Back when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger were a mercurial, hot-tempered, high-powered Hollywood couple they filmed this (nearly) scene-for-scene remake of the 1972 Steve McQueen-Ali MacGraw action-thriller about a fugitive twosome. It almost worked the first time because McQueen was such a vital presence on the screen--even stone silent and weary, you could sense his clock ticking, his cagey magnetism. Baldwin is not in Steve McQueen's league, but he has his charms and is probably a more versatile actor--if so, this is not a showcase for his attributes. Basinger does well and certainly looks good, but James Woods is artificially hammy in a silly mob-magnet role. A sub-plot involving another couple taken hostage by Baldwin's ex-partner was unbearable in the '72 film and plays even worse here. As for the action scenes, they're pretty old hat, which causes one to wonder: why even remake the original? ** from ****",0 -"What really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.

The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.",0 -"I must be honest, I like romantic comedies, but this was not what I had hoped for. I thought Ellen Degeneres was having the biggest part, which should have been, because I didn't like the two struggling bed partners. It was awful. Poor Tom Selleck!! He had to act with someone who was that much in the picture while it should have been him and Ellen to be in most of the film. They were the only believable ones. And the only really funny parts starred them, not Kate Capshaw and that Everett guy.. Cool that mummy is coming out of the closet, I thought that was a nice surprise.

I'm just glad I saw it on the cable and I didn't pay any money renting it..",0 -"I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.

I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.

Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.

Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.

If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.

As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.",0 -"I saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis… but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this",0 -"Last weekend I bought this 'zombie movie' from the bargain bin and watched it with some friends thinking it was going to be a budget version of ""Land of the Dead"".

Boy, was I wrong.

It seems as if they spent a good portion of their budget on the cover-art, which is very misleading to fans of the zombie genre.

We watched up to the point where the zombie chicks come alive and get in the car with some yuppie who is out in the middle of nowhere talking business on a cell-phone. They actually speak to the guy before one of the girls kills him; but once they started driving the car, I couldn't suspend my disbelief anymore.

Some people actually consider this a ""so bad, it's good"" movie, they are liars. I didn't finish the movie, but one of the other reviews mention that they actually somehow become police officers at the end of the movie, which makes me glad to not have watched it all the way through.

This is even worse than ""Zombiez"" DO NOT WATCH!",0 -"This gem for gore lovers is extremely underrated. It's pure delight and fun! Gratuitous servings of blood, insanity and black humor, which can please even the most demanding lover of the genre. A full exploitation of the almost universal fear of dentists and flawlessly shot. Only for the connoisseurs.",1 -"This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.",0 -"You loose 100 IQ points just for tuning in. This show has to be awful, I refuse to tune in from just what I've seen in commercials. Where did they dig this guy up at anyway? Also, what do they intend to do next season? The secret is out. Everyone already knows the set up? Are they going to look for people who has been living under a rock to star in next season? Where are they going to dig up more stupid women? No wonder America is a big joke to outsider's,look what you are watching!!",0 -"ANCHORS AWEIGH is an entertaining MGM musical that fans of the genre will enjoy but I wouldn't rate it up there with classics like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE BAND WAGON. This was the first of three musicals that Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra appeared in together. Kelly and Sinatra play Joe Brady and Clarence Doolittle, two sailors on leave in Hollywood who befriend a young boy (Dean Stockwell)who introduces them to his attractive young aunt (Kathryn Grayson) a struggling actress who is working as an extra at MGM. Though both guys are initially attracted to Grayson, she eventually voices a preference to Joe but Clarence later hooks up with a waitress (Pamela Britton)who, he learns is from his hometown of Brooklyn. The paper-thin plot leaves room for several great musical numbers including ""We Hate to Leave"", Joe and Clarence's lament to their fellow sailors as they're leaving the ship; Grayson's torrid rendition of ""Jalousie""; Sinatra's dreamy rendition of ""I Fall in Love Too Easily"" (a number which is sadly deleted from some prints of this film), and ""The Worry Song"", a fantasy dance that Kelly does with animated Jerry the Mouse from Tom and Jerry fame. Kelly also does a sort of Kissing Bandit fantasy ballet which rivals his Pirate's Ballet in the later THE PIRATE. Kelly is in peak form here, in a robust and energetic performance that earned him his only Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Sinatra's endearingly shy character here is undeniably sexy. An entertaining diversion for fans of the MGM musical factory.",1 -"I disagree with previous comment about this movie. I think it was cute and fun and it carried a good message for young girls like my daughter. You don't have to dress like a cheap hooker to be cool. You can be smart and pretty and classy all at once.

I think the cast was good and the story was fine for the target audience. All-in-all my wife, daughter (10) and I each thought it was a good movie. I certainly recommend it. It also has encouraged my daughter to start reading the original Nancy Drew mysteries which I am sure she will love much as I loved the Hardy Boys.

It was a struggle to get her to sleep tonight because she wanted to start reading right away. I can't think of a better outcome for that movie than rekindling interest in that classic series.",1 -"As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.

The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters – all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people – rather than of good and bad people – something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies – Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault – who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. ""It's a wedding, not a celebration!"" is just one of their many timeless ""pearls of wisdom"" which seems to follow one through life :-).

20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television – and apparently not with a great deal of money – in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors – many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show – this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film.",1 -"This opens with the company credits informing us it`s by World International Network . I knew I`d seen this company credit before but couldn`t remember where , but knew it was at the start of a really bad movie I`d seen so I seriously thought about changing channels , only thing was I`d seen every film on the other channels which is one of the problems of being an IMDB reviewer . What the hell I thought it won`t really matter if WANTED is good or bad because I`ll still be able to review it for this site.

As I expected WANTED wasn`t all that good . It`s a plot I`d seen so many times ( Too many times ) before involving a fugitive on the run , a bit like THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series without the shirt ripping . Jimmy crosses the mob in an entirely contrived way and goes on the run and in an entirely contrived manner finds himself working at a catholic reform school . Have you noticed an oft used description in the last sentence ? "" Entirely contrived "" is the answer . Let me repeat for the hard of thinking that this is an entirely contrived film where everything relies on coincidence . Another problem I had was the reform school run by the church - it`s far too compassionate and kind , I`m led to believe these type of establishments make Alcatraz look like a country club , I`m saying this is a fact but when the head priest looks like the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld you do feel there`s a large amount of sugar coating going on .

To be honest despite the ridiculous plot twists etc WANTED isn`t really a bad thriller though it`s a terribly good one either . I never really had the urge to switch it off no matter how contrived it became which is an under hand compliment to the movie",0 -"No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: ""I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair""....""I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!""....""These people are 'animals'!"" ""These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing ""Mama Said"". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.",0 -"One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).

The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).

The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).

The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.

This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.

Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned!",1 -"""Life stinks"" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.

There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.

If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.

This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich.

The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.

Yes indeed, Life Stinks.",1 -"this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.

i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.

if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.",0 -"I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10",0 -"Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching.

The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.",1 -"This movie had very little good points, the special effects and acting was horrible for sure. But it was a movie made on a low budget so you dont expect much from it, it does have some laughs (I doubt they are intended though :) ). The scene where the old woman bends down and touches dung that was on the floor, then puts it to her nose and goes CHUPACABRA! in a really stupid raspy voice was priceless. All in all if you have nothing else to watch and just want to laugh at a really crappy flick trying to cash in on the Blair Witch Project's success, then grab it other then that dont bother.",0 -"Wales seems to be turning out some quirky movies recently. Actually, Wales seems to be developing its own little film industry. I recently saw Very Annie Mary, which I thought was very good. But Plots with a View is not only quirky, it's laugh out loud funny, has a cast of wonderfully talented actors (Brenda Blethyn is amazing), and a plot that, while not entirely original, is so cleverly written that one is always gleefully picking up what might almost be throwaway lines. It was the kind of movie that I wanted to watch again immediately it was over, and one of very few that I would actually like to own. Even though many of the characters are caricatures, and you have to have been to a Welsh village to appreciate that, they are also very human, and the rapport between Blethyn and Molina is a joy to behold.",1 -"The proverb ""Never judge a book by it's cover"", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface.

As I viewed the artwork to,""King of the Ants"" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.

""King of the Ants"" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!

Now there are a couple of interesting ""hallucination"" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!",0 -"Peter Sellers plays Dick Scratcher (ha,ha), a cook for a pirate ship who takes over as captain after he murders the previous one. Although he's witnessed a treasure being buried, he begins losing his memory and the treasure map he obtains becomes blank. Thus, Dick is forced to find someone who can see and communicate with ghosts (do you place an ad for that?) and help lead a path to the treasure. It's mind boggling how anyone could have bankrolled this pointless film. Former Goon Spike Milligan replaced Medak as director, and given Medak's talents in the film The Ruling Class, you can probably guess which of the grainy, poorly lit scenes had Milligan in the director's chair. Peter Boyle makes a brief appearance in the film's first 10 minutes as the doomed pirate captain. He's probably quite thankful that Young Frankenstein was released the same year this was filmed and canned, so that he can keep this off his resume. Franciosa looks dashing as the handsome power-behind-Scratcher but he and Seller both look pretty desperate, with even Sellers' makeup and hair looking quite terrible. They had to know this movie was bombing even as they were filming it. With lines like these, I can understand any possible unease:

PIERRE: (about to be hanged) You'll pay for this.

SCRATCHER: No, I won't. I'll do it for free.

And that's one of the GOOD jokes. It's amazing to me that much of Sellers prolific material is still in the vaults, but this was made available on VHS more than 15 years ago! How about someone stepping up to the plate and releasing in the US the well-received British TV program ""A Show Called Fred"" starring Sellers, Milligan, and directed by the great Richard Lester?",0 -"Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.

This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound.",1 -"Obviously written for the stage. Lightweight but worthwhile. How can you go wrong with Ralph Richardson, Olivier and Merle Oberon.",1 -"Watching ""Ossessione"" today -- more than 6 decades later -- is still a powerful experience, especially for those interested in movie history and more specifically on how Italian filmmakers changed movies forever (roughly from ""Ossessione"" and De Sica's ""I Bambini Ci Guardano"", both 1943, up to 20 years later with Fellini, Antonioni, Pasolini). Visconti makes an amazing directing début, taking the (uncredited) plot of ""The Postman Always Rings Twice"" as a guide to the development of his own themes.

It strikes us even today how ahead of its time ""Ossessione"" was. Shot in Fascist Italy during World War II (think about it!!), it depicted scenes and themes that caused the film to be immediately banned from theaters -- and the fact that it used the plot of a famous American novel and payed no copyright didn't help.

""Ossessione"" alarmingly reveals poverty-ridden war-time Italy (far from the idealized Italy depicted in Fascist ""Telefoni Bianchi"" movies); but it's also extremely daring in its sexual frankness, with shirtless hunk Gino (Massimo Girotti, who definitely precedes Brando's Kowalski in ""A Streetcar Named Desire"") taking Giovanna (Clara Calamai), a married woman, to bed just 5 minutes after they first meet. We watch Calamai's unglamorous, matter-of-fact undressing and the subtle but undeniable homosexual hints between Gino and Lo Spagnolo (Elio Marcuzzo - a very appealing actor, his face not unlike Pierre Clémenti's, who was shot by the Nazis in 1945, at 28 years old!)...In a few words: sex, lust, greed and poverty, as relentlessly as it had rarely, if ever, been shown before in Italian cinema.

All the copies of ""Ossessione"" were destroyed soon after its opening -- it was called scandalous and immoral. Visconti managed to save a print, and when the film was re-released after the war, most critics called it the front-runner of the Neo-Realist movement, preceding Rossellini's ""Roma CIttà Aperta"" and De Sica's ""Sciuscià"". Some other critics, perhaps more appropriately, saw ""Ossessione"" as the Italian counterpart to the ""poetic realism"" of French cinema (remember Visconti had been Renoir's assistant), especially Marcel Carné's ""Quai des Brumes"" and ""Le Jour se Lève"", and Julien Duvivier's ""Pépé le Moko"".

While ""Ossessione"" may be Neo-Realistic in its visual language (the depiction of war-time paesan life in Italy with its popular fairs, poverty, child labor, prostitution, bums, swindlers etc), the characters and the themes were already decidedly Viscontian. He was always more interested in tragic, passionate, obsessive, greedy characters, in social/political/sexual apartheid, in the decadence of the elites than in realistic, ""everyday- life"" characters and themes, favored by DeSica and Rossellini. In ""Ossessione"" we already find elements of drama and tragedy later developed in many of his films, especially ""Senso"" (Visconti's definitive departure from Neo-Realist aesthetics) and ""Rocco e Suoi Fratelli""...Even in his most ""Neo-Realist"" film, ""La Terra Trema"", he makes his fishermen rise from day-to-day characters to mythological figures.

""Ossessione"" is a good opportunity to confirm the theory about great artists whose body of work approaches, analyzes and develops specific themes and concerns over and over again, from their first to their last opus, no matter if the scenery, background or time-setting may change -- Visconti may play with the frame but the themes and essence of his art are, well, obsessively recurrent. ""Ossessione"" is not to be missed: you'll surely be fascinated by this ground-breaking, powerful film.",1 -"In Bollywood it isn't rare that worthless films become hits, good films flopping and good actors not making it big

AKS is such a movie

Himesh after a music director and singer tried acting Hell man, just because his songs became a hit that means next he becomes an actor

The producers were sure the film will work perhaps, the songs were a hit too and of course Himesh did his cheap publicity as usual

The film tells such a poor story, such poor direction, such poor acting it makes you cringe

Indian rickshaws in Germany, Stunts by Himesh and lot of stupidity Himesh's cap is intact even when he is in the car which somersaults

Direction is poor Music is saving grace though most songs sound the same

Himesh tries hard but sadly his emotive scenes are a joke, lacks expressions, he is best suited for his music director and some singing He cuts a sorry picture Hansika is awful Malika is okay Sachin Khedekar is okay, Darshan Jhariwala hams",0 -"I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in ""Black Widow"" -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.

Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier.",0 -"Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.

When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.

While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.

Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.",0 -"Generally, I am not a huge fan of stop-motion films and at first RUKA didn't capture my attention. However, knowing that this film was made in the repressive Czechoslovakia during the Soviet-domination era, the more I watched the film, the more I realized just how subversive this innocent looking little film was. This subtext really made the film come to life and gives it real staying power as both a work of art and a political statement.

The sad little film is done without any dialog, but it's pretty clear what is happening. A cute little wooden man is making a clay pot and having a lovely time when suddenly a meddling animated hand appears and destroys the pot--making it into a sculpture of a hand instead. Well, the wooden man tries again and again to chase away the hand and do his own thing. However, over time the hand becomes more and more insistent and eventually cages the man. And, by the end, the man is dead thanks to the meddling hand and the hand, in a sign of real hypocrisy, gives the man a hero's funeral!

As I said, this film is an obvious attempt by the brave Jirí Trnka to criticize his domineering government. Not surprisingly, though Czechs loved the film and gave it critical praise, the state (i.e., the hand) banned this little parable. Sadly, Trnka did not live to see his nation liberated a little more than two decades later during the co-called ""Velvet Revolution"".",1 -"I first saw this film two years ago in the cinema, and fell in love with this dark tale of two brooding teenage sisters coping at home in their large country house with their father and step-mother. Their relationship with their step-mother is strained to say the least, with the step-mother appearing to be increasingly becoming unstable in her battles with the younger girls. The film though slants with Oriental style ghost effects and horror, which adds a strange and unsettling aspect to the story that on first viewing is not clear, but is all the more intriguing.

The direction is incredibly good, and the acting is stunning, with the step-mother in particular incredibly good swinging from one mood style to another in the film. The large house adds eeriness, and there are enough points in the film where you will jump out of your seat. This film to me clearly shows why Korean cinema is possibly the best most original in the world at the moment. You simply don't get anything like this in the Western World, sadly,and really i can see it being influential on film makers around the world in the next decade.

Highly recommended viewing in my opinion, a real joy and scare...",1 -"An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________",1 -"I don't know what it was about this film that made me react so viscerally against it. Perhaps it was the characters who so unlikable and were not compelling enough to care about. Perhaps it was the disorganized storyline. Perhaps it was the fact that Rob Lowe wore a long dangly earring and eyeliner. Perhaps it was because at some point in the movie they all break out in song. Perhaps it was because the 1980s were never that 80s. Perhaps it was because everything was a garish hyperbole. Perhaps it was because a character pumps his fist while driving away from the camera during a fade out. I don't know what it was that made me hate it so, but if it means trying to watch it again I'm not willing to find out.",0 -"A great suspense movie with terrific slow camera-work adding to the dramatics makes this a treat to watch and enjoy. Director-writer Brian de Palma does a super Hitchcock-imitation (many called it a ""ripoff"") with this film and the 2.35:1 widescreen DVD is a must to fully appreciate the camera-work (and several scenes with people hiding on each side which are lost on formatted-for-TV tapes).

The downside of the movie, at least to anyone that has some kind of moral standard, is the general sleaziness of all the characters, including the policeman played by a pre-NYPD Dennis Franz (who has hair here!).

The opening scene is still shocking with a fairly long shower scene of Angie Dickinson that is quite explicit, even 25 years after its release. The film has several erotic scenes in it as Dickinson (if that is really her on the closeups) and Nancy Allen are not shy about showing their bodies.

There is not much dialog in the first 20 minutes and no bad language until Franz enters the picture after the murder. The first 36 minutes are riveting and even though it's apparent who the killer is, it's still very good suspense and fun to watch all the way through, particularly for males ogling the naked women.",1 -"First of all, write the script on a napkin. Who needs more than that? After all we're not a Hollywood film.

Then get amateur actors. It will be good for the festival hype. After all, who needs people who have spent years honing their craft? Then, hire a cinematographer who doesn't know how to light. You see, if it's well-lit, it won't look ""real"" and the festival people won't like it. Who needs to have professional level photography anyway? Then hire a ten-year old who has never held a camera to be your operator. It will give your movie that completely amateurish touch that festival screeners will mistake for ""reality"" and guarantee that even though you will empty the seats from real people, critics and a small sliver of the audience who over-intellectualize will scream ""genius"" because they won't believe this was just complete amateur-hour.

Once you've done that, buy your ticket to the Festival of Bad Movies aka Sundance.

What a sad waste.",0 -"Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.

The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's ""messed up"" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than ""breathless"" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.

To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me.",1 -"A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.

Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.

I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.

Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)

Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at ""The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out ""Tunes of Glory"" for something worth making, that has something to say.

Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid.",0 -"This movie is a sleeper - I've watched every miniseries that was ever on TV, some many times, and this one is the best. Wonderfully cast, superbly acted, and the characters are well-developed. Helen Morse perfectly fits the part of Jean Paget - strident, in control, sharp, and a bit belligerent. She bounces well off of Joe Harmon, the cowboy/taciturn/""It'll be okay"" sort of guy. I was sorry that the movie didn't stick to the book, in that there was no romantic interest between Noel Struan and Jean Paget. For those who don't know, this is taken from a true story about English women marched around Malaya for 3 years by the Japanese, who indeed did not know what to do with them. Very few of them survived. Neville Shute talked to one of them, and this is her story. This movie deserves to be in everyone's collection who loves WWII stories.",1 -"Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says ""...I will pray"".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: ""My home is not a place.It is people""The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as ""someone"" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the ""poor"" and the ""hopeless"" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )",0 -"Though a fan of shock and gore, I found this movie disappointing to say the very least. The effects and puppet work were impressive, yes, and the humor was well-timed, but... something was missing. See, the first act of the film is spent establishing nuances of Jack Brooks' character, despite the fact that everything we need to know about his aggression is delivered within minutes of the first title cards. As for the narration and many of the flashbacks: needless.

The pacing during the second act was tedious. Most of it is focused on Freddy Krueger eating, then vomiting, then eating some more, then flailing his arms and saying something snappy or rude. All the while, the schlock is punctuated with brief scenes of Jack discussing his rage problems with a therapist. (Definitely the entertaining scenes in the film -- excellent dialog worth plenty of laughs.) Then, without warning, Jack decides to kill a few monsters. And then it's over.

All in all, as a throwback to 1980s horror movies, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer has loads of potential but is purposeless and plods on without conflict or adequate resolution.

Hopefully, these issues will be addressed before Jack Brooks VII: Jack Goes to Hell or Jack vs. Ash go into production.",0 -"The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?

I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???

I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3.

Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor.",0 -For a first film in a proposed series it achieves the right balance. It is done with style and class showing Modesty's early days as a refugee and the start of her rise to power in the criminal world. I think it is a very honest/true portrayal of her character exactly as the writer Peter O'Donnell intended. Alexandra Staden as Modesty is stunningly beautiful and an excellent choice. She acts very convincingly as the tough survivor with an exterior of cool/intelligent/innocence. And full marks to Tarantino for choosing an unknown actress for the role - much more believeable to have a new face creating the part. I'm looking forward to the next film.,1 -"I just found the entire 3 DVD set at Wal-Mart in the bargain bin for $5.50, so I thought I would take another look. Total of 13 hours to watch it all (26 episodes). I was born in 1948 and saw most of them on TV in the sixties. Many independent stations repeated them for many years.

Better than I expected actually, time has been kind to the obvious sincerity of it's creators, and to the obvious gratitude and respect they give to all the Allied fighting men and women. More abstract and arty than a straight forward documentary, but very truthful in it's depiction of the causes and final results of WWII. That war was greatly dependent on sea transportation, and the final victory was dependent on who achieved the final mastery of the world's oceans. The Allies were the ones who were able to do it.

Interesting too, to see how they try to strike a balance between big events, and the individual soldiers and sailors that made them happen. The score is impressive, if a bit too much by today's standards. I read somewhere that Robert Russell Bennett contributed just as much as Richard Rodgers to final score. I imagine that Rodgers provided all the major themes, and it was up to Bennett to fit them to the images. Great job!

Should be seen by every ruler, or potential ruler. A warning to tyrants that wars are eventually won by ideals, determination, and the supplies to back them up. Logistics: their quality and delivery will determine the eventual victors. The Allies outproduced and surpassed the material quality of the Axis, attacked their very source in the process, and insured their eventual defeat.

Sorry to see that the producer, Henry Salomon, lived a very short life. IMDb's facts were rather skimpy, I have to find out more about him. He did a few more outstanding documentaries before his early death. Might have more to say at a later time

Trivia: I had all 3 LP records made of the background music, pretty good overall. Unfortunately, the producers decided to add sound effects to the last one, relegating immediately to just novelty status, rather than for serious music listening. Too bad too, because it contained some interesting but more minor themes in the series. Silly stuff like 16 inch guns firing, torpedoes being fired, bulldozers, planes...just for kids mainly.

RSGRE",1 -"Just as ""ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD"" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen ""SAVING SILVERMAN"") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.

Rating: 1/2* out of *****",0 -"Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. ""Fires on the Plain"" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as ""monkey meat."" The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima?",1 -"This movie had the biggest advertising campaign any movie ever had in Russia. ""Epic movie about Russian culture"", ""Great saga of Russian spirit"", endless articles and interviews. For me this movie was the biggest disappointment. The main character played by Oleg Menshikov is a stupid immature boy ready to set up his comrades because of a woman who doesn't even look like a lady. What is there to admire? In the first part of the movie the story doesn't develop at all. People's festival scenes look like boasting about Russian audacity.

I respect Mr. Mikhalkov for his previous works both as actor and director, but this movie just demonstrates his ambitions to be considered the ""Tzar"" of Russian cinema.",0 -"After his classic film noir homage Chinatown Roman Polanski returned to the themes that had given him his greatest hits in the 60s with this creepy psychological horror which, like Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, deals with the paranoia and claustrophobia generated by apartment living.

Claustrophobic environments are the ones which Polanski is best at creating, and this has to be the most suffocating and confined picture he ever created. The emphasis on side walls and distant vanishing points is greater than ever, and even in the small number of exterior scenes the sky is rarely glimpsed. But The Tenant is not just confined spatially, but also in the intensity with which it focuses on its protagonist. Trelkovsky, played by Polanski himself is not only in every scene, he is in virtually every shot. When he is not on screen more often than not the camera becomes Trelkovsky's point of view. And of course almost everywhere he looks he sees his own reflection staring back at him in a mirror.

I can't think of any film that is more about the internalisation and solitude of one character. Some psychological thrillers, like M or Peeping Tom, manipulate us into feeling sorry for the mentally ill protagonist. Others, like Psycho, attempt in-depth scientific analysis of his mental condition. The Tenant fits into neither of these categories – it simply immerses us completely inside Trelkovsky's experience without demanding we actually understand or appreciate what is going on inside his head. We feel his paranoia and obsession even though it is constantly revealed to us that they are irrational.

Polanski was also a master of the slowly unfolding horror film. Often in his horrors there is an ambiguity as to whether there is actually anything sinister going on, but they are among the most effective at frightening audiences. Why? Precisely because they unfold so slowly and invest so much time in painstakingly setting up situations that they immerse the viewer in paranoia. A much later Polanski horror, The Ninth Gate is a bit of a mess plot-wise but at least it still manages to achieve that creeping sense of dread.

This is a rare chance to see Polanski himself in a major role. His talent in front of the camera was as good as behind it, and he is absolutely perfect as the meek Trelkovsky. Another standout performance is that of the all-too-often overlooked Shelley Winters as the concierge. In actual fact it is rather a stellar cast, although many of the familiar faces look out of place in this strange, Gothic European movie. Also sadly many of the French actors in supporting roles are atrociously dubbed in the English language version.

The Tenant is more polished and less pretentious than Repulsion, but it lacks the suspense and the character that make Rosemary's Baby so engrossing and entertaining. The Tenant is good, with no major flaws, and Polanski was really on top form as a director, but it's not among his most gripping works.",1 -"I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.

The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like ""I Am Trying To Break Your Heart"", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.

Both bands in the start of their careers promised to ""make a revolution"" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of ""record industry"". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.

First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.

First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.

Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.

Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: ""... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?"" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.

Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know...",1 -"If you are a fan of early Duke movies, this Lone Star oldie is a good one. What more could you ask for than Duke, Yak, and Gabby. Lots of good ridin' and shootin'!!! I found it amazing that Duke's singing voice was Bill Bradbury, who is none other than Bob Steele's twin brother. It has been reported that Bob Steele was a high school classmate and friend of Duke, so twin brother Bill may have been too. Anyway, if you like good, clean, early western movies don't miss this one. We don't have to wonder about hidden meanings or try to figure out underlying themes. Just sit back, relax and enjoy a western movie from a simpler day and time. It's called entertainment folks!!!",1 -"...""Inglorious"" as our local theater decided to display its title on their marquee, minus the second word. It is terrific cinema.

I don't hesitate to recommend this film to all but the over-squeamish. Let them never know what they're missing.

I did hesitate to give it ten stars because of my experience of Tarantino's previous films. In every case, save ""Reservoir Dogs,"" they have improved with additional watching.

So although I gave it ten stars, I did so reluctantly. It leaves me no ""up"" to go to.

Yes Christoph Waltz is the Nazi we've all imagined the worst to be. He is cultured, sophisticated, suave and most sadistic, the kind of man who can make a glass of milk a threat and who puts out his cigarette abruptly in a strudel, grinding it into the whipped cream as if he were grinding his heel into a victim.

To understand Tarantino's films, you need only have a sense of dialogue, color and pacing. The colors are as bright as necessary and when necessary, brighter yet. In the French farmhouse of the opening scene, they are muted and dark, but excessively so. Outside a brilliant sun is shining, but in the one room of the house, everything is bathed in shadows and black.

It is a brilliant setting for an interrogation by Waltz, as the ""Jew Hunter"" of the SS, who dangles his host French farmer over the precipice of revealing what he cannot reveal numerous times, then pulls him back with obsequious lines of friendship and understanding.

A second sadistic German, well-played by August Diehl, later functions as important actor in the final plot twist. Diehl's Nazi Major, who has an ear for German accents, is almost as good as Waltz....almost.

Film classes will study much from this movie. They should look lovingly at the superb pacing. Tarantino knows just how long to draw out a scene, building suspense in the manner of Hitchcock, then at just the breaking point, suddenly coming to a resolution.

For color, look for a final shot at a French Theater, where its secretly Jewish proprietor is staging a surprise for the upper reaches of Nazi leadership.

We see her, played by Melanie Laurent, awaiting the hated German dignataries who will arrive for a film preview of the latest Deutsch film masterpiece, a propaganda piece about a German hero and his dubious accomplishments.

Laurent is framed on a balcony, reflected in the glass mirrors of the gorgeous theater, her red lips and low cut dress reflecting everywhere the intensity of her designs on her guests. It is a single shot that would be worth an entire film.

There are thankfully many more such images, many more paced scenes of exquisite dialog and suspense.

In short, see it. I'm sure you'll see it again and again.",1 -"In my life I have seen many great and awful movies. I am not an expert in professional reviews, but I have definitely something to say about this one. Firstly, these actors are the worst I have seen... Their acting is so unreal that you even want to throw away the DVD in the first 2 minutes. I think that these actors were not interested in the quality.

Another awful thing is about these dialogs - they are so lame. You sometimes feel uncomfortable when you hear them. It seems that your 14 year old son could act better. I feel that this movie had a budget similar to the cost of my 14 year old European car...

Please, if my message reaches you - save your time and money.",0 -"Unlike endemol USA's two other current game shows (Deal Or No Deal and 1 vs. 100), the pacing in this show is way too slow for what is happening on the screen.

DOND and 1 vs. 100 can get away with slow pacing because the games can change pace--or end--at any moment. There is risk involved in every action the player takes, the rewards are wildly variable, and it is difficult for the players to leave with a significant amount of money. Suspense is usually put to good use.

Show Me The Money, on the other hand, is just too slow-paced. When a question is revealed and it is obvious that the player knows the correct answer, you can rest assured that absolutely nothing exciting will happen in the next few minutes. It would greatly help the pace of this show to reveal the correct answer FIRST, and THEN have the player select a dancer, instead of Shat wasting time talking about what will happen if the player gets an answer wrong when we all know they're right. The random dancing is filler that actually feels like filler. Too much time is wasted while not enough is happening... and the fact that players cannot choose to quit the game early guarantees that there WILL be a lot of time wasted.

Oh, and I have NO interest in watching Shat shake his groove thang, especially right after I've eaten dinner.

I am a lifelong game show fan, but even I had a lot of trouble sitting through an hour of this. It either needs major changes or early retirement.",0 -"He glorified himself as a great supporting actor in `Glory', he proved he was no `Malcolm in the Middle' mediocre actor in `Malcolm X', he showed his brotherly love for acting in `Philadelphia', he pulled a slam dunk in `He Got Game', he pulled no punches and rocked us like a hurricane in `The Hurricane', he provided us effective thespian education in `Training Day', and now he has demonstrated that he could also direct! Denzel Washington's directorial debut `Antwone Fisher' is the most moving film of the year. This tearjerker `fish'er story is in no relation to the debacle that happened to the Miami Dolphins in the 4th quarter against the New England Patriots in the last game of the 2002 season. Unlike that Dolphin tragedy, `Antwone Fisher' possesses an emotional joyous conclusion. The movie is based on a true story about a young naval officer who has an anger management problem due to the abhorrent he suffered as a foster child. Denzel plays the naval psychologist who helps Antwone overcome his rage and convinces him to find his natural mother. Derek Luke's debut performance as Antwone is the best admirable acting I have seen by a novice actor in some time now. I actually saw some of the detailed eccentricities in Luke's acting as I have seen in Washington's past performances. It was like if Washington was telling Luke- ` la la la Luke I am your acting father'. Ok! I will lay off the Star Wars jokes before my readers send me to a galaxy far far away. Speaking of the great Denzel, his work as the psychologist was masterful. But what can you expect from the acting `Master D' himself. `Antwone Fisher' was written by no other than Antwone Fisher himself. The emotional pathos he inserted in his storylife's screenplay was of `fisher king' material. I hail to the chief `Mr. Washington' in catching the right bait in `Antwone Fisher'. ***** Excellent",1 -"Solomon and Sheba has come down in Hollywood lore not for the quality of the film, but for the fact that Tyrone Power died while making it. I was in the 5th grade and well remember the huge news for days when that tragedy happened. I didn't know who Tyrone Power was then, but I learned and learned to appreciate the body of his work.

I often wonder if Ty had a sense about this film and what a dud it proved. He was the unnamed producer of this as well. Maybe he just didn't want to face the critics. Good thing Power actually went out with Witness for the Prosecution although you can see him in long shots if you look close.

What we have here is a biblical stew that probably would baffle the great Solomon himself. Several incidents described in the Bible that the Bible treats separately are woven together into one plot with a few additions tossed in by Hollywood.

The actual story about the Queen of Sheba is that she went on a trade mission to the Kingdom of Israel, chatted Solomon up a bit, came back with a lot of trade goods and that was that. The story of a romance between her and Solomon is of legend. The ancient kingdom of Sheba is about where Yemen is now and her people purportedly moved to the African continent which is how Ethiopia was founded.

The Queen never witnessed Solomon's famous case involving the two women with separate claims for a baby, nor was she involved with the building of the First Temple. Nor was she around for the destruction of same. For that matter neither was Solomon.

And she was not involved in the dispute over the succession when Solomon's brother Adonijah put in a counterclaim. That is the heart of this film. Adonijah upon hearing the news that King David is dying declares himself king. Of course David rallies temporarily and says that God came to him and said Solomon should succeed him. When David hears about what Adonijah did, he says that's what got God all bent out of shape, Adonijah being greedy. After that Adonijah gets to plotting.

Things seem to come full circle in that Ty Power collapsed on the set while dueling with George Sanders as Adonijah. Sanders and Power were rivals in many films, most particularly in Lloyds of London which was Power's breakthrough role. If Sanders is not quite the jaded sophisticate he was in Samson and Delilah, he's still Sanders the biblical cad.

When Power died Yul Brynner was brought in to play Solomon and given a wig so that existing footage of Power in long shot could be salvaged. Brynner invests the dialog with the proper dignity, but I think he probably regretted doing the pinch hitting.

Gina Lollobrigida is the Queen of Sheba and she is alluring as a biblical temptress in the Cecil B. DeMille tradition. She seems not to have any real conviction and my guess is she was shocked at Power's sudden demise and having to do it all over again. Marisa Pavan as Abishag may give the best performance in the film.

The real story with Adonijah is not as elaborate as this film. He disputed with Solomon for the succession and gathered around a group of some of King David's court as supporters. Solomon pardoned them once and then Adonijah asked for Abishag in marriage. Abishag in the Bible and here was an adopted daughter of King David in his old age. When Solomon hears that, he decides Adonijah is getting greedy again and has him killed. The Bible mentions someone named Berniah who was going around basically doing contract hits on Adonijah's supporters.

What we have in the film is a spectacular climax involving a miracle that I searched for and couldn't find. It came from the fertile imagination of director King Vidor who ended a long and distinguished career on a sour note. It was a question of Vidor trying to out do Cecil B. DeMille in biblical spectacle.

He didn't make it.",0 -"this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.

transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.

its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.",0 -"I really enjoy this genre but The Cell was one of the worst movies I've ever been unfortunate enough to watch. While about 25 percent of my audience wandered in and out of the theater during the viewing (or left entirely) I was dumb enough to stick it out. The main problems with this story (there were too many to list all) is that with this type of film you have to do two things... one, provide fear of the killer (being that they catch him twenty minutes into the film that's gone) and you must give the victim whose life is at stake (the girl in the tank) enough character development that you actually care whether they get to her in time or not. Not only did I lose track of the girl, I was given such little insight into her that she was only a blurry face and when I did remember she was part of the story I really didn't care what happened to her. While the visuals were interesting in an LSD flashback sort of way, they often times made no sense and this should be a lesson that visuals can't make up for lack of a good story (see Phantom Menace for another example) Finally, does anyone know or care what was up with the women kneeling in that field and staring at the sky? Ridiculous.",0 -"I have not managed to completely block out this film from memory even though it has been two years since I've seen it.

Don't get me wrong - I have long forgotten the main story line - the relationship between Kidman and Law, that made no impression on me but it was the torture scenes in the film that really struck me. I cried for about two hours straight after wards.

It had never previously occurred to me how people, in war time, could take advantage of something as pure as a mother's love. We see several examples of this here - in both the scenes with Natalie Portman and with the mother with her fingers in the fence for keeping her son hidden at home. I was shocked at these scenes and will probably never watch the film again as a consequence because the scenes even now are perfectly clear in my mind. However, I am glad I watched the film simply because it has made me more aware to the horrors of war and the horrible cruelty that mankind can inflict on it's own.

The blonde albino character has been top of my list of most evil bad guy ever since I saw the film. His horrible sneer and lack of any human feeling for the people he tortured really hit a nerve with me. At one point I wanted to get up in the cinema and kill him myself (see the movie pushed me over the edge of reason,it only occurred to me afterward that I'd only be hitting a big screen - that shows the film's power and intensity at least).

I recommend the film for it's sheer experience not for the entwined love story but for the manner in which it depicts war without needing a battlefield.",1 -"Bob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.",0 -"This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood – in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events – with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom – as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) – with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) – and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.",1 -"Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.

Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.",0 -"I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.

Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.

Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said ""I've been to the house"". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.

Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just ""Huh?"" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the ""I won't call you mother"" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.

The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.",0 -"One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really. It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares.

The form has the first 2/3 of the movie told in flashback by three characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer; and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc.

Actually, the rest of the movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we really care if it does? No.

It is also a very dark comedy, but has a shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside, dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night at McCool's.

8/10",1 -"This movie took me by surprise. The opening credit sequence features nicely done animation. After that, we're plunged into a semi-cheesy production, betraying its low budget. The characters, typical American teens, are introduced slowly, with more personal detail than is usually found in movies like this. By the time the shlitz hits the fan, we know each one of the characters, and either like or hate them according to their distinct personalities. It's a slow uphill set-up, kind of like the ride up a slope of a really tall roller coaster. Thankfully, once the action kicks in, it's full blown old school HORROR! Steve Johnson's make-up effects are awesome. Equal in quality to much bigger budgeted films. And the scares are jolting. Kevin Tenney delivers his best movie ever, with heart-stopping surprises and creepy suspenseful set-ups. The tongue-in-cheek, sometimes cheesy, humor marks this film as pure 80s horror, as opposed to the sullen tone of earlier genre fare like ""Night of the Living Dead"" or ""Hills Have Eyes."" But for true horror fans, this one is worth checking out. Play it as the first entry on a double bill with the 1999 remake of ""House on the Haunted Hill."" The set-up and character dynamics are so similar that you really have to wonder what film they were actually remaking?",1 -"I rented the DVD in a video store, as an alternative to reading the report. But it's pretty much just more terror-tainment.

While the film may present some info from the report in the drama, you're taking the word of the producers - there's no reference to the commission report anywhere in the film. Not one.

The acting, all around, is pretty bad - pretty much all of the stereotypes of 'hot shot' bitchy foul mouthed government agents, each thinking they know more than everyone else. There may be some truth to it, but it really has a bad Hollywood stereotype smell to it.

IMDb's user community ratings & comments tend to be more right than wrong, and I have started to glance at the ratings before renting whenever I can.

I wish I had on this one.",0 -"Now I myself had previously seen a few episodes of the Leauge Of Gentleman which I found hilarious. When I brought the film I was not sure if I knew enough about the series to get it, boy was I wrong. This is one of the best comedy films I have seen ever and the clever acting of the Leauge makes the film. It has a very good and funny plot as well as using only a few characters at any one time helps because it doesn't make it too confusing which would have wrecked the film. Even If you have never seen The Leauge Of Gentleman get this film it will make you laugh and this is a film that can be watched more then once and is an excellent film to watch with your mates. It truly deserves it review a definite 10 out of 10.",1 -"Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the ""weird"" outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.

Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.

Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.

Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.

What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.

But hey, at least the set's pretty.",0 -I am a huge John Denver fan. I have a large collection of his music on vinyl. I saw this Christmas special when it was originally on TV and loved it. I have the original vinyl album and CD. I have the original CD and later release. The later release is missing several songs though. I see that it has been released this year with all original songs. To my surprise I found the original CD for sale at $75.00. WOW - to think that a Christmas Cd would be worth that much. To me no amount is worth selling this treasure. It is my favorite Christmas CD. I have never been able to find it on VHS or DVD. I would love to have either version. If anyone has one available please let me know. Thanks,1 -"This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.",0 -"I am the parent of a special needs child and I enjoyed the the movie very much! It was loving, warm and fun. I learned a long time ago to see the humor in things. I especially thought it was sweet how all the other characters worried about Frankie and who would take care of him after his grandmother died. I attended a focus screening of the film with other parents and siblings of special needs children before the film was edited. Everyone enjoyed the film and it actually inspired wonderful discussions. We talked about how our kids make us laugh and we also talked about how we worry about them. The screenwriter talked about how she work with autistic children and other special needs children as a volunteer for several years. She based the character on a real person. Our family is blessed with a sense of humor that has gotten us through some very stressful times. I give the movie two thumbs up!!!",1 -"No matter what anyone tells you, there is a mere fact to the word ""possession"" in film circles -- such as ""what possessed you to greenlight this film?"" Religion doesn't have anything to do with it, but common sense does. That is, if your head is clear and you are of sound mind to make a judgment.

On many levels I tried to rationalize where this film would entertain....or even interest the average consumer. The star? The story? The unique idea? A buddy movie that kids would love with a dinosaur and a black woman? On, my goodness! I am sure when this was an ""idea"", it sounded good. But somewhere during the course of development...someone should have pointed out where the idea could not translate into a piece of entertainment anyone would wish to watch or pay for...unless they were very much deeply under the influence of alcohol or drugs and saw something the rest of us could not see.

Regardless, this is a complete mess. Mess, mess - sin and a mess.

Who cares about the plot (what plot?) et al. Whoopie got a paycheck, but I would have been embarrassed to take it. I sure hope she fired her agent/manager/publicist over this career move. Obviously not, she went on to make more bad films. And more bad films. Sad.",0 -"During my childhood time I have seen the first three ""Critters"" movies and enjoyed 'em.They were fun and entertaining horror comedies perfect for adventurous horror loving kids.I have never seen ""Critters 4"",so I finally decided to check it out.My verdict:forgettable and pretty bad flick with strikingly low body count.The script by Joseph Lyle and David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd,the plot rips off ""Alien"" and ""Star Wars"" and the sets look bland and murky.The tone of the film appears to be deadly serious throughout making it slow and dull.""Critters 4"" was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects;the ones taken from ""Android"" look seriously dated.4 out of 10.One to avoid.",0 -"Okay maybe it was because I happen to be in Yangchun China when I saw this movie. Maybe it was because I finally had something on TV I could understand or at least read the subtitles, or maybe it was just funny. Whatever it was this movie was worth the time.

I had just arrived for my foot and head massage when they gave me the remote so I could watch TV. Usually I would turn the darn thing off but I stumbled upon this crazy movie and got hooked.

The plot if you could call it a plot sort of revolves around a cooking competition and sort of is a love story and the food in this movie is the real star. If you like Iron Chef and many of the other cooking shows currently in the reality TV mode, then you will love the scenes with food in this movie.

It goes fast and the subtitles are so fast you better be up on speed reading for this one. However the action is mostly slapstick so you don't always have to read the entire subtitle to get the idea.

The main actress is lovely eye candy and the main actor isn't bad to look at either. They are both worth watching. Finally if you have some time to kill and want a good laugh this isn't a bad choice for both.

I don't speak a word of Chinese but I was totally able to understand the cultural humor of this film. For those who do speak Chinese maybe it is even better. Overall I give this an 8 out of 10 and currently I am even looking to find a copy to have while I stay in China, and keep for when I come back home, it will be a nice reminder for me of my time in Yangchun and a silly afternoon at the massage salon watching a silly movie.",1 -"Two years after its initial release, Goldeneye still sits atop the field of first-person shooters for the Nintendo 64. Even the Quake and Turok series have not had the combination of graphic detail, sound quality, enemy intelligence, challenge and overall fun that bring me back to this game over and over again. The missions each have specific objectives that force you to think as Bond, not just to shoot up every baddie that pops up on your screen, but also to avoid cameras, disable security systems, rescue hostages, protect the Bond girl, and so on. Q gadgets abound in this game, including the famous watch. The game is loosely based on the movie storyline, including all the major characters and the best scenes of the movie, from the dam bungee-jump to the prop-plane escape to the tank chase through St. Petersburg. Even the layout is preserved where possible, so you'll recognize various situations if you've seen the film. Other levels are added to challenge the player and string together the scenes a little more. With each difficulty level the mission objectives are more difficult, the enemies smarter and the bullets more lethal. I still have not gotten through the 00-Agent levels. Cheats can be opened, not by entering codes or pushing buttons, but by completing certain levels within a certain time frame, and additional characters can be opened up for the multiplayer. The multiplayer is still the best among the first-person shooters. It's not as crisp as Turok but it doesn't slow down nearly as much... tons of options give your friends reason to blow each other up over and over again, and one more time just for kicks. There are better games for the N64, such as Zelda and all things Star Wars, but Rare has continued their streak of outstanding games with a first-person shooter that has not and will not be surpassed until they top themselves in 2000 with Perfect Dark.",1 -"This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead.",0 -"I saw this movie on it's opening night, and enjoyed it. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't been sitting by my father. My father saw the original (unfortunately, I have not seen it yet) and kept talking through the whole thing. He kept saying that the movie sucked, and that it was stupid. The thing is, he didn't understand that the creators were slightly making fun of the horror genre with the film. In every horror movie, there is always a certain character depicted. If they weren't in the movie, well, you might not really like it too much. The trademark characters are:

""The Lead Character"": Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) ""The Lead Character's Boyfriend"": Wade (Jared Padalecki) ""The Lead Character's Sibling/(Soon-To-Be)Reformed Jerk"": Nick (Chad Michael Murray) ""The Annoying Sluttish Character"": Paige (Paris Hilton) ""Characters Who Are Just Around To Look Pretty"": Dalton (Jon Abrahams) & Blake (Robert Ri'chard)

With those characters, it makes it slightly predictable who will die and who will live. Obviously, you know who will with what I just typed. The movie may be predictable (in fact, I had a pretty good idea who would die just by watching the trailer), but it was still enjoyable. It may seem stupid (why is there a sugar mill in the middle of a deserted camp-site that wasn't there in the beginning?) at times, but it is very easy to watch. The comedy and gore were the perfect amount for weak-stomached movie-goers it does get gory, don't get me wrong, (less than ""Final Destination 2) but it works very well. So in conclusion, this movie wasn't as hot as the fire the set went up in, but the temperature could still burn the ""Wax"".",1 -"Thank God! I didn't waste my money renting it but i downloaded it! This happens to be the worst movie i have ever seen in my whole life, f*****g visual effects, unnecessary gore and nudity! Far apart from other Zombie movies like Night of the Living Dead and others. There are lots of loop holes and mistakes in the movie. OK if you get time after reading this comment, please check out the director's(Ulli Lommel) profile. After seeing that i got a self explanation why the movie is like this, i mean every movie directed by Ulli Lommel gets a rating between 1 and 2. And now am not willing to search what kinda movies these are directed by him, but i can finish all this by saying one strong sentence. Even for fun or time pass or even at an extreme bored situation please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.",0 -"There is only one word to define the whole movie, that is: awful. How ""Mostly Martha"" was remade is awful. The title of the movie is awful. The actors are awful. And the idea of combining good cooking and USA is awful. If you have seen ""Bella Martha"", well that is the original title and it means ""Beautiful Martha"", this one is a punch in the stomach. The acting of Ms.Jones is so poor and unnatural that even Jessica Alba, considered one of the worst actresses (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomActr.asp) would have done better. Not to mention the cook, who would better play a different role. And the little girl... not worth mentioning. Bella Martha was a very nice movie, an authentic one... why was it remade? There was a story.... here they took it out. There is no story... What shall it represent? In one way also this movie was perfect. You know when all ingredients fit together? Well this is the case here. A perfect Crap....",0 -"This show is so full of action, and everything needed to make an awsome show.. but best of all... it actually has a plot (unlike some of those new reality shows...). It is about a transgenic girl who escapes from her military holding base.. I totally suggest bying the DVDs, i've already preordered them... i suggest you do to...",1 -I agree with another user here and have to say that this is one of the best Kung Fu movies ever! I watched this as a kid and absolutely loved it! The scaffolding scenes are brilliant and you can really empathise with this guy because he is treated as an outcast. Nice humour and fantastic kung fu this movie rocks! If you like Kung Fu you would love this!!!,1 -"Jack Bender's ""The Tempest"" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play ""The Tempest"". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.

Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called ""Gator-Man"", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.

Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.

-------------End of Part 1----------------------------",0 -"Why on earth does five US keep repeating this one? the title actually says it all: the plot is as clear as a book read in a language you never heard of and that resembles to nothing.

You'll see ninety minutes of changing locations, most of them will be blown up later on in the movie. Right in the beginning you see a nice little farm typical for the Berry, which is in the movie moved close to Paris but then it does not survive the ""transport"" to the Isle de France very well: it explodes 1 minute later. there are also two gangster who have no tongues, as if that would make sense in the world of SMS and internet, let alone pencil and paper.

It just goes on like that, nothing makes sense in this story. my only credit goes to the cameraman, the camera is excellent.",0 -"I watch this movie without big expectations, I think everyone should do. It's a great Tv-serie and of course we couldn't compare it with Gone With the wind, but it's still nice to watch. It's also weird to see a different Scarlett. Joanne Whalley don't play Scarlett with passion and fire like Vivien Leigh, but I believe that Scarlett is changed when she became older. Don't expect to much of this just watch but don't watch like: I think this would be horrible.",1 -"I had a chance to see a screening of this movie recently. I believe that it will be in theaters in Canada some time around Mother's Day. If it is in a theater near you... GO! It's not a funny feel-good movie - it's more along the lines of a feel and think movie.

The director does an excellent job of character development - letting you into the heart, mind and hurts of Hagar little by little. At first, her attitudes and behaviors don't make much sense. As her story unfolds, she becomes someone you can understand. As in life... understanding brings empathy. I found her likable by the end of the movie - particularly when she opens up her heart to the young man in the shack by the lake.

Hagar's relationship with her two sons is painful - and reflective of so many of our own experiences in this world. Her youngest son, John, who is full of life and adventure takes the viewer to the very edge of their seat - and into the kind of raw emotion that is so authentic and rare.

It's fun to see Ellen Page acting in this movie. She is so very different than the young woman that she plays in Juno. It gives me an even broader appreciation for her acting ability. If you loved her in Juno, you'll love her in The Stone Angel.

Of course, there is Ellen Burnstyn as Hagar. There is likely no way of expressing the power of acting as strongly as the ability for the actor to make you forget every other character they have ever played. Never once in the course of this movie did I ever think of Ellen Burnstyn - I always and only thought of Hagar. She swept me into her character - hook, line and sinker.

Kari Skogland's capacity to capture on film this renowned book by one of Canada's most cherished authors is impressive. She brilliantly brings to the screen both the stoney and angelic parts of this complex woman, Hagar - the stone angel.",1 -"Wesley Snipes is James Dial, an assassin for hire, agent of the CIA and pure bad-ass special operative. During his free time Dial dons a cowboy hat and breeds horses with macho names such as Beauty.

Enter agent Collins, his supervising officer. Enter a new assignment - kill a terrorist that is in UK custody. Of course the United Kingdom being an allied state is a great place for covert ops and head-shots outside of courtrooms.

The assassination is a big success apart from the fact, that the escape plan blew. So Dial's partner and local liaison gets killed in action trying to escape the police, whilst Dial becomes hot property with the London coppers trying to get to him and CIA trying to dispose of him.

Fortunately for Dial the safe-house is routinely visited by a teenager Emily Day (Eliza Bennett), who loves hanging out with cold-blooded killers with arrest warrants and help them escape from the evil UK law enforcement...

With a script like that need I say more? On the plus side Wesley Snipes is Wesley Snipes (be that a pro or a con) and the movie is quite engaging. On the minus editing is very disjointing and has a hurl effect on the stomach.",0 -"Stay Alive has a very similar story to some Asian horror films which include technology on the story.Some of this Asian horror films are One Missed Call,Ringu and Pulse.So,the idea of Stay Alive is very clichéd and obvious but the filmmakers behind it did not know how to put something new or interesting to the clichés in Stay Alive.This film is totally crap.But a very big crap.All the elements of Stay Alive belong to the worst class of ''horror'' films:shallow characters,nothing of suspense,stupid ''horror'' which makes laugh and light violence.It's easy to note that the ''director'' is incapable to create something original or disturbing.I do not wanna loose more time writing about this pathetic film.I just give you an advice:do not see this film.I really hated it.",0 -"I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10.",0 -"I hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, ""Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man."" But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.

This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.

Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.

Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.

The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young.",0 -"Probably the worst Bollywood film I've seen.

No plot line. Very little character developments.

Full of silly and pointless humor. The whole film was chaotic and direction-less. There was no proper ending to the story. The airport was filmed in a shopping mall.

Same story chewed over and over again until you want to say ""please, just move on with it!!"" Even the song and dance was pointless and badly choreographed.

The only good thing about this movie is that there were hot bods all around... but then most of the Bollywood movies have that anyways these days.

Btw I'm not from an Indian background

2/10",0 -"Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on ""something that has had a great effect"". ""La Maman et La Putain"" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: ""Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry."" And by that I don't mean ""sick and angry"" about ""the human condition"" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - ""an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty"" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like ""un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray"", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his ""anxiety"" and his ""despair"". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if ""La Maman et La Putain"" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being ""unflinching"" (though why one should even feel like ""flinching"" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch ""La Maman et La Putain"" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have.",0 -"It kicks you in the stomach. There are other films with more convincing characters, a more realistic story, and maybe even more depth concerning political invocations. But then again, most of these are not directed by Peter Watkins. Maybe the one true genius artist of British Film to emerge out of the 1960s, Watkins has made quite a bunch of rarely seen films that perfectly capture the spirit of the outer-aesthetic world - the world of political ongoings, social problems and governmental solutions. Thus, his work is probably less ""filmic"" than, say, political, which some may call a weakening of their inherent artistic quality. Then again, why shouldn't art allow itself to become engaged? Watkins dares. And succeeds. You won't feel well with this one. You won't feel happy. Actually, you won't really like the film; it is uncompromising, honest, direct, unashamed; a smash in your face, in short. You can't help getting angry, you can't resist to let the things you see touch you. That is what makes Watkins' films so rewarding.",1 -"This is a hard show to watch. It's not something to sit back and relax to. It kept me on the edge of my seat for several seasons. People get screwed over, raped, tortured and die like flies. There are male organs everywhere, there is excrement, puke and blood. Oz is a brave show. It brings up issues like racism, homosexuality, prisoners reality and most of all; -capital punishment. It is, in my opinion also successful in doing so, unlike for example, the single-tracked ""Medium"".

It bored me sometimes. It had some weird story lines and they spent to much time on characters that just didn't interest me. Strangely enough, I found season 1 to be quite boring. If I had watched it while it aired I think I wouldn't have continued to watch it. I love seasons 2 - 4. Season 5 and 6 are watchable, (although I think it shouldn't be allowed to utter the words ""Cyril"" and ""Death Row"" in the same sentence)

There are so many marvelous characters to root for. The old guys Bob and Busmalis, who I absolutely fell in love with from day one. Said, Adebesi, Pancamo and Schillinger, four very strong and charismatic leaders in their own way. Augustus Hill, who's monologues tied the episodes together so efficient. The staff with people like Sister Pete and Ray Mukada-also brilliant. Also minor characters that was only in for a couple of episodes or a few seasons, but left a good impression as well.

My favorites are the O'Reily brothers. Their relationship was the most gut-wrenching and warmest I seen on television. If there is anything I will always remember about this show it's them. There will never be another ""pairing"" or what to call it, that will make me ache so much. Thats why, when the ends come for them as well, it almost hurt to much. I wish it would never have happened. I wish I had never watched it.

But good one Fontana. I do recommend it.",1 -When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.

What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.

The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.

The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.

The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.

Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett,0 -"Once in the Life means that once a hoodlum, always a hoodlum, and nobody gets in or out of `The Life' for free. Neighborhood hoodlums in New York sell drugs and run scams because they can't make it in the legitimate world, maybe because they have a criminal record, or a drug habit, or because they're just lazy. This simple story with a couple of twists about mostly despicable characters manages to draw compassion out of the audience for its main players because of their loyalty and compassion for each other. The film is written, produced, and directed by Laurence Fishburne, who also stars as 20/20 Mike (all hoodlums have nicknames), and is based on his play, `Riff Raff.' It feels like a play from beginning to end, especially during the longest scene where the three main players square off to decide who can be trusted. Often times the dialog comes very fast, much faster than it would on stage, and I think it's the film's biggest flaw. Mixed in as flashbacks throughout the film are poems from the street, a sort of iambic pentameter rap, that is violent and evocative of the world this movie discloses. The poetry makes it difficult to dismiss these men, these hoodlums who murder, cheat, and betray each other, as unworthy of our attention or below our contempt. The disturbing thing about this film is that its realism shows us not only how these people live, but how they suffer for the same reasons as us all. One is too stupid, another a junkie, and the last suffers from conscience while the audience wonders, or even laughs, at the irony of executioners demanding from him hanging in the gallows to tell jokes in the midst of his demise.",1 -"Yeah I watched this mini series with My Mom and dad as a kid. It was one of the few mini series that my 9 year old mind actually could follow. I recall it was very well done, and didn't necessarily have the feel of the typical crap mini series. It was more or less an original concept that really grabbed your attention. I would recommend this miniseries to anyone who is a fan of history and plot twists. Although most twists in this movie are either spelled out or predictable, it is still worth the time. I haven't checked to see if you can get it through netflix yet however. I would imagine not. They should play it on the history channel or something.",1 -"This film was okay, but like most TV series it would of been better if it just made for television. The best and most loved characters only had five minute roles, whilst the three mediocre characters were all the way through the film.

Unlike most British movies that are based on television series, this film does kick off and it seems to be on to a winner, but the pace suddenly stops when the three mediocre characters are in the real world waiting to capture the three comedians.

The film then doesn't go anywhere when Hillary in a room with the captured Steve, Lipp masquerading as Steve, and Geoff somehow writing himself in to the Medieval times. Which made me think 'hang on? How come he doesn't need a key to enter in to that world unlike the Royston Vasey characters? The medieval scene was okay but Monty Python did it a lot better and of course funnier, with cameos from Peter Kay and Simon Pegg, both didn't say anything funny, Kay had a line and Pegg just sat up on wall looking bored.

What also grated me was that they seem to forget what happened in the previous episodes such as Hillary escaped to the Caribbean in the television in series 2, but in the film he's escaped from prison, and also Lipp is a paedophile vampire which wasn't mentioned at all in the movie, which was also quite disturbing when he's left alone looking after the children.

There were lots of plot holes and unexplained situations such as how did Geoff and the Dark One escape from the Medieval times back in to Royston Vasey? Like Series 3 it started of good but as the film progressed, it slowly went downhill and had a very weak predictable ending.

They would of been better off doing what Monty Python did and remade all their best and classic sketches from Series 1-3 and the Christmas special, and turned that in to a film which would of re-introduced the characters to a whole new audience, who can't be asked to watch the series or to tight to buy the DVDs.

Best advice is save your money and wait till it's on television..... Where it belongs.",0 -"A stale ""misfits-in-the-army"" saga, which half-heartedly attempts to be both surreal (the foreign subtitles) AND vulgar (the flatulence gags), but just ends up being a mix of many different kinds of humor, none of them followed very successfully. Barbara Bach, the Bond Girl from ""The Spy Who Loved Me"", has only two or three brief scenes. What a waste! (*1/2)",0 -"""The Dream Child"" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) ""Nightmare"" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, ""The Dream Warriors"" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, ""Freddy's Dead"", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, ""The Dream Child"" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.",0 -"I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the ""old"" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing ""Cabin Fever"", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly ""scary"" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an ""hommage"" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a ""good"" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times (""let's try to get help!""), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.

I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that ""new"" isn't necessarily ""better"". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.",0 -"At the beginning of the film we watch May and Toots preparing for their trip to London for a visit to their grown children. One can see Toots is not in the best of health, but he goes along. When he dies suddenly, May's world, begins to spin out of control.

The film directed by Roger Michell, based on a screen play by Hanif Kureshi, is a study of how this mother figure comes to terms with her new status in life and her awakening into a world that she doesn't even know it existed until now.

May's life as a suburban wife was probably boring. Obviously her sexual life was next to nothing. We get to know she's had a short extra marital affair, then nothing at all. When May loses her husband she can't go back home, so instead, she stays behind minding her grandson at her daughter's home. It is in this setting that May begins lusting after young and hunky Darren, her daughter's occasional lover.

Darren awakes in May a passion she has not ever known. May responds by transforming herself in front of our eyes. May, who at the beginning of the film is dowdy, suddenly starts dressing up, becoming an interesting and attractive woman. She ends up falling heads over heels with this young man that keeps her sated with a passion she never felt before.

Having known a couple of cases similar to this story, it came as no surprise to me to watch May's reaction. Her own chance of a normal relationship with Bruce, a widower, ends up frustratingly for May, who realizes how great her sex is with Darren. The younger man, we figure, is only into this affair to satisfy himself and for a possibility of extorting money from May. Finally, the daughter, Helen discovers what Mum has been doing behind her back when she discovers the erotic paintings her mother has made.

The film is a triumph for the director. In Anne Reid, Mr. Michell has found an extraordinary actress who brings so much to the role of May. Also amazing is Daniel Craig. He knows how Darren will react to the situation. Anna Wilson Jones as Helen is also vital to the story as she is the one that has to confront the mother about what has been going on behind her back. Oliver Ford Davies plays a small part as Bruce the older man in Helen's class and is quite effective.

The film is rewarding for those that will see it with an open mind.

",1 -"A variation of the same plot line was used in a Simon & Simon episode (Thin Air) that originally aired in Dec 1982.

The gender of the victim was changed, the surviving spouse is one of Rick's ""old flames"". It's also interesting to note that Gerald McRaney had a role in this Rockford file episode.

Both episodes were based on a story by Howard Browne - as noted in the list of 'writing credits'.

Anthony James plays one of his classic TV bad guy roles.

The continuation of the concept between the Rockford Files to Magnum PI to Simon & Simon quite interesting.",1 -"After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.

I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.

IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!

All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.

One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.

This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.

Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.

To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.

You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.

Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.",0 -"I bought this movie just to see Bam because i was really loving him, but after seeing this i don't like him much. I mean, his acting was good and everything i guess, but whenever it showed the totally unnecessary skate scenes i was just saying to myself, ""Alright, we know you're a professional skateboarder, now can we get back to Ryan Dunn?"" Dunn, Rake, and Brandon really made the movie in my perspective.

I noticed that Jenn Rivell, (obviously), and Missy Rothstein were both in Haggard, but who Bam was dating at the time? Anyways, i actually enjoyed Haggard and i think it's really like no other movie i've ever seen. It's sort of in it's own category.",1 -"I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band ""Wilco.""

Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about ""the process,"" a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the ""friendship had run its course,"" and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label ""hurt their feelings"" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.

From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.

I give it a 2/10.",0 -"I had just finished reading the book, and was really looking forward to seeing this TV adaptation which was broadcast on the Hallmark Channel on Monday night (5/30/05). The key to the whole book was the manifesto which was stolen by the man with steel teeth, but I watched for an hour (out of 3 1/2) and I saw the man with the steel teeth but I never saw him steal a manifesto. I saw someone steal some virus but what did that have to do with the book? It's too bad because this film had great production values and a good cast, but isn't the idea of turning a book into a movie (TV or film) to get the people who read the book to be part of the audience. They only kept me for an hour. I thought the premise of the book was great and what did they do but throw out the whole premise. This book had a great McGuffin (to paraphrase Hitchcock) but they ignored it. And it said in the titles that Forsyth was involved in the production. They sure must have paid him a LOT of money.",0 -"Overrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating ""collectors action figurine""), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were ""actual"" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid.",0 -"I'm absolutely disgusted this movie isn't being sold. All who love this movie should email Disney and increase the demand for it. They'd eventually have to sell it then. I'd buy copies for everybody I know. Everything and everybody in this movie did a good job, and I haven't figured out why Disney hasn't put this movie on DVD or on VHS in rental stores. At least I haven't seen any copies. This is a wicked good movie and should be seen by all. The kids in the new generation don't get to see it and I think they should. It should at least be put back on the Channel. This movie doesn't deserve a cheap download. It deserves the real thing. I'm emailing them now. This movie WILL be on DVD.",1 -"The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!

All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.

I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination.",1 -"Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...",0 -"The sitcom ""The league of Gentlemen"" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village ""Royston Vasey"". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.

In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a ""local"" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims.

Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.

Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about ""her"" sexual conversion.

Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the ""real"" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.

Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.

In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: ""Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave.""

Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.",0 -"Being an avid Carpenter Fan, I really loved this film (although the wigs do leave a lot to be desired!) and agree with many of the comments, that certain areas of her life were absent or not touched on. Whatever - it leaves your curiosity well and truly unsatisfied, so off I went to discover more. I must recommend a book by Ray Coleman - Carpenters - The Untold Story. The book is an intelligent read and unlike the film, is 'real' and down to earth. I hope you enjoy it. I remember Cynthia Gibb from her days in Fame and Gypsy. She is a singer (aswell as dancer) in her own right and I think this was the edge needed to create the character. Some other actresses may have struggled with this. It is ashame the film did not delve deeper into her story. After all this is the film title, but I felt we learnt more about Richard, but I suppose like any performer worth their salt, you should always leave them wanting more!",1 -"Jean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.",0 -"As part of an initiation prank Julie (Meg Tilly of Psycho 2) has to spend the night in a mausoleum, but Karl Rhamarevich, a master of telekinesis has recently died and been put in there. When Julie's fellow sorority sisters desecrate where he's housed the real terror starts.

This little flick had a good deal of atmosphere and I enjoyed the build up, plus the last twenty minutes are just plain great. Anyone who's looking for a lost gem of an '80's horror movie needn't look any further. Highly under-appreciated. Plus Elizabeth Daily is adorable.

My Grade: B

Media Blaster DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with director Tom McLoughlin and co-writer Michael Hawes; and trailers for ""the Being"", ""Frankestien's Bloody Terror"", ""Just Before Dawn"", & ""Devil Dog"" Disc 2) Alternate director's cut (that's almost unwatchable due to a bad print) & Behind-the-scenes featurette",1 -"This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.",0 -"Step Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film.",0 -"I watched Hurlyburly as a second choice after Affliction was sold out. I have never seen so many people walk out of a movie. Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, and Chazz Palminteri can do nothing to save this coke-snorting, endlessly pedantic, bad Mamet-wannabe.",0 -"I have to agree with most of the other posts. Was it a comedy? a drama? to me it leaned a little to much towards the comedy side. I could have been a great movie without the comedy and it was horribly contrived. Jamie keeps running into the Julio and whats his name. In New York, how many times do you run into someone you know in downtown Cleveland.And just how could Robert Pastorelli dig up Yankee Stadium to hide the gold. Again, a comedy or drama? But it was still entertaining especially for a Sunday morning. I enjoyed Kimberly Elise's performance, she certainly a beautiful actress and seems to take her craft seriously. She is a younger actress that is going to be viable.",1 -"Tex Avery's tenure as director of cartoons for MGM was in the 1940s and 50s was one of the brightest moments in cartoon history. His cartoons were exceptionally inventive and surreal with MANY weird touches that were later celebrated in the movie THE MASK. Eyes popping out when a guy sees a girl, impossible stunts and non-stop action were the trademarks of these films.

This is one of several Droopy cartoons that Avery was responsible for and it's among his best. Droopy is a Mountie and he is determined to get his man,...though in this case it's a wolf who has escaped from prison. Throughout the film, despite many insane stunts, Droopy keeps up with this crook until eventually the wolf gives up because Droopy is seemingly everywhere! Full of funny gags and loaded with laughs, this is a great cartoon.",1 -"The problem is that the movie rode in on the coattails of the 60's-created concept that comic books could only be done as ""camp"" (i.e., the 60's Batman show) for TV and movie. Thus you have combat sequences with subtitles (come on!), a cluelessly unromantic Doc Savage (he was uncomfortable around women in the pulps, not an idiot), Monk Mayfair in a nightsheet (a scene guaranteed to give you nightmares for several nights), and the totally hokey ending with the secondary bad guy encased in gold like a Herve Villechez posing for an Oscar statute. And when they're not doing booming Sousa march scores, the tinkly little ""funny"" music undercuts much of the drama.

Even as such, this movie is...okay. It's fun, and when it stays serious it's a very accurate representation of the pulps. Except for Monk, as has been mentioned before: he's hugely muscled, not obese. And Long Tom, who is supposed to be a pale scrawny guy with an attitude, not Paul Gleason with an (inexplicable) scarf.

The Green Death sequences, for instance, are remarkably gruesome and not something I'd recommend for children. But they are very close to the feel of the pulps. When the writers and producers get it right, they do get it right - I'll give them that.

But if the producers had done Doc with the loving care and scripting of, say, Reeves' first two Superman movies, think what we might have had then. I think the problem is the movie's schizophrenic. There's a definite sense of trying to do a 30's homage, but they're also trying to give in to the ""heroes must be camp"" attitude that Batman created. One gets the impression there was a sober, pulp-style first draft and then someone came in and said, ""Hey, let's make it funny - it worked with the Batman show 8 years ago!""

But Doc lives on, thanks to Earl MacRauch and Buckaroo Banzai. If MacRauch ain't doing a homage to Doc Savage in that movie, the man is truly demented. So when the series actually gets on TV (allegedly mid-season in '99-00), Doc Savage, updated to the 90's, will live once more.",1 -"A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, ""I Fall in Love Too Easily,"" before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these.",1 -"Spanish horrors are not bad at all, some are smart with interesting stories, but is not the case of ""Second Name"". It is badly directed, badly acted and boring...boring...boring, a missed chance for an interesting story.",0 -"One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.

No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.

Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.

*My rate: 9/10",1 -This is a low budget film with a cast of unknowns and a minimum of on location shoots. The Philippines substitute for Thailand and nobody actually goes to Hong Kong. The stock shot of a Cathay Pacific jumbo jet landing at the old airport makes the transition perfectly. This film proves that you need neither mega budgets nor a headliner star to produce an excellent movie. It contains neither the gaffes nor the excesses that young filmakers often stumble into. Solid workmanship from people who know all the aspects of movie making and who understand the compromises between art and box office. An excellent piece of work!,1 -"I kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.",0 -"As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.

The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world.

Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.

I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.",0 -"This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great.

However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.

Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.

Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....

Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.

The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits.....",0 -"Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent ""In the Name of the King"" (a ""Lord of the Rings"" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire ""Postal."" But then came ""Seed,"" and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guy–his films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.

Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, ""Seed"" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of ""Halloween""). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.

Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing ""The Toolbox Murders"" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's ""message"" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.

Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on ""Dexter"": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.

The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: ""Seed"" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.

Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me.",0 -"This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.

(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.

The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10",0 -"We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.

The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters.

We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.

",0 -"Anywhere But Here is not exactly anything new, but the excellent performances by both of the main actresses made it worth watching. Sarandon and Portman are a mother and daughter who move from rural Wisconsin to sunny Beverly Hills, California, in search of a better life. The main conflict comes from the fact that Natalie would much rather have stayed in Wisconsin with all of her friends and family, and she felt that she was forced to go to California with her overbearing mother.

(spoilers) While it's true that the film as a whole is disappointingly predictable, Susan Sarandon and especially Natalie Portman give performances that are so good that they almost make the material seem new. Anywhere But Here doesn't cover any new ground, but it does have the rare quality of being able to take overused subject matter and make it fairly interesting again. Also seen in this movie is the most heartbreaking facial expression seen in years, seen on Natalie Portman's face when her mother drops her off on the side of the road and she watches the car fade into the distance. Particularly noteworthy is the ironic subplot about Natalie's mother pressing her to become an actress, as well as a very convincing performance from Shawn Hatosy as one of Natalie's very close cousins from back home. His death is a tragic cliché almost always seen in movies like this one, but the rest of the film makes up for numerous weaknesses like this. Not great, but Anywhere But Here is definitely worth a look.",1 -"One previous reviewer called this film ""pure visual joy"" I am wondering if s/he saw the same film that I did. ""High Art"" had to have the most relentlessly depressing interiors since ""Seven"". One can almost forgive Sheedy and Mitchell for the cliché of going to a B&B for their First Time. Of course, before they do that, one has to watch opium-den parties inhabited by people who are not apparently gainfully employed but can somehow support a flourishing drug habit. Not to mention the icy stares from those familiar movie types, the Girlfriend/Boyfriend At Start, who are well aware they're going to be thrown over sometime in the next 100 minutes or so. The movie also states that the Sheedy character has retired from professional photography for ten years now. What did she do, retire at age twenty?",0 -"I was laughing so hard most of the time I had people glaring at me because they couldn't hear over my laughter. I literally fell out of my seat at a specific point.

I'm a Bartender and Bouncer for a living in the Real world (note my use of the term Real world, sadly it always has to come first), and whenever I tell someone I play RPG's, it's usually followed by one of two questions: 1. What, like D&D? I played that back in Junior High.

2. Really? I've been looking or a group forever! Have room for another? Very rarely do people not know what D&D and Gaming are.

That having been said almost every person who watches this movie can get something out of it. Even if you aren't a Gamer, chances are there is something in your life you ""Geek Out"" about that can be made fun of in a light hearted way, and that alone means you can relate to the hijinx in this flick. It's just light hearted happiness in an hour and a half.",1 -This is a really nice and sweet movie that the entire family can enjoy. It's about two dogs and a cat who are taken away to live with someone else for a little while but the animals don't understand and they escape and go to find the family on their own. The cat is named Sassy and she lives up to her name. Chance is the younger dog who knows a lot about life on the inside of the pound. Shadow is the older and wiser dog who senses things. Put those three together on an adventure and it makes for a happy and fun filled time. There are no special effects of the mouths moving so it isn't cheesy at all. It's the best talking animal movie that I've seen so far. It's a really good movie for families.,1 -"Somehow a woman working with a scientist puts round metal balls into people's mouths that supposedly changes their personality but in reality turns them into crazed, zombie-like killers. The ""guinea pigs"" for the experiment are scantily-clad, nubile young women in desperate need of acting lessons. This movie is awful, atrocious, and amazingly bad. It has little to no logic in the script. You really will have trouble following what is going on. It has no special effects. The computer screen that is supposedly representing a huge scientific advancement looks nothing more than an old Atari screen. And what is even worse is that there is also a puppet with strands of felt hair(looks like a lonely kid at summer camp made it) named George that is like a personal servant/confidant to Jessica(the leading ""actress""). Throughout the movie you will be subjected to the idiotic, sophmoric utterings of this puppet. But wait...you also get loads of softcore, unerotic, barely nude scenes with the girls with some bar guys. All the while a most annoying soundtrack plays in the background like some kind of spiritual discovery has taken place. None of the actors are good. There are just varying degrees of bad. The gore and ""horror"" aspects are especially ineptly filmed. The film really looks like an adolescent put it together. No coincidence Henry Sala, the director by name but not by trade, has not made another film. I was bored almost into a coma watching this stupid, silly, dreck! And how bout the ending? What happened? If you know let me in on the secret because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. All I know is that I lost the time spent watching this garbage that made the beginning of my weekend a real nightmare of a bore!",0 -"LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a ""renegade"" cop within a ""renegade"" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of ""gentle giant"" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.

This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.

Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.

What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.

If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied.",0 -"**SPOILERS** Beautifully photographed slice of life home-front WWII love story with Norman Rockwell paintings in the beginning and end of the movie about how a ""war hero"" is not just someone who kills for his country but is also someone who thinks for himself and isn't corrupted by the war propaganda that's constantly drummed into his head. Washing out of the Marine Corps Marion ""Hedg"" Hedgepeth, Jan Michael-Vincent,is kicked out of boot-camp, after five weeks, and forced to put on a Baby Blue Marine uniform that shows that he just didn't have it to make the Corps. Humilitated and scorned wherever he went as he's going home to St. Louis and terrified what his family, whom his dad was in the Marine Corps in WWI, would think of him in that he couldn't ""Cut the Mustard"" as a US Marine.

Hedg stopping in a bar and finds sitting next to him is a Marine member of the fearless and deadly Marine Raiders Richard Gere whom a admiring Hedge buys a beer. Making conversation with Richard Hedge is shocked to find out that not only is he being sent back to the Pacific Theater after all the battles he fought in, and combat medals he got, but the totally gray hair and mid-thirty looking Richard is going to be 21 next month! That's what being in the Marine Corps and WWII did to him! Buying Hedge a number of drinks Richard takes the drunk Baby Blue outside and knocks him out taking his Baby Blues and leaves his impressive US Marine uniform with some money in it for Hedge to ware.

As soon as Hedge puts on Richard's uniform, that fits him perfectly, he's confronted by this big drunken US paratrooper who calls himself Cement-Head wanting to have a fist fight with the Marine Raider. Hedge doing everything he can to avoid trouble is forced by Cement-Head to belt him, after he himself cracked two beer bottle over his cement-head, to get himself warmed up for the big bout between Marine,Hedge, and Paratrooper, Cement-Head. Hedge incredibly floors the big cement headed buffoon knocking him out cold with one punch! ""I guess the trick is not hitting him in on top of his head"" a stunned Hedge tell his, Cement-Heads, fellow G.I's.

Hitch-hiking to this small town of Bidwell Hedge notices this US Military internment camp for Japanese-Americans who are there because their considered a threat to US security. It's later in the movie that Hedge shows everyone what a real hero he is, not who the people in the town think he is, by risking his life to save one of the hated ""Japs"" who mindlessly together with two of his friends escaped from the interment camp, where the hell did they think they were going anyway? Hedge risked his life by saving the scared to death Japanese-American from drowning in the dangerous rapids outside the town. Hedge in his actions taught the people of Bidwell that not all ""Japs"", even those who are American citizens, are bad and treacherous banzai screaming suicidal kamikazes like they were thought by the newspapers magazines and movies at the time to think that they were.

Hedge strikes up a conversation with the very cute and pretty waitress at the local diner Rose Hudkins, Glynnis O'Connor,who's just crazy about him that even Hedge at first thinks that it's his uniform not him that impressed her. Later when Hedge admits to Rose that he's not what she and her parents think,A US Marine Raider,that he is Rose had by then gotten to know the sweet and caring washed-out marine so well that it didn't matter to her at all what he was supposed to be, a Marine a Paratrooper or a Post Office worker, it was what was inside his heart that really counted.

The film has a number of touching and beautiful scenes in it between Hedge and Rose that shows how movies used to be made years ago without all the sex and profanity that we see and hear in movies today that involved two people in love with each other.

The way the film accurately, not phony baloney, shows the true feelings of average Americans, back then in 1943, about the war in general and Japanese in particular couldn't have been done in more authentic and accurate as well as good taste. ""Baby Blur Marine"" does it's best not to be too politically correct in not showing the hero's or leading actors and actresses in the film having the same feelings and ideas back then during WWII as most people have now, which would have come across as phony as a three dollar bill, to those people watching the film who lived during those historic and momentous times when the film was to take place.",1 -"A suprisingly good film considering the circumstances of its production. Features performances from no-name actors that rival the top talent on the planet (sadly none have persued a career).

Also features the the god-like ability of Christopher Nolan to write perfect dialogue. Dialogue is what carries this story, which is about a man who likes to follow people for material for his books. Well shot, VERY well edited, even better written, and amazingly well performed.

This movie has everything a great film needs, except people who have seen it. 9/10",1 -A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.

I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee.,0 -"Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.

This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).

Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.",0 -"I watched this movie a couple of days ago in a small independent cinema in Paris. It was my last evening in the French capital and the best good-bye I could have chosen. These twenty episodes made me relive the impressions I had collected in Paris in a heart-warming manner without drifting off into kitsch or sentimental schmaltz. Each episode is full of surprise, strong emotions and suggestive pictures and each short-film is directed according to the rules of a good short story. To me this kind of movie demands a lot more talent and qualities of a director and a story board writer than any epic two hours drama and all of them succeeded in their task excellently! The stories were chosen carefully with regard to their matching Arrondissement and express the respective flair perfectly. Each episode was seen from a different ankle, had a different topic, a different style and still the twenty stories result in a harmonic orchestra of films. The most outstanding advantage with the concept of an episode movie in my opinion is based in the fact that you can switch in between a large variety of feelings and moods without the danger of overload, just the other way round: the melange of sadness, melancholy, pure joy, despair, wrath, anxiety, curiosity or passion gives this movie a unique freshness and harmony. And not to forget the all over topic of love! Love between the characters, love between the characters and Paris and also the love of the directors and actors/actresses for this project. I don't want to go into the details of the episodes since there are so many, but I must highlight the range of world famous actors and actresses from all over the world and their approach to this project. Some played with their image, some broke it completely and some interpreted the stereotypes connected with their home country or the roles they had played before, so intertextuality was given all through the movie. All in all I can absolutely recommend this great collage and will be looking forward to its release on DVD.",1 -"I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good.",0 -"The plot in Petites Coupures certainly left this viewer dumbfounded.

***spoiler***

In the space of 48hrs or so, Auteuil's character has an affair with a teenager, loses his wife's affections, attempts to seduce Scott Thomas, is rejected by her goes on to grope yet another female character in the back of a car and then is finally shot for his trouble.

***end of spoiler***

wha ???

The only saving grace in this flick is Kristin Scott Thomas. Similar to Charlotte Rampling, she seems a *natural* to star in French cinema. My hope is that one day François Ozon may cast her in a part where she can show her true talent.

There are some fine French films such as the remarkable Le Colonel Chabert begging for a DVD release, yet this is the tripe that gets chosen.

Avoid this one.

zzzz..",0 -"Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic realm.

Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.

The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.

The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.

The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better.",1 -"I've seen this film criticized with the statement, ""If you can get past the moralizing..."" That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, ""What would I have done in this position?"" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved.",1 -"When the Italians and Miles O'keeffe work together nothing can go wrong! As ever, Miles is great as the almost as great Ator; the most lovable barbarian of all times. Totally lives up to the first movie.",1 -"Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the ""bad guy,"" and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.

I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.

I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.

This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.",0 -"When our local TV station first launched, it filled a lot of its schedule with old British programming. ""Lock Up Your Daughters!"" was duly aired, and I -- swayed by the opening few seconds of the film -- popped in a blank tape. Best thing I ever did.

The actors are beautifully suited to their characters and bring them to delightful life, complete with appropriate accents (Christopher Plummer's Foppington will leave you in stitches, as will Hoyden and her family). Double entendres abound, plot-line wheels within wheels mix and match the characters, hilarious sight gags lurk in every scene, and risqué comments are made on a regular basis.

I showed the film to friends a few years ago and they called the piece ""a lost treasure,"" as much for the cast as for the story. To this day I can crack up just thinking about the dialog. Should this gem ever find its way to a DVD release, I'll be at the front of the line.",1 -"It was by accident that I was scanning the TV channels and found this wonderful film about two beautiful human beings who become attracted to each other in a very innocent and virgin like approach to each other. Ethan Hawke (Jesse) ""Tape"" '01 and Julie Delpy (Celine) ""ER"" 94 TV Series (Nicole). This gal and guy, will warm your very heart and soul and make you think deeply into your past relationships and how you really wish you had followed your hearts strings with a guy or gal you deep down loved and lost track of over the years. Jesse and Celine have great conversation, and deep eye contact with a great magnetic explosion between the two of them. I am looking forward to the SEQUEL to this film in 2004 and if you have viewed this film, you will feel the same way.",1 -"First of all, I saw this movie when I was 7 years old at a Christian Scholl I attended. Needless to say that I was scared out of mind. Not because it was scary but because the content.Cmon...I was 7. Anyway, the cinematography was pretty bad and the acting was cheesy. That's very bad considering that I was only 7 and I remember that. The one thing that still haunts me is that dreadful song ""I wish we all were ready"" where the chorus ends with ""...you were left behind"". I wouldn't suggest seeing this one. I probably will, just for nostalgic reason. Besides, I'm sure the remake is much better. The best part of this movie though, has to be when everyone ""dissapears""; vacant cars crashing, lawnmowers running on their own...pretty hilarious.",0 -"This film just goes to prove that not every film made during the glory days of Hollywood is worth seeing. Just because you've got an excellent ensemble cast doesn't mean that this can overcome a script that was probably written by a chimp! Think about it--the film featured Richard Widmark, Lauren Bacall, Charles Boyer, Gloria Graham, Lillian Gish and Paul Stewart and yet it still was a bad film! The basic premise of the film isn't bad--a private psychiatric hospital where the staff are more screwed up than the patients! Also, the subplot involving the overworked husband and wife (Widmark and Graham) had a lot of promise. However, the script was handled with all the finesse and deftness of a drunk buffalo--with bellicose and way over the top scenes again and again in the film. In fact, it was less like a drama and more like a very bad episode of ""General Hospital"". Subtle, this film ain't!! Realistic, this film ain't!!

While most of the reason this film reeked was the awful script, but I also blame the producers as well for miscasting and misusing come veteran actors. For example, Paul Stewart may not be a household name but this character actor had exceptional talent--especially when playing gangsters in Film Noir movies. Yet here, Stewart is cast as a very nondescript psychiatrist with some bizarre European accent--it just didn't work since this was well outside his acting range and his character was totally undeveloped and one-dimensional. Also, Charles Boyer just seemed hopelessly miscast and totally out of place. Seeing this fine romantic actor as a psychiatrist in the heartland of America just seemed bizarre.

Overall, this is a rather awful film. It is very watchable in a train wreck sort of way but it certainly isn't very pretty. My wife and I disliked much of the movie but also felt it could have been very good had the writing been competent.

PS--In a case of art imitating life, Oscar Levant played one of the patients. In real life, the brilliant Levant spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions.",0 -"This is the French and Belgians doing what they do best. It's quirky, visually inventive, exhilarating and emotionally challenging storytelling. Director Jaco van Dormael takes us into the world of Georges, a Down's Syndrome sufferer and his quest for a meaningful relationship with someone, just anyone. This is not done in a patronising way but with a great sense of fun and also honesty. Georges' interplay with corporate management guru, Harry is dazzlingly handled - shifting from comedy to tragedy back to comedy again with breathtaking ease.

The Eighth Day puts similar Hollywood fare like Barry Levinson's Oscar winning Rain Man or Robert Zemeckis's Forrest Gump well and truly in the shade. At times, it evokes the humour of Milos Forman's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with shades of Dennis Potter thrown in for good measure.

As the emotionally blunted and desperately lonely yuppie, Harry, Daniel Auteuil turns in yet another sublime performance. But it is matched by the brilliant Pascal Duquenne as Georges. It's a movie with uniformly strong performances and so many, memorable set pieces - the shoe shop scene, car showroom scene, George's dance to Genesis's 'Jesus He Knows Me,' the conference scene, the fireworks scene. If you haven't seen it, there's only one thing to do. Just rent it or attend a screening at a retro cinema near you and see what you've been missing. Better still, buy this movie. Sheer genius.....",1 -"I haven't laughed so much in a theater in years. The only problem is that it was not the intent of the movie to make my throat raw from laughter.

This movie is absolutely overflowing with bad CGI, absolutely terrible duologue, absolutely terrible *acting*, and enough geek references to make the whole thing come off as nothing but complete cheese.

As a gamer and a geek-type girl myself, I did recognize all of the obvious game references in this movie as well as the geek STUFF that was just thrown into the background as eye candy (the Steamboy poster, the t-shirts from thinkgeek.com and j-list.com), and that didn't redeem the movie at all.

The only thing that might have been good at ALL were the ghost children type characters that were purposefully badly done in CGI to make it look like they were from a game, and who were OBVIOUSLY stolen from Japanese horror movies.

To be honest, it was hilariously bad, and something I'd expect from a midnight showing of a made-for-TV b grade Sci-Fi channel movie. Don't expect more than that and you'll have a great time. Just don't get a soda or you'll spit it everywhere when you get great lines like: ""Why did you bring that game into our lives?! WHY?!""",0 -"Having avoided seeing the movie in the cinema, but buying the DVD for my wife for Xmas, I had to watch it. I did not expect much, which usually means I get more than I bargained for. But 'Mamma Mia' - utter, utter cr**. I like ABBA, I like the songs, I have the old LPs. But this film is just terrible. The stage show looks like a bit of a musical, but this races along with songs hurriedly following one another, no characterisation, the dance numbers (which were heavily choreographed according to the extras on the DVD) are just thrown away with only half the bodies ever on screen, the dance chorus of north Europeans appear on a small Greek island at will, while the set and set up of numbers would have disgraced Cliff Richard's musicals in the sixties!Meryl (see me I'm acting)Streep can't even make her usual mugging effective in an over-the-top musical! Her grand piece - 'The Winner Takes It All' - is Meryl at the Met! Note to director - it should have been shot in stillness with the camera gradually showing distance growing between Streep and Brosnan! Some of the singing is awful karaoke on amateur night. The camera cannot stop moving like bad MTV. One can never settle down and just enjoy the music, enthusiasm and characters. But what is even worse is how this botched piece of excre**** has become the highest grossing film in the UK and the best selling DVD to boot? Blair, Campbell and New Labour really have reduced the UK to zombies - critical faculties anyone???",0 -"I cherish each and every frame of this beautiful movie. It is about regular people, people we all know, who suffer a little in their life and have some baggage to carry around. Just like all of us. Robert DeNiro, Ed Harris and Kathy Baker breathe life into their portrayals and are all excellent, but Harris is especially heartbreaking and therefore very real. You would swear he really is a trucker who drinks so he won't have to feel anything. Baker as his put-upon sister also has some delicate moments - when DeNiro gives her flowers in one scene, it seems like she was never given flowers before and probably wasn't. Very worthwhile.",1 -"Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, ""The Bat People"" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.

Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....

But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in ""Smokey and the Bandit"" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!

The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?

And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?

How about...no stars for ""The Bat People"", full version OR MST3K version!

By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.",0 -"Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, ""Evergreen."" Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of ""Apartment Living,"" not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.

Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.

But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt.",0 -"Absolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your time.",0 -"I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.

Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.

I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.

Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.

Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.",0 -"As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do.

Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.

Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.

However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.

Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.

As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.",0 -"I think that this is a disappointing sequel. I miss a lot of the old characters (King Gator, Anne Marie, etc.), and I don't like it due to the fact that not even half of the original voices are back to do the characters. A lot of personality was lost in Charlie, and the villain Red is not even half as bad as Carface was in the first one. If you're a big ADGTH fan like I am, it's worth seeing just to see how the story is continued, but don't count on it being 5 stars in your book.",0 -"George Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.

I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in ""THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES"" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.",0 -"I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie.

The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention.

The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.

One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body.

Overall... DON'T BOTHER",0 -"You think the police are always right.

You believe that ""eye-witnesses"" are always right.

You believe the prosecutors will not take a case to court if lazy police have failed to perform 98% of a basic investigation.

You believe a U.S. city might have a ""few bad apples"" in law enforcement, but that the ""good cops"" will quickly nip those who systematically engage in evil-for-evil's sake in the bud.

You believe that the possibility of an ex-football lineman being instated as a detective solely because his dad is the county sheriff, and being allowed to beat ""confessions"" out of randomly-selected teenagers with absolutely no fear of negative consequences to himself could happen in the America of the 1930s, but not today.

You believe a judge will NOT send a case to the jury if anyone with a brain in their head can see the defendant is a totally random passer-by nabbed by the police because it was hot, and they did not feel like working that day.

You believe that all the innocent people imprisoned six months here or 20 years there are ""exceptions to the rule,"" and an injustice like this could NEVER involve your family member, someone in the middle class, or someone like YOU.

You think that you are aware of every terrible, indisputable, 100% proved outrage of the last 10 years in America--yet you haven't seen this film.",1 -"Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy.",0 -"I got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...

What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...

The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.

Karyn Kusama, the so called ""director"" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.

Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.

Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.

Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...

I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it.",0 -"What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its ""gotcha"" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.

What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a ""shot-on-video"" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.

Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental.",1 -"Ugh! Where to begin ... first, Campbell Scott's non-stop angst becomes a real turn-off after awhile (a very short while) as he internalizes his mounting anguish, curiosity and anger. Only we don't care! These characters as presented by the writer and director are wholly unlikable, and therein lies the key. They haven't given us anything to make us care if they are adulterous and whether or not they are still in love with one another. When Scott quietly tells his wife, ""I could kill you"" before their three daughters at the dinner table, after the shock of his selfishly poor timing wore off I almost wished that he had--and then done the same thing to the smug, wisecracking apparition of Denis Leary before being hauled off the the looney bin. An utter waste of time and perhaps--only perhaps--resources.",0 -"I simply cannot understand how any Who fan, or just plain anyone could find this awful, lazy, poorly written abomination even remotely funny. It is so embarrassingly below par that it qualifies as a genuine tragedy. The potential for this was huge, it could have been great. What a shame that all that acting talent, the sets, the props, the goodwill of everyone involved was so pathetically wasted by a script that should have been burned.

There is an obvious lack of any rigorous production and quality control here. Like those hammy Hollywood movies (mad mad mad world, casino royale) where the stars are just mugging for each other and 'having a great time' which basically means picking up a cheque for doing nothing.

I could have written a better Who send-up in my sleep. In fact I have, while awake though. I did it in Year 10 in high school and performed it with a bunch of classmates. It was better, I look at it now and the gags are funnier. Steven Moffat YOU ARE A NO TALENT BUM! What a waste, what a wasted opportunity. Makes me want to cry....",0 -"Going down as the most expensive film in Finnish history, to date, ""Dark Floors"" is a horror film with an extremely Lynchian narrative that recounts an ever increasingly decrepit series of ""Floors"" (ironically enough) in an abandoned hospital, in which our protagonists are trapped. Lead by an autistic daughter and her father, himself disenchanted with the hospitals apparent lack of medical progress with his daughter, make their way into an elevator debating the issue with one of the hospitals nurses. Accompanied by a security guard, a businessman and a seemingly intoxicated tramp the collective soon find the complex abandoned, but they are not alone. Directed by Finnish- born Pete Riski, more known for his television work, ""Dark Floors"" is filmed in English, using mainly English actors but has the notable inclusion of Finland's arguably most famous group ""Lordi"" (2006 Eurovision song contest winners) as themselves, i.e. in their on stage monstrous costumes, as the films antagonists, yet for all this razzmatazz the production fails where it is needed most, in convincing the audience.

Any film that has their lead character use the phrase ""it's too quiet"" is already headed down a dubious path, and this Lordi influenced horror does not break that convention. For all the good ideas that are thrown into the mix there are a handful of ripe clichés alongside and worst of all, anything that is interestingly original isn't fleshed out enough for it to resonate. The concept of the degrading floors is initially highly ominous and does provide a sense of inevitable doom as the audience is aware those trapped in the hospital must progress ever further down in the mire. However, there isn't enough atmosphere created to scare and intimidate the audiences into the unknowing fear, the viewer is aware the journey will become ever more dangerous, as the levels degenerate from shiny white through to hellish black, but I don't think the characters are aware enough of this fact for it to be threatening. Also, the entire film taking place in what is essentially its own time bubble is again a very nice touch, a concept not often used in the horror genre, but the characters don't confront the situation with enough fear and trepidation when they stumble across this fact, they continue about their business far too readily and without enough genuine concern for the idea to mean anything to the audience. These initially good ideas are just left to go to waste, as if the director and/or Mr Lordi (who had many of the ideas used within the film) had these thoughts, but couldn't agree or decide on how to best use them and as such lose their purpose and point.

Yet for all the frustration there are large quantities of comedy, yet not for the reasons the creators would have hoped for. Too much is clichéd, too much is recycled and too much is just simply ridiculous. While the lead is amicably acted by Noah Huntley, the characters are mere cardboard cut outs that have been pasted into the story from other films. We have a lead man doing everything possible to protect his daughter alongside a clunkily developed love interest. Accompanying the ""couple"" we have the traditional token black man as a hard-nosed security guard, with the nigh on infinite clip for his sidearm, and a weasely disbelieving businessman only on the look out for himself. Worst of all though, unfortunately, is the introduction of the cast of Lordi as the creatures of the night that torment our wandering band of misfits, but not for them appearing as themselves. What makes a horror film scary to the viewing audience is contextualising the fear. ""The Shining"" is scary because it's a member of your own family hounding you, in ""Dawn Of The Dead"" it's our fear of each other and the primordial cannibalism and irrational thought patterns the zombies possess, in ""Alien"" the fear is explained, the creature is rationalised and in ""Dark Floors"" there is none of that. Perhaps it's unfair to compare this production to these monoliths of the genre but when you do it shows it pales significantly and that it's aggressors feel like nothing more than demented Klingons where you can almost see the zip on the costumes they wear, without a build up of any atmosphere ""Lordi"" just aren't scary.

It's infuriating because we all cheer for the underdog and hope they do well, you want the smaller productions to say that they can create the same quality of film as ""Hollywood"" churns out, much in the similar way that George A Romero started out, but it doesn't always materialise. I enjoyed the film and didn't feel as if I had wasted the ninety minutes I had just sat through, but I felt enjoyment on a completely hollow level as if nothing that had occurred mattered or affected me subconsciously, emotionally or critically. I felt the almost Lynchian narrative was a standout plus point, but it fades out into nothingness. Why did it happen? What does it mean? Will they go through this all again? Without even the slightest insight into what will happen the film is simply puzzling for the sake of trying to be arty. Was the entire sequence of events real or was it merely a dream sequence? Had the autistic girl watched the Eurovision Song Contest of 2006 and simply had a highly bizarre nightmare given the stress she was under? Who knows? And unfortunately I fail to work up the energy to even care. ""Dark Floors"" is an infuriating experience that while ultimately shallow hallmarks potential and at the very least shows a plethora of creative energies from Mr Lordi, who perhaps should look into working solo to fully develop his ideas. It's one that fans of the group or the genre should perhaps pursue but will leave you feeling left in the lurch for not having enough light shed on the situation.",0 -"Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).

So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.

Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.

Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon.",1 -"OK, Number one-this ""film"" is a ""90's"" version of a crappy show from the 70's that no one remembers! Number two-As soon as the movie started, I was confused, it was like I walked in halfway through the movie! There was no plot! it was very annoying! Horrible wardrobe! Call me crazy, but It's just not believable to me that little skinny Omar Epps can chase down a big grown man, without a gun, and scare him into talking! It's a ridiculous ""plot"". I'm sorry, but to me, kids these days can't even put their pants on one leg at a time, let alone catch some ""evil, underground, killers"". I walked out of the theater and demanded and got my money back! I do not reccomend this movie to anyone over 12 years old!",0 -"A chick flick that Guys still like - Yes! Wonderful. Now I can have fun, enjoy the company of my girl, and not feel like I can't wait until the movie ends! Light - but funny. Great stuff. What ever you do don't miss the DVD extras. This a great ""blind date"" file too. Will Smith does well in this - even though in is light acting - he pulls trough it all well. The movie is a little slow in pacing - don't expect too much action - the laughs are there - and so is the message - but the timing is a little slow. Use the low moments to whisper or kiss - it will pick up. The ending makes the feel good moments worth it. Most of all expect fun light hearted fare - and watch for some great upstaging by the supporting actors - they make the film. The plot twists are predictable - but it IS a date move, so get the refills of popcorn from the kitchen - and don't make her pause it. Count on more dates after this movie - she'll want o see what is next in line. Remember Hitch's advice!!!

Enjoy.",1 -"this film has its good points: hot chicks people die

the problem... the hot Chicks barley get nude and you don't get to see many of the people dieing, mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes.

also for those of you watching this for JENNA JAMESON she is just a side chearator with a very small role and Minor nude scenes.

What this film needed.. script and story would be nice but I will not complain about that.. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks...

I wouldn't waste my money on it...and if you must, wait until it's on the OLD shelves at your local video store",0 -"This film IS brilliant...... without a doubt. Watched it a while ago after constant pestering from family members who are right into their sci-fi films (which I am not), and thought it was quite good. But after recently watching a few documentaries on outer-space etc we watched it again... and it IS good.

Kevin Spacey is without doubt one of the greatest actors ever and I really like Jeff Bridges (Big Lewbowski, Blown Away, Arlington Road). The film revolves around a patient in a nursing home who claims he is from another planet. Yeah right, you think... but what if his story is so believable that even his psychiatrist begins to wonder if he is telling the truth.

That is how the story evolves with Bridges going through all kinds of emotions dealing with Prot (as he is known), his own psychiatric colleagues, his wife and family, his brother-in-law and his cosmologist astronomer work colleagues (who after getting some data from Prot, pretty much admit that he might be telling the truth!) A great film... that get's you wondering.....

8/10 Dave",1 -"This is one of the best reunion specials ever, with Adam West and Burt Ward parodying themselves and having fun while doing it. It's amazing the amount of effort that went into the detail, particularly recapturing the feel of the 1960's era, the Batcave set, Wayne Manor, the costumes, and the actors selected to play the younger versions of West, Ward, Burgess Meredith, Cesar Romero, and Frank Gorshin! This 90 minutes is well worth your time, and is a delight to all fans of the classic 1960's ""Batman"" television series. I note that clips from ""Batman"" were from the movie, and not the series itself, probably because of legal restrictions. Let's hope the three seasons of the show are forthcoming on DVD.",1 -"I like a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.

Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.

Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.

This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment.",0 -"The thing about calling ""House of the Dead"" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called ""a movie.""

House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.",0 -"I've never actually seen this film but can tell you one thing about its production. While a comedy/oldies radio DJ in 1988, I got a call from the production company. They asked if I'd write and record a bit they'd drop into the soundtrack as sounds eminating from a TV (the television screen itself would never be shown). I said sure, wrote a parody of '50s sci-fi monster clichés, rounded up some sound effects and called in another DJ, Pam Landry, to play the female part. As she happened to be on the air at the time, she put on a long song, joined me at the mike in the production room and we cut the voicetrack in a single take. Giggling, she then went back to her show while I mixed in the goofy sound effects. We'd have never done it if we'd known that ""Woodchipper Massacre"" was going to be such a turkey -- but, then again, we never got paid for our efforts, either! -- Gary Theroux",0 -"As I sit and think about Poison for the Fairies, I realize that I may not being fair with the film. My rating of 3/10 may have more to do with my disappointment with the film than its actual quality or entertainment value. Based on the plot description, reviews on IMDb, and the 7.6 IMDb rating, I would sure that I had stumbled on a little known gem. Sadly, it just didn't do much for me. For whatever reason, Poison for the Fairies all but put me to sleep.

Poison for the Fairies is the story of two young girls in 1965 Mexico City. One of the girls, Veronica, is a compulsive liar and tells her friend that she, Veronica, is a witch. The other girl, Flavia, is so gullible that she believes and is frightened by everything her friend tells her. That's really about it. In reality, nothing much happens and the film drags on and on as Veronica attempts to terrorize and dominate Flavia. One commenter on IMDb described it as ""the scariest film in 80's Mexican cinema"". My comment – if that's the case, there must not have been many horror films made in Mexico in the 80s. Another commenter wrote, ""Watch it if you wanna get scared."" My comment – are you sure we're talking about the same movie? My opinion is diametrically opposed to these examples I've given. To me, it was dull, uninspired, and poorly acted. The scene framing is especially annoying as director Carlos Enrique Taboada doesn't ever show the faces of any of the other characters. Veronica and Flavia carry-on long, drawn-out conversations with members of their families and their teacher, but we never actually see these peoples' faces. It's an annoying gimmick.",0 -"This film brought a whole new meaning to that well-worn phrase 'like watching paint dry' because this was 'like watching paint dry in the middle of a monsoon'.

I was attracted to the film by its location on the west coast of Portugal which I have visited. It is a ruggedly beautiful place and the black-and-white introduced a whole new dimension to the beauty. That was the only good thing. The story was appallingly banal and frankly you have to have some story.

A film crew runs out of film and the entire crew then have to wait. Well, a wait is a wait. I can wait for a number 15 bus on Princes Street in Edinburgh, I can spend hours on a remote railway station in the middle of nowhere on cold winter's Sunday afternoon. However a wait is boring and yes, this wait was boring too.

So the leader goes off to America to remonstrate with the film supplier who castigates him for not making the whole thing in colour. After a number of arguments two blessed bullets ring out from wherever and the eagerly-awaited end finally arrives, and not before time.

Yes, I would see this film again if someone arms me with a couple of cans of colour film so that I can hurl them at the screen.",0 -"Aside from Frankie Muniz chattering too fast to understand (Malcolm in the Middle flashbacks?) this film still cannot conjure up a scare. The idea with the ""Countess"" and the history surrounding her placed into the story was fun but the plot, and many side plots, just don't tie together. Plot synopsis: murdering ghost lures victims through video game. Toss in some blood spatters and a special effects and you've got yourself another bombed out would be horror flick. The ghost cronies resemble the ghost in ""The Ring Two"" far too much. The acting and constant and dramatic change in everyone's emotions is unbelievable. Save your money.",0 -"National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose.",0 -"This is a perfect series for family viewing. We gather around the TV to watch this on BBC America. It is an up-to-date version of Robin Hood and it appeals to children and adults alike. Our teenager and tween-ager both enjoy sitting with mom and dad and watching Robin's next exploits. We can't wait for the next episode to air each week and are glad for the free ""On Demand"" viewing.

The wardrobe has a spot of current fashion. There is a moral to each story. It is entertaining. The violence is not over-the-top or needless. The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic with a John William's feel to it. It is an old world tale that is brought to life again with a new world flair.

There is so much garbage on television from brain rotting ""reality"" TV to senseless violence. You should take this for what it is and that is an updated ""Robin Hood"" not to be compared with the movie exploits of Errol Flynn. This is a gem to be enjoyed by all. Parents that are concerned about their children watching too much violence will enjoy that Robin has lost his taste for war and bloodshed. He is a Robin Hood that would rather attempt to reason his way out of a disagreement than fight. Maid Marian is also an appealing role model for young girls. Rather than stand by and do nothing, she takes her own role in helping the poor by being the ""Night Watchman."" The Sheriff of Nottingham is deliciously over the top wicked, just as the Sheriff should be and looks like a cross between Billy Joel and Tim Curry. Guy Gisborne is played by an extremely handsome actor, one that makes most women wish he didn't have portray the role of a bad ""Guy"".

The only question we have is ""Where is Friar Tuck?""",1 -"I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.",0 -"The Brave One is about a New York radio show host named Erica Bain (Jodie Foster). Her life is a dream living in the city she grew up in and loves. She has her great fiancé David (Naveen Andrews), whom she is planning to marry. But one night while Erica and David are out walking their dog, they are attacked and mugged by a group of degenerates, leaving David dead. Erica recovers but is heartbroken and traumatized later on, and can barely cope with real life anymore. She buys a gun off a guy on the streets for protection. But one day she's shopping in a store, and a man comes in and shoots the clerk dead. It is then that Erica shoots and kills this man, and she becomes a vigilante. Killing anyone who tries to threaten or harm her or any others. At the same time Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) is tracking down this elusive unknown killer, and in the process becomes friends with Erica. Erica begins to regain her sanity as she kills these violent people, but is unsure of whether or not what she's doing is morally right. And as her and Mercer become closer, he doesn't even realize the unknown murderous assailant is right next to him.

Jodie Foster gives a very good performance in The Brave One. She portrays this type of violent, morally corrupted character brilliantly. Terrence Howard is also great in this movie. Both have excellent chemistry together, and strengthen the film to a certain level. The Brave One looks visually pristine, and conveys some brilliant camera work, but not all of it works to a great effect. The scenes where Erica is absolutely traumatized and afraid to walk out her front door to face the world. The camera swayed back and forth to the sides in an almost dream-like way, and really captured the moment with essence. Whereas almost every time Erica killed somebody, everything just had to go slo-mo and show her facial expressions in fine detail. The slo-mo was properly used when Erica committed her first murder. But why keep doing this effect almost every time she committed murder? The camera work creates a great atmosphere in most of the film, but there a few scenes here that are just plain overkill.

The Brave One is very much about how these murders affect Erica emotionally. Her fiancé is killed by a group of thugs, and suddenly her love of New York City is turned upside down. She realizes that there is a dark side to the beloved city, and she says so on her radio show. I don't completely understand this though. Erica acts as if she never realized that violence can occur at night in the city, and that's pretty stupid. If she lived there all her life she must be either blind or very oblivious. Erica also seems to be a glutton for inhumane, murderous people. She really doesn't even have to go look for them, they just to come to her as if they're begging to be shot dead for their wrong-doing. The Brave One deals with the morals and proper use of violence strongly at first, and then suddenly it glorifies it. The ending is very negative, and completely immoral and inhumane. It also negates the purpose of Terrence Howard's character, which the movie spends so much time trying to evenly develop, and suddenly his morals take a U-turn. The morals in The Brave One become very fractured, and just plain shatter all over the place by the end. So violence is okay? It's a good thing to commit murder as long as it's for vengeance? I pretty much refuse to believe that. You know why? Because I have a conscience, which this film surely lacks. It is not right to take the life of another person, no matter how bad they are, or how much you hate them. Erica Bain sets out to stop these evil-doers, but in the end she is no better than the horrible people she kills.

Jodie Foster and Terrence Howard provide a lot of strength for this movie. The Brave One contains a strong message, but that message is both immoral and wrong. This movie may look pretty, well acted, and intelligently strong. But it becomes pretty rotten by the end. I give The Brave One a 1.5 out of 4. The message is very out of line and morally incorrect, and really can't be saved by the good acting.",0 -"Claire Denis' debut is both a brave and self-assured one. In this depiction of life towards the end of French colonialist Cameroon, she explores the relationships between men and women, black and white.

With the black servant 'Protée' as the film's primary object of desire and oppression, the film enters taboo territory from the beginning. Denis builds a picture of life through a series of character relationships that keep the informed viewer fixed to the screen. The mood of the film is captured perfectly by the camera-work and (lack of) lighting.

A great discourse.",1 -"OK, I didn't know what to expect when I saw the cover to Fido, honestly when I came across it in the video store I was tempted to rent this movie, but nothing about it really grabbed my attention. But when I was looking around in Netflix, they were advertising this like crazy if I liked ""goofy"" scary movies, so I figured to just give it a shot. I'm so glad that I did watch it, this was just a great movie, it was absolutely hilarious and so charming to watch. Like I said, it's Pleasantville meets Night of the Living Dead, it's just a great concept, what does happen after a mega zombie attack? As we see in another zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead, they have fun by making the zombies left over as ""handy"" citizens. This is a very overlooked horror/comedy movie, I think a lot of people were just so blown away with Shaun of the Dead that this got the boot. But it's a great story and the cast was perfect and made this into just a really funny movie.

In a 1950s alternate universe where radiation from space has turned the dead into zombies. This radiation still plagues humanity, as all those who die after the original contamination turn into the undead. In order to continue living normal lives, communities are fenced with the help of a governing corporation named Zomcon. Zomcon provides collars with accompanying remote controls to control the zombies' hunger for flesh so as to use them as slaves or servants. In the town of Willard, a housewife ,Helen, buys a zombie in spite of her husband Bill's zombie phobia. Their son, Timmy, befriends the zombie, naming him ""Fido"". One day Fido's collar malfunctions and he kills their next door neighbor, who turns into a zombie. Timmy ""kills"" the zombified neighbor. When a pair of local bullies are blamed for the missing neighbor, they capture Fido and Timmy. Helen comes and rescues Timmy and Fido from the bullies and they try to forget about the whole thing. Several days later, the neighbor's body is found and the murder is traced back to Fido, who is taken away to Zomcon where the public is told he will be destroyed. Timmy learns through a friend that Fido is simply working in a factory at Zomcon. Timmy sets out to rescue him with the help from his neighbor with a zombie girlfriend in hopes to get Fido back.

I really do highly recommend this movie if you get the chance to see it, it's so silly but a lot of fun. Billy Connelly did a great job as Fido and really brought, no pun intended, a lot of life into the character. I think the scene that made me laugh the most was when Timmy has to burry the old lady that Fido attacked and killed, his last words to her were so funny, ""you weren't really nice, but you liked flowers, so…"" and he buries her in the garden. Not to mention the neighbor with the zombie girlfriend, sick, disturbing, wrong, but classic laughs. I still love how even though this is like the Leave It To Beaver-esquire type of world, there still is a lot of gore in the movie. So if you do have a chance to see Fido, take it, I promise some good laughs.

9/10",1 -"I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.",0 -"If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.

Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.

If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.

I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.",0 -"I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made ""The Postman"" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in ""Butterfly Effect"". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo!",1 -"I was waiting to welcome Arnold Schwarzeneger's return to action after the dismal movies he'd made after ""Eraser."" ""End of Days,"" however, can be added to the dismal films he's had the misfortune of appearing in.

""End of Days"" starts well with a gripping action sequence, yet quickly becomes a bore, taking the focus off action and suspense and instead concentrating on the investigation of demonic happenings and the quickly approaching millenium (read ""Doomsday"").

Performances are stale, special effects so-so, and gore plentiful. Considering myself a die-hard Schwarzenegger fan, I couldn't believe I didn't like this film, but with such an awful, lame script, what could Arnie have done, besides passed on this turkey?

3 out of 10

",0 -"By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). ""Three"" AKA ""Survivor Island"" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.

In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.",0 -"This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time.

The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date!",1 -"I have read several reviews that ask the question, ""Why was this film made""? I myself found that question looming in my mind as the hour and twenty minute feature seemed to drag near the middle, only to give off the sensation that it was picking up steam at the end, when in actuality it was doing nothing of the sort. So, ""Why was this film made""? I think that is a great question for those watching Heftig og begeistret to ask themselves. This reviewer is proud of director Knut Erik Jensen for giving us this powerful image of hope, brotherhood, and inspiration with this all male choir, but I do not think that Jensen did enough to bring a gripping story to the table. Let me pose this question to you, ""Do audience members need more in a documentary than just a straight forward story to maintain interest""? My answer is yes, and this is where Jensen failed. Heftig og begeistret was a good documentary, but it was far from great. Jensen did a horrible job with the story and dedication of the subjects. It was great to hear the songs, but over time, those songs seemed dull, overwhelming, and a bit precocious. From the opening scene where our men are singing their hearts out in a blinding snow, I knew that I was hooked, but as the film developed I lost interest. Why? Jensen never took us, the audience members, to the next level. He kept the playing field level and ultimately hurt the overall tone of the film. Was this a movie about the music or about the men in the choir? The world may never know.

Again, I would like to state that Jensen did a phenomenal job of finding an interesting story about this group of men who have definitely seen hard times and how they coped with that through music, but it was as if the all male choir were a bunch of the most boring men ever created. Jensen gave us the music superbly, but it was the characters, the subjects, that I knew nothing about by the end of the film. In the mix we had a 97 year old man who still had his driver's license, we had a large man in a tub singing classic American songs, we had old men who were once heartthrobs in their youth, we had some tension between the youth of the choir and the veteran singers, and we even had an ex-drug addict that had only been clean for eleven years. Did Jensen develop these interesting stories at all? Nope, he left them on the table. It was obvious that these singers were willing to talk further about it (see the political man who missed his political days), but Jensen seemed to clear away from those heartfelt moments and head straight back into interesting places that he could have the choir sing. To me, the music was defined at the beginning of the film, I wanted to be introduced and hear the stories of these individual men. They were all captivating, yet Jensen seemed to ignore them completely.

By ignoring the major subjects of this documentary, Jensen became unsuccessful in creating any sort of tension towards the end. Without giving the ending away, I felt like Jensen was coloring in the lines. Instead of being bold outside the lines, he chose to create no moment of sympathy, emotion, nervousness, or sadness. Jensen took our subjects from point A to point B to point C without asking us to become involved in any way shape or form. I can see how national sentiment had made this film into a huge success in Norway, but for everyone else watching (i.e. ME) more was necessarily needed. I wanted to feel for these guys. I wanted to know if they were going to do well as they traveled, or just find themselves loved in their own city. There was no story, mostly in part to no development of the subjects. When you watch modern documentaries (oddly, this film was made in 2001), you want it to play out similar to any Hollywood feature film. You want suspense, realism, and drama, alas, with Heftig og begeistret you get nothing of the sort.

Overall, I must ask the question again, ""Why was this film made""? My final answer Alex, is that Jensen wanted to show how troubling times and a changing economy can still produce happiness in even the coldest places of Earth. I think that Jensen wanted to show human dedication and how something as simple as singing can unite a population. With that said, Jensen demonstrated that perfectly in this film, but he did not create a good documentary. When you make a film of this nature, I feel that you must look within the group, examine the choir participants and hear each one of their stories to bring about an ending that will grip your heart. The only thing that this film gripped was my attention span as it attempted to leave the room at rocket speed. Again, I do not want to sound negative about this film because the music was excellent and the men singing did bring about a feeling of honesty, but I needed more. With documentaries becoming a bigger staple of the film community, one expects a bit more than what Heftig og begeistret handed to us. I want to see reality and people, not just another song and dance routine!

Grade: ** out of *****",0 -"POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILER

It's not a terribly objective review but I just found this movie horribly depressing. Like a lot of Russell T. Davies'

work, it asks more questions than it can answer. His best work (Bob & Rose, Doctor Who) revels in hope against the odds and perseverance even after apparent defeat. These uplifting themes seemed strangely absent here. I suppose the fact that I'm still thinking about it days after viewing is a testament to the quality of the program but the resolution was just too bleak for my tastes.

I would, however, disagree with the reviews I've read complaining that the end feels ""tacked on."" I think each conclusion follows logically from its premise and the ending represented a sound personal belief that neatly resolved the primary theme of the show. While I never really questioned the progression of events, I felt like there was much that could have been expanded upon. I've also read that it was originally conceived as a four part series instead of two, and it's possible that the truncation has done some harm to the completed piece. However, these flaws appear throughout, in sequences and themes that sometimes feel rough or sketched in.

To his credit Davies is totally unafraid to write big, and you have to admire the sheer audacity and scope of this project. The premise he tackles here is the stuff of movies or novels – it is a brave and ambitious thing to tackle it in the medium of television. Strong points include Christopher Eccleston, who is positively mesmeric in the lead. For me, he was and remains the best reason to watch. The depiction of the Messiah's humanity was brilliant, thought provoking and engaging and a real credit to both Davies' writing and Eccleston's acting. I also thought the depiction of the modern world's reaction to the second coming rang true.

So, two stars simply because I personally want my entertainment to be entertaining. I would rather be uplifted or, at least, distracted by my fiction. I have a whole big real world around me – as filtered through CNN or the newspapers -- if I choose to be horribly depressed. There are definitely less subjective reasons by which to judge this piece but I'm afraid my judgment in this matter is clouded by my emotional response.",0 -"The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68.

Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...

…To rob a bank!

Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!

The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score…? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles

To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.

The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass

Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.

My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.

I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.",0 -"I thought this would be funny. I did. I don't know what happened. But I think a lot of the problem unfortunately falls with the casting. I don't know who this kid is, he could be a very nice person but he wasn't right for this movie. And the supporting cast was great which only makes it more obvious. For example there would be a scene with him and his love interest and your mind just starts to wander off but then Keith David starts speaking, or Leslie Nielsen, or Marion Ross, and it's like someone turned a light on and suddenly you can pay attention again and you think it might not be that bad. But when they get back to the main characters the lights go out again.

The spoofing material available in the superhero genre is plentiful so the fact that most of the jokes were basically a fart, makes you wonder who wrote this thing. I mean it had a couple of funny bits, as I do remember laughing a couple of times, but right now I don't remember why and it was only a few days ago.

Really I'm giving it a take it or leave it rating but I think most people should just leave it.",0 -"Shintarô Katsu, who played the blind swordsman ""Zatoichi"" in a total of 27 movies, ends the Hanzo trilogy with this excellent film in which he gets to make love to a ghost, Mako Midori (Blind Beast).

The big stick, used often in the pursuit of justice, is retired forever.

Katsu was his usual impudent self as he pursued those who would steal from the treasury to lend at usurious amounts to those who could not afford to pay.

The usual amazing swordplay and skill of the big guy was present, along with the blood.

I'm going to miss him.",1 -"I can't believe it that was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i laughed a couple of times. ( probably because of how stupid it was ) If someone paid me to see that movie again i wouldn't. the plot was so horrible , it made no sense , and the acting was so bad that i couldn't even tell if they were trying. that movie was terrible rating: F",0 -"I'm an opera buff, and operas are full of sex, blood and death. It may help to know the librettos of the operas the arias are from to really appreciate this film -- my mileage is very different than Tug-3. I am a classical music lover, and I liked this film.

I loved Ken Russell's ""Nessun Dorma"" segment, and would actually like to see him produce Turandot, because opera is supposed to be overwhelming, truly multi-media experience , but then I loved Lisztomania. I love *Turandot* and knowing the libretto so well may be why I don't find this segment the travesty that Tug-3 did.

The Buck Henry/ Rigoletto segment is probably the most approachable for the average viewer -- they are likely to recognize the tunes, and its a classic bedroom farce. I like bedroom farces, so the silliness didn't upset me.

The ""Liebestod"" segment is so outstanding that I recommend people watch this for that piece alone. ""Depuis la Jour"" was, for me, beautifully spiritual. And the Caruso recording of ""Vesti la Giubba"" (aka I Pagliacci) with John Hurt as the clown was wonderful. But people just wanting naked women may feel there is too much music and not enough bare flesh and sex.",1 -"Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.

This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.

Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.

And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.

All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.

I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.

It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.

I gave this one a very generous 3.",0 -"This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good.",0 -"My skateboarding career ended in 1974 when my two-by-four skateboard with steel roller-skate wheels hit a rock and I tumbled, for days it seemed, down the sidewalk outside my parent's house in Boston. By the time the cast came off my arm, summer was gone.

But I have always admired the X-games types and surfers especially. I think I spent the first month after I moved to Southern California on the beaches and piers watching the surfers, bemoaning that fact that I had missed my calling. It's the sort of thing you should learn young, before the horrible senses of self-preservation and self-awareness burrow in. Or else at best, you'll be so worried about not getting hurt or laughed at, you'll wind up looking like a trained bear.

I always admired how a good surfer seems to not care about anything but that moment, that wave, that experience. At one with the forces of nature. A good surfer makes it look like there is nothing else but that wave right there, and the way you interact with it. There's a lot of Zen in it to me.

This documentary outlines how a few young folks took the surfing concepts and extended them to skateboarding. Ramps, downgrades, low sweeping curves while interacting with the cement waves beneath their feet. In their day and time, this was all new. radical. Prior to the Zephyr Skate team the idea apparently was to go as fast as you could in a straight line on a skateboard, hence my long ""Evel Knievel at Caesers Palace"" like tumble down the front walk.

This film is a look back through time, to an America before EVERYTHING was labeled, tagged, marketed, and jam-forced down our throats as ""Extreme"". (Seriously, what's so ""extreme"" about an ""Extreme value meal"" at Taco Bell? Other than the fact that it is an extreme hazard to your colon...)

Watch this film and watch the birth of 'extreme sports'. Before there was an X-games, before Boom-boom Huck-Jam, before Crusty Demons, before the ASA...there were these young street urchins who created 'extreme sports' without really trying. They were just doing it for the purity, the pure pleasure, of skateboarding in the sun with friends.

I hope they get a cut of the 'extreme' money out there. Goodness knows they don't get the credit they deserve. Maybe this film can correct that.

Excellent film with a great soundtrack, a portrait of a Southern California, indeed an America, that no longer exists.

I don't care for Sean Penn but he does a decent job narrating.",1 -"Hitchcock made at least 11 films about the ordinary man, wrongly accused, on the run (sometimes really running, sometimes not) to prove his innocence in a situation beyond his control, the first one being ""The 39 Steps"", which really made him popular in Great Britain. It really is his signature theme.

Others include ""Young and Innocent"", ""Saboteur"", ""Spellbound"", ""Stage Fright"", ""Strangers on a Train"", ""I Confess"", ""To Catch a Thief"", ""The Wrong Man"", ""North by Northwest"", and finally ""Frenzy"". ""Saboteur"" starts Robert Cummings as Barry Kane, a wartime aircraft plant worker during wartime accused of murdering his co-worker and best friend during an act of sabotage on the plant. He meets up with model Patricia Martin, played by actress Priscilla Lane, during his run from the law, and later, of course, the various Nazi/Fascist sympathizers along the way.

""Saboteur"" is mainly like ""The 39 Steps"", even including similar plot devices such as handcuffs, the blonde who doesn't trust the main character in the beginning, a race across the country (in one case London to Scotland, and in the other California to New York), and meeting the ""colorful"" locals along the way. And so, just like ""The Man Who Knew Too Much"", I believe this is an American remake of one of Hitchcock's earlier works.

I think Robert Cummings was chosen because he comes across as a very ordinary American, sort of an ""everyman"" with whom the audience can identify. I like Priscilla Lane because her character is a more involved in the action than Madeline Carroll in ""The 39 Steps"" and Ruth Roman in ""Strangers on a Train"". As mentioned elsewhere, though, Otto Kruger steals the show as the villain. I also liked Vaughan Glaser's performance as the blind uncle; his lines are great. There are some funny touches all along the way for some comic relief, such as road signs featuring Priscilla Lane's character on them, and circus sideshow performers, and the truck driver, Murray Alper. Contrary to other opinions here, there aren't too many characters who believe Barry Kane's innocence immediately.

There are some slow parts, mainly when the action first moves to New York, but it picks up quickly when the last planned act of the fifth columnists gets underway.

It's one of my favorite films from Hitchcock (I put it in my top 5), especially in these days of the new war on terrorism. I think it hits home.

It makes you think, ""Could my coworker be involved in something evil?"" In fact, one of the movie posters for ""Saboteur"" proclaimed ""Watch Out for the Man behind your back!"" Imagine how that played in the mind of adults during the Second World War.",1 -"I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies.

The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.

The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore.",0 -"Saw this movie when it came out and then a couple more times years later. I'm watching it now 20 years later and it's still a very good story. Does it wreak of ""lifetime movie network""? Yes, but alas lifetime was not even in existence back then so it needed somehwere to air.

The cast was excellent. The story was a little schmaltzy; two women become close friends and unbeknownst to either one friend is having an affair with he other friends husband. She's invited over to the house for a dinner party which is how she discovers that her lover is the husband of her best friend. She is horrified and tries to break off the affair. Shortly afterwards he is tragically killed in a car accident which is devatating for both women. Of course the wife finds out by accident about this affair and wants Holly out of her life now, but their friendship is able to prevail because they need each other.

I thought it was a very good story a great cast and perfomrances. I really enjoyed it.",1 -"I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a movie. I am in my 40s now and have 2 teenage kids and I would like them to see this movie. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music.

I have searched most of the stores that sell both new and old movies but have not come across any.

I bought some old movies like "" Melody"" in Hong Kong, who had quite a collection of old movie, but they did not have this.

I am also looking at the sequel, Paul & Michelle.

Can anyone please tell me how to get a copy of the VHS or DVD or VCD.

Really appreciate it.

Many Thanks.",1 -"Roy Rogers and company try to bring ""Sintown"" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as ""Cookie"") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the ""slapstick"" look of ""Grand Canyon Trail"". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand.

** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine",0 -"If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a ""Spooky Halloween Sounds"" CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.

What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of ""Troll 2"" funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on.",0 -"To make a film straddling the prequels and the ""real"" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.

To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.

The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.

Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent!

No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls",0 -"Lovely Candace Bergen as the widow Perdicaris are kidnapped and held for ransom by the Sheik Raisuli played by one dashing Sean Connery. The incident comes during 1904 as Theodore Roosevelt runs for election to the presidency in his own right. Needing a good example to show off the muscular foreign policy of the United States, Brian Keith as Roosevelt issues a stunning declaration to the Sultan of Morocco, ""Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.""

But in this adaptation of that incident the famous declaration is the only true thing about this story. The Perdicaris in question was in reality one Ion Perdicaris who was a Greek immigrant and dilettante playboy. In fact Perdicaris gave up his American citizenship years ago and was back as a Greek national. Never mind that though, his predicament was serviceable enough at the time.

The damsel in distress makes better screen material though so it's a widow woman and her two kids that are in harm's way here. Of course as presented here the incident is also used by some of our European powers to get their foothold into Morocco. The intrigues get far beyond one brigand's demand for ransom.

The Wind and the Lion is hardly history. But it is an enjoyable film and Sean Connery is always fun to watch. Brian Keith also fits my conception of Theodore Roosevelt and the scenes in the Roosevelt White House do ring true to all the stories told. John Huston plays the ever patient Secretary of State John Hay who Roosevelt had inherited from his predecessor William McKinley.

But kids don't use this film to skip reading a history assignment on the Theodore Roosevelt era.",1 -"My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:

1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.

Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.

News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.

DO NOT WATCH",0 -"Any one who writes that this is any good there kid may have worked on it or put money in to this god-awful college experiment. It was lousy, slow, and painful to watch. Running time of only about 84 minutes, it felt like three and half hours. The only person to blame is the director, who knows nothing on how to direct a scene, where to place the camera! 95% of this dreadful movie was shoot by long master shots. Two or three people in the frame talking or yelling forever( or what seems like forever), No close-ups!! No medium shots!!. There are two so-called fight scenes that any filmmaker with a brain would have shoot some close-ups or medium shoots for them. They looked very amateurish. The scenes with the father and son screaming at each other would have worked better if there was a cut away of just the father or just the son acting,or reacting. Tri-C must be very mortified to show this any where. I have seen a bunch of bad movies in my time some of them are fun because they so bad, this is not one of them.",0 -"It's exactly what I expected from it. Relaxing, humorous and entertaining. The acting couple was awesome, as well as the scene selection. I personally recommend this. It's kind of the movie that can be seen by whole family at the same time without anyone feeling uncomfortable or getting bored. This cute movie will make you smile, and laugh too. And the action scenes are tasty. Classics of modern american comedy. And very well done.",1 -"I've known about Bettie Page for many a year now. The soft-core porn images of her from the 1950's have since become iconographic and still have a strong draw even today. The ""Bettie Page"" look is also still hugely popular within the hetero fetish world and remains as distinctive today as it did then. So I watched this film with quite a bit of familiarity to begin with. The result did not disappoint.

Among other things, it was hugely entertaining to see the movie's recreation of actual figures like Irving Klaw, John Willie, and Bunny Yeager – all consider trailblazers today. Mary Harron did an excellent job creating the desired ambiance of sexual repression and hypocrisy in 1950's America along with a sexuality that, by today's standards, was innocent in the extreme. I particularly liked the use of monochrome versus color as a visual shorthand for the emotional and spiritual climate Bettie found herself in.

I think that Gretchen Mol did an excellent job of presenting the character of Bettie in all her innocent sexuality and all her utter naiveté. Bettie loved to look pretty, loved the attention, saw nothing wrong with nudity, and enjoyed dressing up in ""silly outfits"" for the camera. The underlying sexuality and deeply fetishistic desires all that evoked were completely lost on her. To this day she still doesn't understand ""what all the fuss was about"" when it comes to her pictures or the S&M content of them.

This isn't to say she's uneducated or too simple to understand it's just that she simply doesn't ""get it"" about fetishism and never will. No harm there. Bettie Page is simply being who she is. The film captured this quite nicely.

The social atmosphere of the 1950's depicted by Ms. Harron and written by her along with Guinevere Turner makes me truly glad I live in the day and age that I do. The hypocrisy and repression combined with the massive ignorance about our sexuality all combined to a frighteningly stifling world. The film well captures this and brings to cheering as Bettie endures it all with her unshakeable faith and her unchangeable naiveté.

This film was a bit slow at times but hit all the points Ms. Harron attempted and hit them well. I'd recommend this film even for those folks with little to no knowledge of who Bettie Page was and what effect she had on American culture. For those with such interests, then this film is a must see.",1 -"Passionate, dramatic, riveting as Flamenco itself, the film is simply amazing. It is set on the immortal Bizet's music. The original music is written and performed by one of the greatest classical guitarists, leading proponent of the Modern Flamenco style, Paco de Lucia who plays a musician with the same name. Legendary Flamenco dancer and choreographer Antonio Gades co/wrote the script and choreographed this fabulous version of the celebrated Georges Bizet/Prosper Mérimée novella/opera. He plays a main character Antonio, the famous dancer/choreographer who works on retelling the story of Carmen in the Flamenco style that combines dances with singing and rhythmic hand clapping and has a highly charged level of dynamics that appeals enormously to the viewers.

Brilliant and graceful Cristina Hoyos whose technical excellence matches the elegant artistry of her dancing shines in the supporting role. Hoyos had been the first dancer in Gades' company for twenty years (1968-1988) and she was the protagonist of three films that Carlos Saura made of Gades' three great shows: ""Bodas de Sangre"" (1978), ""Carmen"" (1983) and ""El Amor Brujo"" (1985). Gorgeous Laura del Sol is a young dancer named Carmen in whom Antony sees from the first sight another Carmen, who was immortalized by two Frenchmen, the writer Prosper Mérimée in his most famous novella written in 1846 that had inspired George Bizet's world famous Opéra-Comique version from 1875.

As in the opera and in the novella, Carmen in Saura's film is desirable and deadly, the ultimate femme fatale who has to be free above anything else. She could not tolerate the possessive love of any man and would prefer death to submission. There some 50 movie adaptations of the story and the opera to the screen, and as different as they are, they all have in common the only possible tragic end. Saura/Gades' film is unique as the most sensual of all and truly Spanish. I fell in love with it from the first time I saw it over twenty years ago and it is as special and beautiful today as it was back then. Highly recommended.",1 -"I just watched The Dresser this evening, having only seen it once before, about a dozen years ago.

It's not a ""big"" movie, and doesn't try to make a big splash, but my God, the brilliance of the two leads leaves me just about speechless. Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are nothing less than amazing in this movie.

The Dresser is the story of Sir, an aging Shakespearean actor (Finney), and his dresser Norman (Courtenay), sort of a valet, putting on a production of King Lear during the blitz of London in World War II. These are two men, each dependent upon the other: Sir is almost helpless without the aid of Norman to cajole, wheedle, and bully him into getting onstage for his 227th performance of Lear. And Norman lives his life vicariously through Sir; without Sir to need him, he is nothing, or thinks he is, anyway.

This is a character-driven film; the plot is secondary to the interaction of the characters, and as such, it requires actors of the highest caliber to bring it to life. Finney, only 47 years old, is completely believable as a very old, very sick, petulant, bullying, but brilliant stage actor. He hisses and fumes at his fellow actors even when they're taking their bows! And Courtenay is no less convincing as the mincing dresser, who must sometimes act more as a mother than as a valet to his elderly employer. Employer is really the wrong term to use, though. For although, technically their relationship is that of employer and employee, most of the time Sir and Norman act like nothing so much as an old married couple.

Yes, there are others in the cast of this movie, but there is no question that the true stars are Finney, Courtenay, and the marvelous script by Ronald Harwood. That is not to say that there aren't other fine performances, most notably Eileen Atkins as the long-suffering stage manager Madge. There is a wonderful scene where Sir and Madge talk about old desires, old regrets, and what might have been.

Although it doesn't get talked about these days, it is worth remembering that The Dresser was nominated for five Academy Awards: Best Actor nominations for both Finney and Courtenay, Best Picture, Best Director (Peter Yates), and Best Adapted Screenplay.

I had remembered this as being a good movie, but I wasn't prepared to be as completely mesmerized as I was from beginning to end. If you want to see an example of what great acting is all about, and be hugely entertained all the while, then I encourage you to see The Dresser.",1 -"This is quite possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen. Again I made the mistake of buying the movie because the synapse on the back sounded cool and the front cover looked pretty cool too (After buying this and the movie ""Malevolence"" which I reviewed on here as well, I have learned my lesson). I love horror movies that take place in the woods or in the desert or on a farm. This supposedly takes place in the woods of Texas but was probably filmed in the director's backyard. The production was probably the worst I ever seen. The actors were absolutely the WORST. The story didn't have anything to do with what the back cover said. I even tried to sell it to F.Y.E and some other ""mom and pop"" store that buys used DVDs and neither would take it. Thats how awful this poor miserable excuse for a movie was. I have seen some bad movies before (Troll 2 for example) but this definitely takes the cake. I didn't think there was a worse movie than ""Troll 2"". Boy was I wrong! Do not buy this movie unless someone hands it to you for free but even than your stuck with it unless you throw it out which is what I am about to do!!!!",0 -"All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K.",0 -"My 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra, writes:

I thought it was very boring, and I thought it was just a repeat of stuff from ""101 Dalmatians."" I couldn't wait for the movie to end. The best part was the credits at the beginning - they were cute and well done. The rest of the film is not worth watching. Thank you.",0 -"I was hugely impressed with this movie, if for nothing else than for the comedy. It might not be the edgiest, wittiest humor at all times, but I found it appropriate to every scene.

The flow of the film is certainly a bit jumbled, almost confusing sometimes, but that is how the characters feel. Sometimes, we're watching a bit of slapstick and other scenes revolve around a decisive discourse on relationships. This might be a bit frustrating to certain viewers, but it brought me closer to the characters' dilemmas of irregular chaos.

The acting is great from everyone. I'm a huge Andy Richter fan, but I wasn't head over heels for his part like everyone else seems to be. He did very well, but Julianne Nicholson and Lauren Graham stole the show for me, both in their respective ways. Jay Mohr performs as expected, if you've seen him in other films. I've always liked him.

Overall, the movie is very funny and offers some nice foundations for a few types of relationships. When it comes to relationship questions and problems, some films try to surprise. There's nothing surprising about the conclusions offered here, but it's entertaining to watch them be revealed throughout the film.",1 -"Unlike some movies which you can wonder around and do other things, this movie kept me in front of the screen for the entire two hours. I loved every minute of it.

However, I have to say that the story is not very believable. Especially when the foreigner was expelled by the government, and then later on, actually sent a package to the guy who helped him. Xiao Liu is a very good actor, he shows his emotions, and he shows his silliness, and his love toward that girl.",1 -"This movie was so bad I don't know where to begin, apparently neither did the filmmakers. It starts off with a guy in his mid thirties to late forties watching TV. The news tells of a corn maze that's open for Halloween. He has a ""vision"" of God knows what and rushes off the save his kids who are walking into a cornfield maze and are somehow linked to this ""vision"" How you ask? I don't know, and as I said before neither do the filmmakers. They're simply visions of people's feet. How did he get these ""visions""? It's never explained, we're just supposed to go along with it. He enters the maze to find his two daughters who are lost inside, and twice the girls he's looking for walk right past him, one time they actually run into him. What does he do? Does he chase after them? No. He stands there like an idiot calling for them when they just ran past. Do the girls stop? No. They run off then ask ""Was that Dad?"" Then someone dressed as demon jumps on the ""star"" (the Dad character) he beats him up in a pathetic fight only to find out he's a worker at the haunted maze. The police are called and after finding the ""star"" (which is a really bad term to use) they cuff him. They cuff his hands in front of him, so that he can find something to pick the lock with, which he does. First off, anybody who's ever been arrested knows that cops cuff your hands behind your back, and secondly why does this ""average guy"" seem to know how to pick the lock on handcuffs? Well he eventually gets away from the cops who give up and leave after a the ""star's"" wife sets off the siren in the police car as a distraction. By the way, it's now night time and all the workers running the maze have seem to have left once the sun went down. Leaving a man who attacked one of their workers and two missing children in the maze. Considering it was a slow night that these are their only customers, why not. Besides the cops apparently have better things to do as well. By the way, the ""star"" who goes by the name of ""Walker"", we figure out it's his last name, a name in which his wife even calls him by. Somehow he knows there is something buried in the middle of this cornfield maze and starts digging. I say 'somehow' because I couldn't figure out why he started digging in the first place. He finds a locket, what does it mean? Nothing to anyone who watches this, but to him it's some sort of clue to a crime. Somebody killed their kids in his ""vision"" and I guess that's what he's going on, real detective work. And by now he knows there's a killer loose in the corn maze, one he somehow knew was there from the start of the film, which is why he's looking for his girls. Every time we see the killer, or rather the killer's feet, we hear a weird robotic sound, like a sci-fi reject toy that changes a persons voice to sound mechanical. Why do we hear this sound? Is it in anyway related to...anything? Again, who knows? Certainly not the filmmakers. The peak of all the bad acting and bad dialog was when ""Walker"" yells out ""Hey you, Mr. Bad Man...I'm gonna get you."" Another time his wife is attacked by the ""Bad Man"" at the entrance to the corn maze, which like I mentioned before is oddly empty of any employees or policemen. The ""Bad Man"" calls ""Walker"" on his cell phone to tell him that he plans on killing his wife and kids and him as well. ""Walker"" can only reply with ""Hey. HEY!"" before dropping his phone and running off. With no one on the other end to talk to, the killer drops his phone too, he drags the wife a few feet then leaves her alone for the rest of the film, losing the first opportunity to hold true to his treats. If this script wasn't written by a child I'd be surprised. Opps it wasn't. It was written, directed, and produced by the same guy. And not only that, he also did so much of the crappy camera work as well, where we get random shots of feet walking through the muddy maze and meaningless shots of the cornfield, that waste 90% of the film time. In the end ""Walker"" uses the cuffs to cuff the ""Bad Man"", who also seems to know how to pick locks with the same metal object that ""Walker"" had picked it with. Apparently there are lots of small metal objects just laying around this cornfield. But after the killer insists he's still going to kill the kids ""Walker"" kills the ""Bad Man"", and everything is right with the world again. Now in reality this makes ""Walker"" a murderer, he's killed a man who ""Supposedly"" murdered his own daughters and was trying to kill his. He knows this, not because of proof, but because of his visions. He never found a body, nobody else knows this guy was even in the maze. And the locket? He gives it back to the ghosts of the two dead girls. No proof. So he kills a man without any tangible reason. I can't imagine what the filmmakers were thinking with this one. It must have been a way to cover up a misappropriation of funds for the production company. I would rather watch the Blair Witch Project five times than see this film again. The actors should be ashamed. The director/producer/writer/cameraman should also be ashamed. In fact the entire production company should be ashamed. If there is anyone associated with this film, please reply. What were you thinking?",0 -"Following the success of the (awful) Gilligan's Island TV movie reruns, a number of TV movies were made in the 1980's reuniting casts from classic shows. Most of these movies completely missed the boat as far as recapturing the humor that made the shows so special. THE MUNSTERS REVENGE is among the most disappointing because it goes for a Laurel and Hardy-type comedy style that really wasn't in the original series. Yvonne De Carlo, a wonderful comedienne and essential to the series, is completely wasted - she has less time here in this 90 minute movie than she did in any single 30 minute episode. And since the roles of ""Eddie"" and ""Marilyn"" in this movie are nothing more than cameos, what was the point of making them younger and recasting them? With very little rewriting, they could have used Butch Patrick and Pat Priest. Although seeing some of the Munsters spooky relatives was a nice touch, I didn't enjoy Sid Caesar as the hammy mad scientist mainly because there's too much of him and not enough of the underused Munsters (ironically that very year, 1981, Caesar's old partner in comedy, Imogene Coca, was also inappropriately cast in a major part in a TV movie reunion RETURN OF THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES). Another strange inexplicable bit at the beginning of the film has the Munster family represented as wax figures at a local horror wax museum. Why would they be in there when they are supposed to be a ""typical"" (if strange) American family, not famous monsters? This was the last Munsters project featuring the original cast in their roles, there was an awful revival of the series in the late 1980's with a completely new cast and a 1990's TV movie which featured DeCarlo, Lewis, Priest, and Patrick in cameo roles as a family dining.",0 -"This program is certainly my favorite non-sitcom television comedy. Australia produces very little good programs - most of the TV which I watch (and I live in Australia) is from the US and England.

The funniest part of this show is just how controversial it is. Like when they went past numerous security barriers at the APEC summit pretending to be Canadian diplomats.

The show is made up of pre-filmed stunts, general satirical discussion of current world events, and sometimes on-stage skits. These all come together to make a fabulous, extremely funny TV show. The segments like ""Ad Road-test"" and ""Message from Osama bin Ladin"" are hilarious. For anyone interested in watching hilarious satirical TV comedy - then this is definitely the show you should watch.

All the guys are great and do an excellent job in entertaining you for half an hour.

I would rate it 10/10.",1 -"""twin peaks"" and ""blue velvet"" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.

many people will walk out of ""mulholland drive"" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.

It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in ""vanilla sky"", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.",1 -"I saw the movie in 1972, and like other people who have commented on it here ... I went back many more times to see it over and over ... I think 9 times in all. Just great is how I would describe it ... I was taken by the sound track, the beautiful panoramas of the south of France, the life style the kids began on their own. An ideal way to live is what they had set up ... of course the powers that be have to intercede, but when I forget that part I find myself wanting to be in the movie and live like that! So good that it is available on DVD now ... it was not around for years!

TLW",1 -"Tipping the Velvet has just three weeks ago been released in the UK and already I watch as countless letters flood to the national papers and TV guides, claiming that it possesses a thin plot, weak performances and an even weaker script.

You find me incensed. This is heresy.

I would really like to dispel all doubt by first congratulating Andrew Davies on enabling Geoffrey Sax to create this wonderful dramatization of Sarah Waters' novel by cushioning him with such a fantastic script. Kudos. But I fear I must now change tack.

I saw one of the premiere TV guides here in the UK (which shall remain nameless) relentlessly describing Tipping the Velvet as a ""lesbian love story"". If they are, and I assume they are, trying to promote interest in the film, then this is completely the wrong way to go about it (aside from the phrase being a disappointingly inaccurate description). By saying such a thing, they are either a) turning away those who would instinctively be repelled by ""that"" subject matter or b) attracting a class of people who will only watch to see some ""serious girl-on-girl action"". Buy a video! Through this display of serious inconsideration, this and other magazines are cheapening what is a brilliant adaptation of one of recent literature's greatest works. Tipping the Velvet is a story of love, of passion, of moving on, of loss, and of heartbreak. It's not a lesbian love story. No siree.

The end result is a stylish affair, with excellent performances all round (particularly from Stirling, Hawes, Chancellor and May). Direction-wise, it's intoxicating and immersive - sometimes, fast-paced, sometimes not - but it never ceases to be anything less than compelling. As a whole, it's polished and well delivered, the sex is undertaken with tenderness and delicacy - and although many will not class it as a real ""film"", it will remain among my favourites for some time to come.",1 -"As the first of the TV specials offered on the elaborate box set, ""Barbra Streisand: The Television Specials"", released last November, this disc is being released separately for those who do not want to fork over the dollars for all five specials. As an investment, this is indeed the best of the bunch if only for the fact that this is Streisand at her purest and most eager to impress. That she succeeds so brilliantly is a key component of her legend. Signed to a long-term contract with CBS to produce hour-long variety shows, an almost extinct format nowadays, Streisand was all of 22 in this CBS special first broadcast in April 1965. At that point of her career, her notoriety was limited to a handful of best-selling albums, a few dazzling TV appearances on variety and talk shows, and her successful Broadway run in ""Funny Girl"".

Filmed in crisp black-and-white, the program is divided into three distinct parts. With the creative transitional use of ""I'm Late"" from Disney's ""Alice in Wonderland"", the first segment cleverly shows her growing up from childhood through numbers as diverse as ""Make Believe"" and ""I'm Five"". Opening with a comic monologue about Pearl from Istanbul, the second part moves on location to Manhattan's chic Bergdorf Goodman's where she is elegantly costumed in a series of glamorous outfits while singing Depression-era songs like ""I've Got Plenty of Nuthin'"" and ""The Best Things in Life Are Free"" with comic irony. Back to basics, the third segment is a straight-ahead concert which opens with a torchy version of ""When the Sun Comes Out"", includes a ""Funny Girl"" medley, and ends with her classic, melancholic take on ""Happy Days Are Here Again"" over the ending credits. Also included is the brief introduction she taped in 1986 when the special was first released on VHS. For those who know Streisand only for her pricey concert tickets and political fundraising, this is a genuine eye-opener into why she is so revered now.",1 -"I don't know if I'm just weird, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

Return to Cabin by the Lake is of course the sequel to another one of my favorite films Cabin by the Lake. In fact, I think that I enjoyed this movie even more than the first one. I also thought that the cast in this movie was great, Judd Nelson is always the best! I also enjoyed the plot as a whole. I liked the fact that this second movie focused on the filming of Stanley's screenplay Cabin by the Lake- it wasn't a completely redundant film of Stanley grabbing other girls and drowning them. - If you're looking for some deep meaning, then this film is probably not the one for you. However, if you're looking for a fun way to spend two hours, then go ahead and watch it. I've probably already killed at least ten hours watching this film. :)",1 -"This would have worked a lot better if it had been made as ""Mitchell in Malta."" At least then we would have been spared the sight of Joe Don Baker running around an otherwise scenic Mediterranean locale clad in that ridiculous looking cowboy outfit...not to mention acting like an Old West gunslinger. Mitchell being Mitchell, the film wouldn't have suffered from a lack of gratuitous police brutality either. Oh well. At least the comic comments of Mike and the Bots made this enjoyable fare as an episode of MST. I can't imagine watching it on it's own, however.",1 -"The most remarkable thing about ""Talk Radio"" is how bad it is. The callers' voices all have a phony, reading-from-a-script ring to them. An evening with an annoying loudmouth at a Dallas radio station is told with the portentousness of a Sartrean glimpse into Hell. Stone tries for an existential revelation and gets unintended comedy instead. Whenever a caller makes a ""profound"" (empty) point about something, Stone shoves the camera at one of his character's face as they are stricken with some traumatic realization that is never revealed to the audience. Bogosian overacts throughout in one of the most irritating performances ever smeared onto celluloid. Underrated classic? Give me a break.",0 -"The ship may have sunk but the movie didn't!!! Director, James Cameron, from 'The Terminator' did it again with this amazing picture. One of my favorite scenes is 'The Dinner table' scene, in which Rose's family and friends meet Jack after he saves her. Rose has a look on her face that every woman should have when you meet 'THE ONE'...I hope I have that look when I am in the room with my future husband.

Jack and Rose have a connection that is 'MOVIE STUFF' but it's good movie stuff. We have the greedy mom and all her elite stuck up associates who live off of their husbands wealth. Rose almost commits suicide but the Gilbert Grape star rescues her. I really liked the hanging over the boat scene. It was a good risk.

The movie is long but it's fantastic!!! Good story, good flow, good actors!!! Go see it twice if you want, Its worth it!!!",1 -"I just purchased and viewed the DVD of this film. The DVD transfer is from last year, 2001. This 1988 film is really a great little film. Overlooked by most people. I saw it in the theater in 1988 and have loved it ever since. I love the opening shot of Pittsburgh (not Baltimore, as another user commented). Makes Pittsburgh look like one of the most beautiful cities in the world! And I must say, the tour of Pitts on the garbage truck with Nicky is a very scenic, interesting one! Tom Hulce, as everyone else has said, gives a remarkable, wonderful performance. The DVD is a good transfer, with no extras, but a widescreen format. I recommend it to those who love the movie.",1 -"Very literate, intelligent drama about a group of international travelers held virtual prisoners in the Hungary of 1956 by invading Russian Communist regime. Kerr and Robards play lovers, she a British baroness, he a Hungarian freedom fighter trying to do his bit for his country. Other New York theater stars of the period Anne Jackson & E G Marshall play an American couple traveling with their two young sons, including Ronny Howard in his screen debut. Jackson's character is hugely pregnant and not anxious to give birth in a soon-to-be communist country; she gives an impassioned plea in the third act of this film which presages the naturalistic acting styles we've come to know today from Redgrave, Fonda, & Streep. Leading the pack of Soviet wolves is Yul Brynner, magnificent as a commandant and at his sexiest since he played opposite Kerr in ""The King and I"". He is mean and nasty and terribly conflicted by his attraction to the lovely, patrician, & heroic Kerr. This is one of the great transition films of the latter part of the Golden Era of American film. Do not miss it.",1 -"We sat through this movie thinking why is this or that scene in the movie, what does this have to do with the plot? We hoped that by the end everything would be slightly more clear. It was not to be.

I think the director in a fit of pique threw the script up in the air and then some minor (and vengeful) underling reassembled it randomly with no regard to the scene being filmed (possibly with scissors and glue-stick).

The film's motifs include: Communism bad? Nihilism bad? Poor parenting bad? Threesomes bad? TV bad? Coherent scripting bad? Deconstructionism good? It's really not clear.

Finally, no German water taxi would EVER have an unchained staircase that would let passengers fall in to the water. The abundant quantity of ""achtung"" signs everywhere is testament to this fact.",0 -"From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.

Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey.",0 -"Carole Lombard stars in this transition period film. This film is a typical example of a very early ""talkie"" (First practical sound film was ""The Jazz Singer"", 1927). Overall, the acting in this film tends to be extremely broad and very melodramatic.

The viewer may easily note that the actors are still ""acting"" for a silent film, and this combined with the overly pronounced, overly earnest dialog (It seems most likely a diction-elocution-drama coach was employed extensively to teach the ""silent"" actors to speak lines), creates some rather comical scenes which were not at all intended to be comical.

Carole Lombard's later great acting ability is all but unrecognizable underneath all the broad gestures, melodrama, and eager earnestness.

Mainly interesting as an historical curiosity of the period, and for it's completely unintended comedy-camp value.",0 -"This is almost typical Lynch. However, What makes this film slightly unusual for Lynch is the fact that it looks very raw, almost amateurish. But i believe Lynch does this on purpose to give a greater sense of realism, which serves to increase the intensity of surreal moments.

However, a lot of Typical Lynch motifs are present, such as: floating camera work; haunting music; long (excruciating) pauses; hanging curtains; dim lights growing darker at a slow (almost indiscernible) pace; extreme close ups; themes of women in trouble; over-bearing, incompassionate, all knowing characters facing off with characters who are distraught, temporarily oblivious, in the dark and so on...

The performances are great and the short is thought provoking. As usual, Lynch leaves almost everything up to interpretation. Many questions are left unanswered and this ignites the imagination.

Another brilliant effort from Lynch. I only hope he makes some shorts, more along the lines of his sony playstation 2 commercials. They were inspired.",1 -"Here's what's good about ""The Slaughter Rule:""

--Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.

Here's what's bad about ""The Slaughter Rule:""

--Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-""feel good"" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.

I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out ""The Believer.""

My score: 2 out of 10.",0 -"I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\

All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.

I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.

Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one.",1 -"""Don't bother to watch this film"" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.

The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why ""Nellie"" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. ""Some Like It Hot"" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.

It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others.

Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.",0 -"It was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed.",0 -"Just okay horror film about a nice suburban family dealing with the death of their parents and the ""thing"" in the basement that they keep feeding people they pick up off the street. Of course there is more to it then that but to say more would be telling.

For me this just didn't come together as it tries to have it two ways both as a family drama and a horror film. the film tries very hard to walk the cutting edge between the two genres but seems more to stumble all over the place as it tries to be shocking, something it never really is. It doesn't help that the final revelation is less a scare then an ""oh"", as on ""Oh thats it?"". Maybe if I hadn't been watching so many horror films recently this might have been better or it may have just seemed it since I wouldn't have compared it to so much.

I'd take a pass",0 -"Jackie Chan's Police Story is a landmark film for both the Honk Kong action genre and the career of Jackie Chan.

Directed/written by Chan, Police Story has a basic plot as did all the films of that era and genre, and like most of the the films of Police Storys' kind, the script is nothing to be raved about. But the plot of the film is Jackie Chan, who plays a nice guy cop, struggling to convict the local gang lord.

The direction of the film is nothing special and by no means the best directing effort that Jackie Chan has given us, that responsibility falls to the underrated masterpiece ""Miracles"". However the job that Jackie does directing is sufficient and respectable. The standout out directing of the film comes with the fight scenes.

The performances in this film also vary with Jackie giving a very solid typical Chan nice guy up against it role, but this is by no means his best acting role, that can been seen in the Sammo Hung directed film ""Heart of the Dragon"". The other actors in the film also give as good a solid performance as Jackie with Bridgete Lin playing her part of the unwilling witness reasonably well, but neither does she display full acting potential. The standout acting comes from Maggie Cheung as Jackies' suffering girlfriend and Bill Tung as the sympathetic and funny police chief. None of the performances in this film is of a low enough standard to affect the quality of the film.

The action in the film is what really separates this film from others with stunning contemporary choreography to suit the urbanised, modern setting, the action is some some of the greatest fight scenes ever put on camera. To begin with there is a shootout in the slum where Koo (ganglord) is making a drug deal, whilst being no John Woo style sequence, this serves as a nice starter for the film. This is then followed by the famous car run down the side of the hill and through the heart of the slum wrecking everything in sight. This is a breathtaking sequence that has since been shamelessly copied by Bad Boys 2. In the middle of the film is yet another standout sequence as Jackie tries to transport Bridgete Lin from her house to his. This is really the first scene where we get to see the awesome fast paced hand to hand combat that has since become the norm for all modern set martial art films. This sequence is fantastically choreographed, timed and seamlessly edited together to maximise the brutality of the scene. However, as tradition dictates, the standout fight sequence is at the end of the film. This sequence displays some of Chans' best choreography, stunts and camera/editing work. This sequence is now famous for two things, the amount of people sent through high density glass, which has to be said a phenomenal amount of people, and the stunt at the end where Jackie leaps from a 5th storey balcony, grabs hold of a pole and slides down through a glass roof (this has to be seen to be believed). Whilst the two for-mentioned factors are both uniquely brilliant, i think that the most impressive part of this fight sequence is Chans' ability to incorporate anything into the fight sequence and the sheer originality of the choreography, that for me has never been bettered. I also believe that the action in Police Story is some of the best filmed and edited action of Chans career helping to set the action apart from others.

Overall, Police Story, despite its unspectacular storyline and script and over running in the middle due to plot padding, is one of the best action films of all time displaying Chans best choreography, best filmed action and arguably his most spectacular stunt making this essential viewing for everyone. Afterall, we watch a Chan movie for the action!!",1 -"""Land of Plenty"" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in ""The Million Dollar Hotel"" and now ""Land of Plenty"" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the ""time you lose it"" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.",0 -"This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way.",0 -"This is hands down the most annoying and frustrating game I have ever encountered. Every time you turn around the game takes control of your character or creates invisible walls that you can't walk through. The cut scenes leave you in control of your character's movements, but only to a slight degree. Also, you have to play the game for about 2 hours just to get past the intro/tutorials. It's terrible! I am afraid if I play this game any more I will end up breaking something. This game sucks. The graphics are good, but nothing special, the game play, however, is awful. To say I hate this game would be a huge understatement. I got it on sale, but I want my $20 back. What a waste!",0 -I have to confess that I slept in the cinema while watching the first Asterix movie... but this one is simply FANTASTIC! It is really funny and it leaves the first one miles away. It has enumerous gags and funny situations that made me laugh since the first minutes of the movie and I only stopped laughing when I reached the car to return home. I repeat: this movie is spectacular... Obelix is really funny and Cleopatra is a real babe!!,1 -"I saw this movie many years ago, have tried to locate it but perhaps understandably it is nowhere to be found. It was so esoteric, & yet one of a handful of movies that remains with you for a long time. I am still not sure what the reality of the movie is, and perhaps, like the Uncertainty Principle, the obscurity is the definite thing. Acting is superb, the atmosphere is always filled with a sense of foreboding, an overall melancholiness permeates, & yet, it is hard not to be absorbed in the story. I rented it thinking it was science fiction (it was in the sci-fi section with some totally misleading blurb), but quite clearly it is not. Or horror, or even suspense. In fact, one feels thankful the director took the courage to make a movie like this, for which obviously there is no solid audience. I know some people have complained about Klaus Kinski's short role, but I think it is very appropriate - his limited exposure is critical to the formation of the mystery of this movie.",1 -"All the ingredients of low-brow b-movie cult cinema. Topless (and bottomless) girls, kung-fu kicking chefs, slave traders, evil Germans with mustaches, Cameron Mitchell and sword-wielding zombies.

And, of course the breasts of Camille Keaton, who's best known display occurs in the feminist exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave. We also must mention the hooters of jewel Shepard, who play a hooker in the recent film The Cooler.

Lots of blood and action with knives and swords and martial arts among topless dancers in a bar, in a whorehouse, and on a boat load of martial artists heading to some zombie island where bad martial artists go to die or something like that.

Tops and bottoms come off easily and frequently as travelers are well lubricated thanks to the boat owner.

Then disaster strikes as their boat is destroyed and they land on the zombie island where mas monks sacrifice young girls to the dead martial artists to bring them back to life.

Just when you thought it had everything, there are piranhas in the water. Yum Yum A big fat German for dinner.

Just the thing for your next zombie fest.",0 -"1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.",0 -"An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.",0 -"I've seen every episode, and the characters have all remained the same self absorbed whinny little brats thought out, there's no character development in 5 years (getting pregnant is not development if your still the same daddies girl, only now Delinda whines to Danny because dad isn't around) Sam never changes or grows, which makes her boring, repetitive and just so annoying its sickening after season 3, Danny is a typical soft character that gets ordered about by everyone in his life, (he has no principals morals of his own) especially Mary and Delinda. The old boring cliché will they wont they on and off relationship does get boring very fast indeed.

James Cann can act and his character is OK to watch, only he is just another hack writers wet dream, an ex CIA man that has huge contacts and training etc so he can stop any thief or cheater known to man, even though the cameras cant do half the stuff they make out its fun for a while, however in 5 years the writers act very dumb, why? Because they have all this expensive and advanced technology, but no simple walkie talkie (communicating is fast and easy) you never see security walking the floor, only when there's a situation, and suddenly everyone is just there.

The plots very quickly move from the cheating and robbing the casino in one way or another, to awful typical American boy girl relation ships, the same done to death material seen all over the world, they have sex, but I hate you, I've always loved you, I think I do but I love her/him instead, but what if, maybe one day blah blah blah.

I'd recommend ''Hotel Babylon'' to people who like Las Vegas, it has so much more going for it simply because the characters are interesting engaging and not forced down our throat for 6 months of the year.

I'm glad to be British – I'd rather see the same actors in 5 different shows rather than 5 years consistently getting worst in the same one.",0 -"Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, ""Heart of Darkness"" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.",0 -"Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?

The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so ""okay"" about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about ""family values.""

Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor.",0 -"The glorious Edward gets to move up in the world when his supervisor tells him that he can drop those filthy Swedish drama movies and head up stairs to the splatter and gore department. Excited along with his big anticipations for the new type of movies he soon will be going to edit, he asks all sorts of questions, about the wage, his workspace and lunch brake. Well, not really. Edward is maybe quite the opposite. Calm, stuttering guy, on top of that, he got glasses. With the exception when he's insane. I guess that created a much creepier atmosphere.

Evil Ed is with all reason a Swedish movie, but somehow a magical force came across the good actors and turned their lovely Swedish accents into stereotypical American voices. I guess that's some of the expertise an actor needs these days. The acting is very….wooden, as in they are inflexible, not bendable (well hey, what did you actually expect?). On top of that the movie has a jamming techno theme song, sounds like its E-Type. In any case, this only makes the movie experience worse. Since I'm fairly harsh against this movie so far, there will usually be a breaking point where I tone the level of happiness up. But there's really not much to say. The blueprints look good, but somehow 'Hanz' spelt coffee over it and partially destroyed it. That's how I look at this movie. If the movie ended where Edward is taken to a mental institute and they refurnished the parts from where he goes insane and kills people, the result would have been much better, but that's just my radical view. I would also like to see more footage from the lose limbs movies.

There are also illogical things to discover in this piece of movie. Let's to say that the actors really are American, living in America, why would they then work on a Swedish movie, like Edward did? And also, that delivery man, why is it that he never uses the doorbell which is located directly beside him? Instead he goes away with tapping softly at the door. Good old Edward really got some good ears to hear all that while he is editing.

Anyway, this movie had its moments, it's just a shame there were not that many. But that doesn't mean I would not recommend it. It's a rather cheap movie, go ahead and buy. It's almost like I see a pattern for the price and the movie. On the other side; if you like watching dubbed movies getting crappier by the second this might be IT. My verdict would then be a rock solid 4.",0 -"The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders?

You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!",0 -"I have seen it a few times and get completely glued to it every time. It is very suspenseful and intense. To describe it sounds boring but it is amazing. It is the kind of movie where you need can't miss a thing, but if you soak it in it sticks with you long after it ends. Now thinking about it I don't even know what Stone was trying to make us see. Just the story of Alan Green? I don't think so. It was a look at ignorance, stupidity, self-absorption, and a guy just loosing his grip. Maybe he had more grip than the listeners though. I didn't like Barry but still seemed worried about him for some reason. I was perplexed at why I couldn't get him out of my mind when the movie ended. I wish I could see inside Olive Stone's mind for this one.",1 -"This one is a hilarious diamond in the rough. The acting and plot aren't that impressive, but the lines just keep on coming. This catches a lot of flack because it seems at first glance like, well, a bad movie, but it's so kooky that you can't help but be amused. The spastic lightening quick dialog and quirky characters keep it going... I was especially fond of Sharon, the Canuck on Shrooms eh? However, the one that really stole the show was Richard's little brother Andrew (Ira Heiden), his high pitched whining was somehow endearing. The whole movie rocked.",1 -"A year or so ago, I was watching the TV news when a story was broadcast about a zombie movie being filmed in my area. Since then I have paid particular attention to this movie called 'Fido' as it finished production and began playing at festivals. Two weeks ago Fido began playing in my local theater. And, just yesterday, I read a newspaper article which stated Fido is not attracting audiences in it's limited release, with the exception of our local theater. In fact, here it is outdrawing all other shows at The Paramount Theater, including 300. Of course, this makes sense as many locals want to see their city on screen or spot themselves roaming around in zombie make-up. And for any other locals who haven't seen Fido yet but are considering it, I can say there are many images on screen, from the school to city park to the forbidden zone, that you will recognize. In fact, they make the Okanagan Valley look beautiful. That's right beautiful scenery in a zombie movie! However, Fido itself is a very good movie. Yes, despite its flaws, it is better then most of the 20 other movies playing in my local market. Fido is best described as an episode of Lassie in which the collie has been replaced by a member of the undead. This is a clever premise. And the movie even goes further by taking advantage of the 1950's emphasize on conformity and playing up the cold-war paranoia which led to McCarthyism. Furthermore, it builds on the notion that zombies can be tamed or trained which George Romero first introduced in Day Of The Dead.

K'Sun Ray plays a small town boy who's mother (Carrie-Ann Moss) longs for a zombie servant so she can be like all the other house wives on her block. However, his dad (Dylan Baker) is against the idea as he once had to kill his own 'zombie father'. Eventually, the family does acquire a zombie named 'Fido' (played by Billy Connolly), and adjusts to life with the undead. Billy Connolly was inspired casting. He is able to convey Fido's confusion, longing, hatred, and loyalty through only his eyes, lumbering body, and grunts. Connolly shows that he can play understated characters better than his outrageously comedic ones. This is his best role since Mrs. Brown.

Fido follows in the footsteps of other recent zomcoms such as Shawn Of The Dead and Zombie Honeymoon. Being someone who appreciates Bruce Campbell and Misty Mundae movies more than Eli Roth and Jigsaw ones, I prefer humor over gore in my horror. However, I understand the criticism of those horror fans who feel there is not enough 'undead carnage' in Fido. Yet, I am sure patient viewers will be rewarded by the films gentle humor.

The movie does break down in it's third act. It's as if the writers were so wrapped up in the cute premise of domesticated zombies in the 1950s, they forgot about the story arc. However, given my interest in horror comedies and my appreciation for seeing the neighborhood on screen, I rate Fido 9 out of 10.",1 -"I actually had hopes for this movie since I've seen Kari in a few other things and think she has some talent. Alas, this dud is a case study in what not to do in a screenplay. Completely undefined characters without a shred of likeability, and no plot whatsoever. Is it a road/buddy/comedy/thriller/romance/drama? The filmmakers don't have a clue, and neither do we.",0 -"Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) has committed an unspeakable crime, the stabbing of the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone). No one, least of all Leland himself, can explain why he's done what he's done, whether the act was premeditated or spontaneous, done out of hatred or love.

In the detention center, Leland meets Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle), a onetime novel writer who sees in Leland's case a second opportunity. But Pearl also wants to understand Leland's motivation and takes him under his wing as a confidante in the prison.

The film jumps from the past to the present several times, often allowing the past to act as a context to the present, and vice versa. Writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge shows how Leland's crime - and the events leading up to it - affect the people in his life, from Becky to her family to Leland's mother (Lena Olin) and estranged father (Kevin Spacey) to Allen (Chris Klein), a young man who is staying with Becky's family after the death of his own mother.

The chief asset in the movie is Gosling, who is perfectly cast as the 15-year-old pseudopsychopath. Like Bartleby the Scrivener, Gosling's Leland just exists; he shows little emotion during the film, but instead his expressions belie an ocean of guilt, sadness, love, and rage.

Each of the main actors offered perhaps their best work to date, save Spacey (who's not exactly a novice). Special praise is due to Malone and Klein, two young performers who are better known for lighthearted comedy fare than the heavy drama of this movie.

Another huge benefit in terms of the story is that none of the characters is flawless; none are heroes out to save the day. This is simply not a black-and-white movie.",1 -"I have seen and enjoyed all of the Chameleon movies and I must say they keep getting better & better with each one. Bobbie Phillips is Fantastic and my granddaughter wants to be just like her. I'm glad they brought in a ""Brother"" character for Bobbie (Kam) so we can expect to see more exciting shows. Bobbie is beautiful, sexy, and sweet, and independent at the same time, and everything any female could desire to be!",1 -"As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.

The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.

All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...",0 -"Imagine every stereotypical, overacted cliche from every movie and TV show set on the streets of Brooklyn between 1930 and 1980. Populate it with a cast of interchangeable caricatures instead of actual characters. Throw in a mix of ""period"" music and wailing electric guitars during the ""rumble"" scenes. Then pass the time trying to figure out (or care) which of the Deuces is going to be killed in the (anti)climactic final rumble.

I'll give this movie points for not being just another romantic comedy, teen slasher, explosive action movie, teen sex comedy, kiddie musical, or Oscar-nomination vehicle. But bringing something new or interesting to the street-gang tragedy genre might've been nice.",0 -"Spoiler!! I love Branagh, love Helena Bonham-Carter, loved them together in ""Mary Shelley's Frankenstein"" - but THIS -

I can understand an actor's desire to stretch, to avoid the romantic stereotype. Well, they did, but really - the script droned on, Bonham-Carter's clothes were tres chic, and the occasional speeded-up ""madcap"" sequence could have been an outtake from a Beatles' movie, or the old Rowan and Martin Laugh-In.

I never got the point - other commenters say the Branagh character was a dreamer. I never felt that. He was a loser, and not very bright, and certainly not endearing. The business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. Certainly not amusing.

Bonham-Carter's realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of Lancashire accent in ""Full Monty.""

The poetic ending, with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. Was there a choir of angels, or merely a soundtrack?

Go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. Donate this to PBS.

",0 -"I saw this a good while ago, but i just cant get over it. I have looked everywhere to try and find out where i can get a copy of it but i have not been able to get a hold of it. I really reccomend this movie and if anyone has any info about how i can get a copy then let me know. thanx",1 -"Ruth Gordon is one of the more sympathetic killers that Columbo has ever had to deal with. And, the plot is ingenious all the way around. This is one of the best Columbo episodes ever. Mariette Hartley and G. D. Spradlin are excellent in their supporting roles. And Peter Falk delivers a little something extra in his scenes with Gordon.",1 -"All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.

I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.

Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.

The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.

I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.

Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.

Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.

I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?",0 -"I LOVE this film. It was made JUST before the LA punk scene changed for the worse. It perfectly preserves the mood and attitude of that time and place. I feel really lucky to have been present at the filming of four of the bands at the Fleetwood that night. The only part that doesn't fit in too well is the sections with Catholic Disipline and their socio-political commentary. I didn't see too many people who were into that at all. The rest of the film shows attitudes that I witnessed a lot; people dealing with hard lives, or taking a swing at the music industry and/or lousy hippies. I don't think I've seen a documentary that captures so authentically and personally the subject matter being covered.",1 -"Man, I went to this movie because of the great preview. It looked like it had a great story and nice special effects.

Boy was I wrong. I wanted to walk out of the theater because of those horrible special effects. A cartoon dino, of cart board would do even a better job then this. The story was fine, if it would have been taken on by a big movie producer. Who would trow in some more money to make the effect more life like. The only thing I liked about this movie where the plants that pop up everywhere.

Even worse where the cars, in one scene 2 characters walk along the street. If you watch those cars you'll see the following: Taxi, car, motorcycle, tri-pod, big bus. And about 4x in a row!

And then there is the ""butterfly death"" that would set the whole ""evolution changes"" in to progress. If that guy didn't step on the butterfly, the next dino would have eaten it anyway! So that's absolute bull. Then, if you change something in the past, the future will be different in the same instant. Not in those ""time waves"" they made. But hey, if the future changed in a split second, the movie would be even worse, but more realistic though. This is just one of those movies you should see when you want to have a great laugh. I spend way to much money on this movie in the theater. And then they tell me this movie had $80 million dollar budget. WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO????",0 -"This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work.

There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him ""everything"" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and ""disappear."" If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job.

Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.",0 -"While I agree this was a 1950s sitcom, I don't feel it was ""typical"". Firstly, Donna Reed was a STRONG woman, unlike the regular 50s sitcom moms. She made a stand for women's worth and equality (remember the episode where the TV announcer says ""just a housewife"") and Donna stands up for all women do and represent, especially those that don't work outside the home? And when the women rebelled against something in the series, it was not something trivial...it was always something to show that women have the right to be treated with the same respect as men. Remember, Donna Reed was married to the show's producer, so she had much more input into making hers a more powerful character.

The children were intelligent, but not precocious. They were normal kids. And they could ACT.

Something else that made Donna Reed Show stand out was not only did the children LOOK like their parents, but you could feel the chemistry between all the actors in the real life situation, which then came out in the characters. Shelly Fabares and Paul Peterson have often written and remarked that they were treated like the children of Donna Reed and Carl Betz, and that the adults were fiercely protective of the child actors, and treated them accordingly. Donna and Alex also had somewhat of a sexual chemistry that wasn't seen on the other family shows. And the characters could be flawed, and in major ways, and yet, accepted for the flaws and mistakes. These were not super parents that did no wrong and had no emotional highs and lows. They were normal people acting as normal people.

Women's rights, drug abuse, child abuse, single fathers, poverty, children who need good health care but can't afford it...it was all shown on this show. Pretty groundbreaking for the era.

Donna Reed show didn't last for eight years without a reason. And it could have possibly endured, had it not been for Tony Owens and Donna Reed divorcing.

This show is highly underrated and should be shown so that other generations can appreciate quality.

In summary, I agree with the original poster, who obviously cares for the show, but I think that the Donna Reed show has SO much more to offer than casual entertainment.",1 -"This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time.",0 -"Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and unusual. While I haven't read the book – or, for that matter, heard of its existence prior to watching the film – and therefore cannot, like some other reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that.

To label Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer – played to minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all – a young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film.

Aside from the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history, what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war. Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face up to the horrors his own people – and maybe his own family as well – were capable of. The change in Alex's attitude – and his grandfather's – towards Jonathan, towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a fascinating and original study in character development.

Everything Is Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II.",1 -"""A total waste of time"" Just throw in a few explosions, non stop fighting, exotic cars a deranged millionaire, slow motion computer generated car crashes and last but not least a Hugh Hefner like character with wall to wall hot babes, and mix in a blender and you will have this sorry excuse for a movie. I really got a laugh out of the ""Dr. Evil"" like heavily fortified compound. The plot was somewhere between preposterous and non existent. How many millionaires are willing to make a 25 million dollar bet on a car race? Answer: 4 but, didn't they become millionaires through fiscal responsibility? This was written for pubescent males, it plays like a video game. I did enjoy the Gulfstream II landing in the desert though.",0 -"Successful self-made married businessman Harry Mitchell (a superbly steely performance by Roy Scheider) has an adulteress fling with sweet'n'sexy young stripper Cini (the gorgeous Kelly Preston). Harry's blackmailed by a trio of scummy low-life hoods -- sleazy porno theater manager Raimy (a splendidly slimy John Glover), antsy strip joint owner Leo (well played by Robert Trebor) and crazed pimp Bobby Shy (a frightfully intense Clarence Williams III) -- who have videotaped his affair with Cini. When Harry refuses to pay up, the hoods kill Cini and make it look like Harry did it. This in turn ignites a dangerous battle of wit and wills between Harry and the hoods. Director John Frankenheimer, adopting a tough script based on Elmore Leonard's gritty crime thriller novel, expertly maintains a steady snappy pace, delivers plenty of gripping tension, and effectively creates a compellingly seedy'n'sordid atmosphere. The leads are all uniformly excellent, with stand-out supporting turns by Ann-Margret as Harry's bitter neglected wife Barbara, Vanity as brash jaded prostitute Doreen, and Lonny Chapman as Harry's loyal business partner Jim O'Boyle. The tight'n'twisty plot keeps viewers on their toes throughout. The wickedly profane dialogue, Jost Vacano's glossy cinematography, Gary Chang's stirring score, the harshly amoral tone and the rousing conclusion are all likewise on the money as well. As an added bonus, both Vanity and Preston take their clothes off. A very strong and satisfying little number that's well worth checking out.",1 -"Just got back from the European Premiere of The Gamers: Dorkness Rising.

All I can say is that if you are a gamer (CRPG, RPG or LARP), then this movie is for you. And if you're not a gamer? Well, it's still a great deal of fun.

The acting is certainly not Oscar-worthy, but in the whole element of the movie it adds to the charm. The humour is everywhere, along with some very nice touches (the tribute to Gary Gygax is especially well done, if you can spot it). The cast are very down to earth in their appearance, befitting the fact that they are ordinary people enjoying an ordinary hobby.

The quality of the movie's sound and vision are adequate, but again, it all just adds to the atmosphere that helps to define this movie as being the Dungeons and Dragons movie, written and performed by gamers for gamers.

Not afraid to use terminology specific to one system, they still manage to allow product placement to be a part of the movie, but in a very understandable and utterly fair manner. It also touches on some of the perceived prejudices that some gamers can have about other gamers and deals with that quite well.

All in all the movie is very much driven by an well-thought-out equal balance of character, plot and entertainment (the Bard is amazingly good value-for-money).

In the end it does make scoring this movie quite hard, so I have given it 2 scores.

Score (for non-RP'ers): 7/10 (A few moments could go way over your head, but the main sections of the movie just work so hard and achieve so much more.)

Score (for RP'ers): 10/10 (Everything fits together, in the perfect quantities, and with the perfect charm and sentiment)",1 -Wow! i think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on!,0 -"As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power.",1 -"this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.",0 -"Far from combining the best bits of Pontypool and 28 days this managed to ignore them. Whilst shamelessly copying them. (if that makes sense?) Pontypool was different and got progressively tenser, this just stinks. The Radio DJ, ""we must stay on air"" spends effectively no time on air. He sits on his bottom and watches the TV for news. This is by far the worst excuse for a zombie movie ever. Is there a single person in the USA or indeed the world who doesn't know what a zombie is? Or ever heard of the word ""zombie""? Well, by the 50th minute this bunch of misfits are still calling the zombies, ""the infected ones"" or the ones with ""rabies'. The word ""Zombie"" might make a guest appearance later, I could care less. Maybe there's a copyright where you have to pay to use certain words? Like the Bluetooth earphone is called ""the ear-thingy"" I kid you not! To finish, no plot + no acting = no-one cares. A waste of time, a shameless, poorly executed rip-off.",0 -"For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.

Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.

Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's.

Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.

I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders.",1 -"If you wish to see Shakespeare's masterpiece in its entirety, I suggest you find this BBC version. Indeed it is overlong at four and a half hours but Jacoby's performance as Hamlet and Patrick Stewart's as Claudius are well worth the effort.

It never ceases to amaze me how clear ""Hamlet"" is when you see it in its length and order as set down by the Bard. Every film version of ""Hamlet"" has tinkered with its structure. Olivier concentrated on Hamlet's indecision, Gibson on his passions. Jacoby is able to pull all of these aspects of Hamlet's character together with the aid of Shakespeare's full script.

Why does Hamlet not kill Claudius immediately? Hamlet says ""I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious..."" Hamlet is extremely upset, not only for his father's death (and suspected murder), or his mother's marriage to his uncle, but also, and mostly, because Claudius has usurped the throne belonging to Hamlet. He is furious at his mother for marrying Claudius (marriages between royal kin is not unknown; done for political reasons) but that her marriage solidified Claudius' claim to the throne before he could return from Wittenburg to claim it for himself. He is, therefore, impotent to do anything about it. And this is true even after he hears his father's ghost cry vengeance. He cannot simply kill the King or he will lose the throne in doing so. He must ""out"" the King's secret and here is the tragedy! At the moment Hamlet is successful in displaying Claudius' guilt in public, he has opportunity to kill him and does not. WHY? He wants it ALL! He wants revenge, the throne AND the damnation of Claudius' soul in hell. Hamlet OVERREACHES himself in classic tragic form. His own HUBRIS is his undoing. He kills Polonius thinking it is Claudius and the rest of the play spirals down to the final deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Ophelia, Laertes, Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet himself.",1 -"This movie contains one of Richard Dreyfuss's greatest performances, as an actor who plays a dictator and does it so convincingly that his own mother does not detect the impostor. Also, this movie is funny, yet has a serious side as well. What is especially intriguing about this movie is the character Madonna, who is the dictator's mistress, but eventually becomes the leader of the country. Madonna's evolution from mistress to political leader added greatly to the quality of the story and to the movie's entertainment value. And the main character, who at the start of the movie is a struggling actor and somewhat of a buffoon, evolves too and by the end of the movie commands respect. I liked this movie.",1 -"Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.

The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.

Thursday, June 25, 1992 - Video",0 -The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.,0 -"Don't mistake ""War Inc."" for a sharply chiseled satire or a brainy comedy full of inside jokes for news buffs. It isn't.

This is an old-fashioned screwball comedy, with ridiculously coincidental plot twists, stock characters (given some depth in fun performances by John Cusack, Joan Cusack, Marisa Tomei and Hillary Duff) and a straightforward approach to the political content.

You see, the filmmakers' political points are things nearly all of the country already knows are true. Yeah, we understand that the corporations profiting off the war are corrupt, inept pigs, the political leaders in charge of it are even more inept buffoons, and American imperialism has never looked crasser and more out of touch than it does right now -- but none of that is the point.

Here, all of that noise is the setting that they lampoon -- sometimes in genius ways -- as the backdrop for a silly romp, as John Cusack's character (the hit-man with a heart) tries to change his life with the help of the do-gooder journalist who doesn't trust him (Tomei) and the young Middle Eastern starlet who wants to call off her marriage (Duff). Cusack's sister, Joan, plays his assistant with an almost cartoonishly enthusiastic quality. Ben Kingsley seemed to me wasted in his smaller part as a ruthless CIA boss.

That's all, and it works. It's simple fun, but if somehow you can't see reality and you think the war is going well and everyone involved with it is doing a good job and there's no corruption and people in the Middle East wish our Western culture would supplant theirs, then you might not find it as funny.

For all the rest of us, it was a light comedy with a political edge.",1 -"well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time.",0 -"Yes. Bam cried a couple times and so did Englund. And most probably you will too. The whole cast is back in action and Knoxville has stepped up to become the true leader of this gang of messed-up retards (I mean this in the best possible way). I first thought, maybe Bam or Steve-O were the main go-to guys....nope, the main man is now Johnny. Don't get me wrong, everybody, and I mean everybody is great in this flick! Right from the get-go you're laughing, and believe you me, don't plan on resting that smile of yours. I personally think the movie definitely has better moments than the first. You know when you go into a theater, and you kind of don't want to have high expectations for it.....well, this movie blows all expectations away. If you love Jackass, you can go into this with gigantic expectations. No matter what you'll laugh your ass off. If you're not laughing, the reason is most likely someone has a gun in your face telling you if you laugh you die or maybe you are embarrassed about the sound of your laugh or the highest probability is that you were eating Jack Sh!t for breakfast and Jack left town. All I have to say is, prepare yourself to have a sore face after the movie. :)",1 -"""Panic in the Streets"" was a decent thriller, but I felt a bit disappointed by it. The central theme of a city being attacked by a plague in modern times is fascinating, but the film never really explores or develops it. Its well made and entertaining, but its not as interesting as it should have been. The screenplay for this one is really weak and brings the whole film down. None of the central characters are really compelling or believable.

Fortunately, the film is very well made so it compensates for the weak scripting. The direction by Elia Kazan keeps the film suspenseful and moving at a lightning quick pace. There are some standout sequences, particularly the memorable chase climax. When his direction was combined with better screenplays several years later, the man could mostly do no wrong.

The acting is also very good. Richard Widmark was always a watchable leading man and does what he can with an underwritten character. Paul Douglas spends his time yelling a bit too much but does a decent job as well. The standouts in the cast are the two villains. Zero Mostel, known primarily for his comic roles, is effectively slimy as one of cinema's ultimate toady characters. Jack Palance is, unsurprisingly, a chilling villain. ""Panic in the Streets"" is disappointing but still worth watching. (7/10)",1 -"Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis) is unjustly accused of killing his unfaithful wife. The night she was murdered he was out with a mystery woman who refused to give him her name. After accused of the murder, the police visit all the places he had been with her, but people only remember him being alone. He's sentenced to die and his secretary (Ella Raines) sets out to find the murderer herself because she loves him.

This was made as a B film from Universal (look at the cast--all character actors and one star--Franchot Tone--on the decline). The budget was small and the cast mostly unknown but what came out is one of the best film noirs of the 1940s. It's beautifully directed by Curt Siodmak and has a fantastic script that came from an excellent book by William Irish (a pen name for Cornell Woolrich). It moves quickly and just looks fantastic. And there's the infamous jam session with Raines and Elisha Cook Jr. which just comes off the screen with incredible sexual energy (I'm surprised the censors didn't cut it).

There are only a few flaws that prevent this from being perfect. Tone gives a dreadful performance. He looks ghastly and he's just horrible. Also Curtis is stiff and bland as Henderson. You really wonder why Raines loves him--he's so unemotional. But Raines is pretty good in the lead role. She's pretty and full of life. Also the last scene when the murderer is after her never rings true. He's hardly a threat physically and her reactions just seem overstated.

Still I'm giving this a 9. A really great film--flaws aside.",1 -"I really enjoyed this movie for what it is: A funny little film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Plot summaries are available everywhere so I won't go into details. Michael isn't about a complex plot anyway. It just builds on a great premise and takes the viewer on a wonderful road trip.

John Travolta's performance as a chain-smoking, lady-loving, bar-brawling, pie-eating angel is just perfect. And who doesn't love Sparky?

Watch this if you want to have a few laughs and a overall good time. Highly recommended.",1 -"Shia LaBeouf has impressed me before with his acting ability, but I can honestly say that I very much look forward to his next efforts...his portrayal of Francis Ouimet, a 20 year old caddy who ignores his father's insistence that golf is not his place in life and enters the 1913 US Open tournament in his hometown...the beginning of the movie does drag a bit, but it's necessary to set up the underdog subplot that Shia works so well...the entire cast is well-chosen and they work very well together in a story that, based on the actual event, has an ending everyone can discover before seeing the movie...but even knowing that information doesn't spoil the fun...Josh Flitter is delightful as Eddie Lowery, Francis' caddy, who keeps him grounded and loose while at the same time proving to be an invaluable part of Francis' effort...Stephen Delane is outstanding as Harry Vardon, the legendary British golfer who Francis idolizes yet does not fear...and who knows the background Francis comes from as he, too, had humble beginnings...Bill Paxton takes a formulaic movie and makes it worthwhile...bravo Mr. Paxton, and bravo to the cast...from the imagery to the story to the people who bring it alive, this is a movie to get, enjoy, and revel in...it's nice to have movies like this that we can feel good watching...",1 -"This is probably the best documentary I have seen in a very long time. Jonny Kennedy was and is still is a tragically beautiful inspiration. Not only was he a survivor of one of the most painful diseases out there, but he used his beauty to show the world that there is life after death and never to give up reaching people and spreading his love. Watching minutes of his life long struggle was heart-wrenching. Listening to his smart ass remarks and seeing his adorable gestures was heartwarming. And seeing him smile was indescribable. I feel blessed to have been able to be touched by this tiny giant. Please, if you ever have a chance to watch this film - consider yourself lucky to have met Jonny Kennedy.",1 -"Grand Central Murder (1942) Dir: S. Sylvan Simon

Production: MGM

This mediocre 'B' mystery was one of only five films released in 1942 with Simon as director. Surely he could have fit another Red Skelton film or two on his schedule! Anyway, Grand Central Murder is a shameless rip-off of the Thin Man films minus the wit, charm, and chemistry of the leads. We are treated to a paper thin plot that can barely support its 73 minutes, bad acting and weary gags.

Van Heflin and Virginia Grey play Nick and Nora Char--er, Rocky and Butch Custer. He's a PI and she's his wife and sleuthing partner. They engage in ""humorous"" banter with each other. See? It's completely different already. Heflin's the only one here who hints at bigger and better things, although he's real close to being a jerk in this. Virginia Grey was in Another Thin Man, but again, let me stress, THIS FILM IS NOTHING LIKE THAT ONE, no sir. And just in case we start to think that this film is absolutely nothing like another film (say, THE THIN MAN) we actually like, Sam Levene pops up as the lead detective who's kind of dim and has to have Van Heflin subtly direct him toward all the important leads. Hmmm.

Quickly, the 'murder' is that of bitchy schemer Mida King, who likes to trade up on rich men until she finds an even richer one. She's played by Patricia Dane, who's like a C- version of Hedy Lamarr, until she opens her mouth and turns into an F. There's a whole array of wacky suspects, all with their own motivation for wanting Mida dead. There's the society type, the tough talking dames, the thug, the ex-lover, and a shady theater impresario (Tom Conway, here saddled with the unlikely character name of 'Frankie Ciro'). Roman Bohnen plays a nervous, jittery type, something I believe he may have done before. Millard Mitchell plays an idiot cop who, in a running gag that won't quit, can't stop thinking about the piece of ass he's got waiting for him once this case gets wrapped up (that's right, Millard Mitchell, swordsman). Finally, in a completely ground breaking method of storytelling, something we've never seen before, all the suspects are gathered up in one place where they tell their stories (as flashbacks) to the detective, as Rocky takes mental notes, until eventually the guilty person is compelled to dramatically blurt out a confession.

On top of the actual picture being a dud, I naively thought going in that there might be a couple of location shots of the actual 1942-era Grand Central, but alas, no. There's merely one very brief shot at the beginning. Thanks for nothing, Grand Central Murder. So, to sum up, a wee bit formulaic, but Heflin was okay.

*½ out of 4",0 -"I have seen a lot of movies in my life, but not many as bad as this. It is a movie that makes fun of fat people, has no real story, has bad actors, is not funny and much more. Is this a movie that you would like to see? I guess not!

I guess that the makers of the movie was trying to be original and creative, but it looks like it was made by a 12 year old child with absolutely no cinematic skills at all. The so called funny parts is as funny as throughing pies in the faces of people, or breaking wind. Of cource if this is the kind of humour that you like, then this is the movie for you!!

Dont waste your money on this movie!",0 -"Moonwalker is a Fantasy Music film staring Michael Jackson with different segments. I will rate each segment individually.

Segment 1 opens the film with a Music video. The Music video is a concert of Michael Jackson performing the song ""Man in the Mirror"", the Music video also show's montages of historical figures such as Gandhi, Martin Luther king JR, John Lennon and more. The first segment was a good choice to open the film i liked the song and also loved the montage of the historical figures. I even loved the message in the song. I give the first segment a 9/10.

Segment 2 shows a montage of Michael Jackson's start from the Jackson five to his solo career. The montage i thought was well made, i liked the animation they put into it and i also loved their choices of songs such as ""I I want you back, Beat it, Thriller, can you feel it and the way you make me feel."" The only thing i wish they could have done a little a better in one of the songs in the montage is ""We are the world"". The reason why is all you see is rain drops and in those drops are images of Michael Jackson and the chorus of the celebrities, but it's a little hard to see the chorus. Other than that the segment is still good. I give it a 9/10

Segment 3 is the song Bad. You're probably thinking it's Michael Jackson's Music video of bad,Well yes and no. This segment is the Music video but it's redone by Kids. The segment was cute but it wasn't as good as the other segments. I give it a 6/10

Segment 4 is a short Claymation Music film that takes place after the kid's version of bad called ""Speed Demon"". The short is about Michael Jackson being chased by his beloved fans and the press and he disguises himself as a rabbit and rides a motorcycle to try to get away from them. The claymation in the chase sequence was great but some parts in the film the Claymation characters looked a little fake when they interact with real people. Also at the end of the clip out of nowhere Michael Jackson rabbit costume comes to life and he's dancing with it. I liked the dancing but that was like out of nowhere. I give it a 8/10

Segment 5 is Michael Jackson's Grammy winning Music video ""Leave me alone."" The Music Video is about the media poking their nose at Michael Jackson's personal life and Michael Jackson feels they won't leave him alone no matter how much he's proved innocent. The music video really speaks out( but keep in mind this happened before the child molestation this just all about the rumors of him in the 80's.) but i didn't feel this Video should be in this Movie because it's a kids Movie and i don't think kid's will understand what he's singing about. I give this Music video 8/10

Segment 6 leads us to the main story of the whole movie called ""Smooth Criminal."" Michael Jackson plays a gangster who uses his powers of a wishing star as a crime figure to protect children ( including John Lennon's son Sean Lennon) from an Evil Mobster named Mr Bigg (Played by Joe Pesci). The segment i thought really brought out the film especially when he danced and sang the song ""Smooth Criminal"" with a bunch of Criminals. I also thought the special effects were good. The weird thing about the Segment is why are kids hanging out with a grown man it never explained why. Also Joe Pesci character talks about Drugs and what he plans to do with them. I mean why would you talk about drugs in a kids film. Other wise it was good. My rating for this segment is a 8/10

Segment 7 is the final segment of the whole movie. The film end's with Michael Jackson singing a Cover version of the Beatle's Song ""Come Together"" and then during the credit's we see Michael Jackson singing with Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Michael did a good cover of ""Come Together"" and i think it was good idea putting including a group of good singer's with a talented musican like him. My rating is 9/10

This movie is a good Michael Jackson film i think it really brings out children s Imagination. The film is almost as Imaginative as the Beatles animated movie ""Yellow Submarine"" if you like Michael Jackson and you're up to a film with a lot of creativity this is the film. My Overall rating for this movie is 8/10",1 -"Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.

But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.

Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.

If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.

In short, the movie is worth a miss.",0 -"This one reeler produced by MGM in 1936 showcases the talents of two of its young stars under contract, Judy Garland and Deanna Durbin. In a way, these short films were promotional trailers that featured new talent in front, or behind the camera. Felix Feist directed this one which was a way to promote the two talented stars to the public.

The story is simple enough. The orchestra that entertains in a public park every Sunday doesn't get the attention it deserves. Enter two music aficionados, Judy and Edna, who love to hear the band play conducted by one of their grandfathers. Two of the town's elders sensing there is no public for this type of entertainment have decided to cancel their Sunday concerts in favor of a more popular orchestra that will attract a wider audience.

The two girls embark in a promotional tour of their own doing what they only know, calling and running errands and being helpful to their neighbors in exchange for a promise they will attend the park concert next Sunday. Well, that day comes, and to their surprise, hardly anyone comes as the music starts. The two girls decide to take matters into their own and ask the conductor to play a song for them to sing. The result is clear, people all over the park flocks to hear the talented young singers, thus ensuring the orchestra's existence.

Of course, the only attraction of the short film is the inspired singing by the two stars who are wonderful in their rendition. Ms. Durbin's operatic voice blends well with Ms. Garland's natural one creating a lovely duet.

Don't miss it whenever it shows on TCM!",1 -"After watching about half of this movie I noticed something peculiar ... I found myself constantly switching through tv-channels to see what else is on - not exactly a good movie trait.

This movie is listed as being in a number of genres, and I must say it mostly failed misserably in every one of them. 80% through the movie I switched over to watch an old rerun instead. Bottom line - the whole movie felt as if the ones making it didn't exactly know what to make and ended up in a concoction with no discernable taste.",0 -"Direction must be the problem here. I recently heard John Cleese speaking of working a skit for Fawlty Towers. He was supposed to attack his car with a branch. The first branch was too flimsy and not funny. The second branch was too stiff to be funny. The third was just flimsy enough to be funny. This sort of attention to detail is missing from ""Corky Romano"". No matter how embarrassingly unfunny a comic bit was, it wasn't fixed, and wasn't left on the cutting room floor. The one value I can find in this movie is as a study of a very flawed movie which somehow escaped into distribution without being repaired.

I've scanned dozens of other reviews here. The number of reviews praising this absolute waste of time bolsters my suspicion that some people are getting paid to promote titles. I can't fathom how anyone over the age of 9 could rate this title more than a 4, MAX. I mean, come on, 5 is average. I can't imagine anyone, even those making money off of this, rating it even as much as average.

This makes my list of the 10 worst movies of all time. And, hey, I actually LIKE the Three Stooges and can even tolerate Ed Wood!",0 -"This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.

However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her ""picture"" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!

Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then.",0 -"Panahi, whose previous films such as The Circle and Crimson Gold have seemed to range from dour to grim, has produced in his new Offside a funny, obstreperous, joyously chaotic ensemble piece that ends on a note of liberation and heartfelt fun – yet the movie deals with material quite as challenging and relevant as anything else he's done. By focusing on a group of ardent girl soccer fans caught sneaking into the pre-World Cup Bahrain-Iran match in Tehran stadium, Panahi brings up issues of national spirit and independent-mindedness, and the contradictions – and sheer absurdity – of the regime's religious gender apartheid in a world of modern competition with a majority youth population and urban girls who increasingly think for themselves.

As the film opens we breathlessly join one of the girls in a bus, with a father pursing a lost daughter. This one has a disguise and has national colors as warpaint, but we cringe with her in the knowledge of what's going to happen: she's still easily spotted. The thing is, most of the men around don't really care. Still, rules are rules, and once they try to make it through the various checkpoints on the way into the big stadium the would-be soccer girls, or some of them anyway, get rounded up and held in a little compound upstairs in the stadium by some mostly young, green, and rustic soldier-cops who have no idea how to deal with these big city girls' independent ideas and would rather be watching the game – whose roar we constantly hear in the background – themselves. Each girl is different – represents a different set of reasons for wanting to break the rules and different ways of doing it. One wore a soldier's uniform and got into the officers' section. One is tough and masculine and mocking and provocative (she could pass for a pretty boy, and teasingly hints at that: ""Are you a girl or a boy?"" ""Which would you like me to be?""). One doesn't care very much about soccer but went to honor a dead comrade. One (Aida Sadeghi) is an ardent soccer player herself – and so on. These Tehrani girls are stubborn and smart and they walk all over the uptight rural lieutenant in charge of them (Safar Samandar). One of the rural cops (Mohamad Kheirabadi) takes the girl soccer player to the men's restroom (of course there's no ladies'), forcing her to wear a poster of an Italian football star as a mask. A comedy of errors and chaos follows in which the girl escapes.

Later a spiffy looking van comes with an officer who directs the cops to take the girls to the Vice Department – violating sexual segregation rules qualifies as vice. A male gets mixed in with them – a kid who's chronically guilty of smuggling fireworks into the games. The van turns out not to be so spiffy: the radio aerial is broken. But one cop holds it in place so they can listen to the increasingly heart-stopping reportage. Cops and prisoners are all joined in a common excitement now. There's no score, the game goes to penalty kicks, and the winner will go to Germany.

In the background through all this is a real game, a real stadium, and real masses of young men crazy about the outcome of this event. The excitement is tremendous, and the streets are jammed with cars and flags and a milling mob of supporters praying for an Iranian win and united in their excitement.

What makes this film so good, as may be clear by now, is that it's shot during the evening of an actual game with a real finale that turns everything around. This, in contrast to Panahi's previous highly calculated narrative trajectories, is spontaneous vérité film-making that improvises in rhythm with a captured background of actual events and sweeps you into its excitement in ways that are quite thrilling.

The essence of Offside is the disconnect between modern world soccer madness and retro-Islamic social prohibitions repressing women – the latter existing at a time when young Iranian women are becoming part of a global world in which females participate in sport and share in the ardor of national team spirit. How exactly do you reconcile the country's ambition to become a modern global power with social attitudes that are medieval? A lot of Offisde is astonishingly real, including the way everybody tries to talk their way out of everything. The director's decision to inject young actors into an actual sports mega-event leads to a stunningly effective blend of documentary, polemic, and fiction that is too energetic to seem to have a bone to pick, and that ends in a way that's brilliant and moving.

I've had reservations about Panahi's films before, but this one kicks ass. Panahi does something remarkable here. He critiques his society, presents an unusual drama, and touches our hearts with a sense of a nation's aspirations.",1 -"The acting was very sub-par, You had Costas Mandalar acting like Triple H's dumber forest ranger brother, a Scott McMahon look-alike as his depute who I guess your supposed to care about but there is no emotional involvement anywhere. You have the Stupid lesbian, Not that I have any thing against lesbians, i don't just stupid ones who keep running around in a punisher like shirt and a grunge like hat who keeps asking if anyone saw her dead lover.

The Villain could be scary and there is a morality tale somewhere about trying to fight age and death but it is lost in this movie. Costas Hurst Helmsley points out to the soon to be victims the way back into town, while obviously there are city lights behind him.

Also A mispronunciation of Ed Gein but pronounced it Gine. As a citizen of Wisconsin. We have had our share of Monsters Gein,Dahmer, and McCarthy, but if your going to use it pronounce it right.

God Why do i watch all these terrible films. Oh yes I am a glutton for punishment and I watch these so you don't have to.",0 -"This movie lacks in everything. Except Bobby deol, who in his own standards is mediocre, no one in this movie has come close to act in a single scene. Kangana is complete fake in her acting.

The great Anupam Kher has a guest appearance and is better in those 2 minutes than bobby in the whole movie. The music does'nt compliment the movie

that well. The contrast in Music between Bobby and Upen is not highlighted that well. Great concept gone completely wrong. The movie does'nt have a proper ending. Please don't waste your time as i did on this movie",0 -"Supposedly a ""social commentary"" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, ""Nightmare"" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised ""babe in prison"" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of ""Gilligan's Island"") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D.

",0 -"A Cryptozoologist captures a mythical chupacabra on a Caribbean island.To get it back to civilization he bribes his way onto the cargo bay of a large luxury cruise ship with funny and I think the script intended disastrous results.

Lets start with the one thing I really did not like about this movie.... The monster really just looked like a guy in a rubber suit.The CGI scenes looked like a different movie. OK thats off my chest now onto all the enjoyable bits about this B movie.

The best thing was John Rhys-Davies(his daughter the eye candy a close second.)John was intermittently funny and suave and no matter what the writers made him say, he said it well.Good job given what he had to work with.The Cyptozoologist was over the top and fun to watch too,he had some funny bits.The marines all were OK and make good cannon fodder for the monster as did some of the crew and guests.There are a few pretty funny lines in this movie,and a pretty amusing sub plot involving a thief.

The special effects are generally med to low and I swear they reused the same blood spray on the wall scene in about four different parts of the movie. I did like the gore of the legless man.Really since this movie was not scary at all I feel a bit more gore would have gone along way in improving the watch ability of this movie.

All in all if you like B monsters this one is worth a visit.",0 -"It may not be a 10 out of 10 but for me the jokes didn't fail. I've seen it many times when I was younger and again on DVD I believe, and I laughed each time.The humor is simple and fun,this film was just one of many small flicks Disney was throwing out at the time. I found the parts where the people out of the invisible loop saw people invisible. THere expressions were priceless Great film, if the opportunity to ever see this arises I recommend seeing it for a good oh fashion laugh. My favorite character in all the Dexter series would most definitely have to be Dean Higgins, I love his voice and hearing him get upset especially seeing his expression at the end was just pure hysterical for me.",1 -"**SPOILERS AHEAD**

It is really unfortunate that a movie so well produced turns out to be

such a disappointment. I thought this was full of (silly) clichés and

that it basically tried to hard.

To the (American) guys out there: how many of you spend your

time jumping on your girlfriend's bed and making monkey

sounds? To the (married) girls: how many of you have suddenly

gone from prudes to nymphos overnight--but not with your

husband? To the French: would you really ask about someone

being ""à la fac"" when you know they don't speak French? Wouldn't

you use a more common word like ""université""?

I lived in France for a while and I sort of do know and understand

Europe (and I love it), but my (German) roommate and I found this

pretty insulting overall. It looked like a movie funded by the

European Parliament, and it tried too hard basically. It had all

sorts of differences that it tried to tie together (not a bad thing in

itself) but the result is at best awkward, but in fact ridiculous--too

many clashes that wouldn't really happen. Then the end of the

movie--the last 10 minutes--ruined all the rest. Why doesn't Xavier

talk to the Erasmus students he meets back in Paris? Why does

he just walk off? Why does he just run away from his job, is that

""freedom""? And in the end, is the new Europe supposed to rest on

a bunch of people who smoke up and shag all day? Is this what

it's made up of?

Besides, the acting was pretty horrible. I can't believe Judith

Godrèche's role and acting. Why was she made to look like

Emanuelle Béart so much? At first I thought Xavier was OK but

with retrospect I think he was pretty bad.

And that's all really too bad, because technically (opening credits,

scenes when he's asking what papers he needs) it was really

good (except for sound editing around the British siblings), and the

soundtrack was great too. So the form was good, but the content

pretty horrible.",1 -"Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches ""made for TV"" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.",0 -"If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to ""un-popular"" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the ""Patriot Act"" passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, ""What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think."" I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion.",1 -"I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.

Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.

Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating.",1 -"John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no ""horror"" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of ""Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up."" Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says ""I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you."" HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. ""Why Can't We Be Friends"" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.",0 -"Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the ""Haka"" which is preformed by the New Zealand ""All Blacks"" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is.",0 -"ALICE is the kind of movie they made in the 30's and 40's. Never attempts to be an ""event"". Just wants to entertain. And it does. I was surprised by Kiefer Sutherland. In a role that could be a cliche, he made it real. The plot does make allusions to ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A guy dressed in white does go through a hole and Kiefer does fall down one. Like ALICE the plot does twist and turn, but with a freshness you don't see in small movies. I loved the direction, Sutherland, just a very fast paced and interesting movie.",1 -"Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.

I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the ""unwritten laws of the family tradition"" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.

Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.

Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for ""believability"").

But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.

If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.",1 -"I was looking for ATTACK on Precinct 13. There, the film is THAT memorable. Who is the star of this? Ethan Hawke or Matt Dillon (I can't tell who the lead actor is, that's a pretty big point against the movie right there) Gabriel Byrne (who could't have needed the money this badly could he?) Drea De Matteo is stunning but only because of her amazing body. It took me ages to finally work out she's Joey's sister off ""Friends"". I agree that the so called SWAT people attacking the station are pretty crap, as far as tactics go. We were even taught better basic skills than this in RAF basic training.

Avoid this, even the snow doesn't want to fall on a bus full of prisoners! Very bad continuity indeed.

Avoid like the plague!",0 -"Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.

* out of 4-(Bad)",0 -"Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues (""you are a woman . . . I am a man!"") he has to babble nonsense about ""the will of Allah"" and ""the wind blows destiny across the desert sands."" John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.

The only ""real"" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, ""we must escape."" The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, ""but mother, I was sleeping!"" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.

Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.",0 -"I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.

Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.

Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).

And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?",0 -"With so many good movies coming out in 1995 (particularly ""Mortal Kombat"" and ""Seven""), unfortunately, there had to be some bombs as well, and this film indeed falls into the latter category with a boring, predictable plot and a lousy ending. It seems that Antonio Banderas hasn't been able to find a decent script since ""Desperado,"" the only remarkable film he's done. Anyone with an eighth of a brain could tell who DeMornay's stalker was from the beginning. Her flashbacks of the death of her mother did nothing but muddle an already paper-thin story. Pity that Dennis Miller was wasted in this film; this part resembles his eerily similar role in ""The Net.""

The convoluted ending had me shaking my head, as I pretty much did throughout the entire movie. Plus, any film that depicts animal cruelty in any shape or form, no matter how fake it looks, automatically gets the thumbs-down from me.

To make a long story short, if you want to enjoy a good thriller, then avoid this at all costs. Never talk to strangers...especially those who recommend this movie. 2/10",0 -"On first watching this film it is hard to know quite what has happened, but on a subsequent viewing it become more clear. I enjoyed this movie. Dean Cain was excellent in the role of Bob. Lexa Doig's character was confusing to understand, at first, she was out to trap Bob but i really believe she landed up loving him although by then she had broken his heart. Dean Cain's performance was an usual excellent. He gets better with every film he does. My only question at the end of the film was what happened to Bob, Camilla and the baby. It was left for the viewer to decide",1 -"While this movie has many flaws, it is in fact a fun '80s movie. Eddie Murphy peaks during his 80's movies here. While his character is indistinguishable from earlier movies, his timing is almost flawless with perfect partners and foils.

Couple this with the hypnotic beauty of Charlotte Lewis, this makes for a fun rainy day action-comedy flick.

",1 -Charles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining.,0 -"Plodding, maybe that should have been the title. Bad dialogue delivered at a snail's pace. All the characters are single dimension with the exception of one. Unfortunately, that character has some of the worst lines and does not seem to fit into this cliché ridden two- hour drag. Having grown up in the seventies, this film is seriously lacking in detail, atmosphere and authenticity. Surprisingly, this was produced by Kelsey Grammar, someone who should recognize sharp dialogue and a consistent narrative in a script. Cameron Richardson is about the only element that lights up this film. Robin Trower's music is also a welcomed addition.",0 -Undying is a very good game which brings some new elements on the tired genre of first person shoot em ups. It tells the story of Patrick Galloway an expert of the occult and a formidable fighter who is summoned by a friend to his estate in Ireland to investigate some weird phainomena. The game is set in Ireland after World War one so don't expect to find weapons like chainguns or rocket launchers.All the weapons in the game can be considered antiques but the real fun in the game are its spells and the system they operate on.Our hero is ambidexterous so he can use both his hands at the same time: he casts spells with his right arm and uses his guns with the left.So you can shoot and cast spells at the same time which as you understand very fun and also unique to this game! The graphics are great and they can run very well on a medium power P.C..Level design is also cool and atmospheric. Mostly the game revolves around the Covenant estate and the mansion but there are many other locations waiting to be discovered as you progress. Thanks to the talent of Clyve Barker the game has an excelent storyline and plot (something very rare for a First person shooter) and i said before a great and very spooky atmosphere the voice acting is also good but not excellent. But the game has two main flaws. First of all it is quite linear so when your mission says for example go to that room all the doors in the house will be locked apart from those that lead to the room of your mission this may save time but it restricts your liberty of exploration.Secondly the fact all the weapons are antiques may not appeal to most fps players who are used to high tech weaponry. As far as difficulty is concerned the game is very well balanced. Most of it is of medium difficulty but sometimes it gets more difficult but not frustratingly difficult. Overall undying is a great game. Definitely one of the best fps out there.,1 -"Charlie's Wilson's War demonstrates with deft veracity just how futile wars can be, especially to the very people who spend countless hours and finances to fund them. Virtuoso performances and remarkably memorable characters teamed with a riotously sarcastic script catapult the film, helmed by the continuously unpredictable Mike Nichols, to the top of the year's best. Politics has never been so much fun.

Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a Texas congressman who is credited with almost single-handedly winning the Cold War. Hanging around plenty of drugs, women and scotch, he also takes an unexpected interest in the events in Afghanistan and the terrors of the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Enlisting the help of Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) a renegade CIA covert mission expert and Joanne (Julia Roberts), a wealthy socialite, he raises money to provide Afghanistan with the rocket launchers and antitank weaponry they need to cause serious damage to Russian military. Eventually by the end of the 80s the Cold War would come to an end, and the funds would immediately be cut, thereby removing all help for the fledgling country to rebuild and recoup.

The acting is exquisite, although it's to be expected from the more than accomplished cast. A large part of that however, should be attributed to the script, which allows each character to be undeniably well-developed and memorable. And a hearty helping of that credit goes to the novel of the same name, which is hilariously honest. Tom Hanks delivers yet another unequaled performance as Charlie Wilson, the man who did so much for so many and yet still remains relatively unknown. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Gust, a character that is vividly boffo in both his physicality and his wry cynicism; the inimitable Hoffman once again shows superb range in the characters he portrays. Julia Roberts is perhaps the only weak link of the film, with her generic snobbish character and not-subtle-enough accent. And then there's Wilson's ""jailbait"" squad of young secretaries that scamper about to keep him happy. Led by the always delightful Amy Adams, each supporting role has its mirthful moments.

Defeating the Soviet Union was not an easy task, especially considering the many conflicting goals between the various political leaders. ""Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?"" queries a disgruntled politician. ""Tradition mostly"", returns Wilson. Everyone appears to want the Cold War to end, yet a blind eye is being turned to the atrocities taking place in Afghanistan. It takes a trip to the war-torn refugee camps in Pakistan to motivate Wilson, as well as with his main financial source Doc Long (Ned Beatty). Wilson uses strategic ties with committees to raise funding of weaponry in Afghanistan from $5 million to $10 million with a simple command, but the president of Pakistan scoffs at the idea of winning a war for such a trivial amount. By the end of the Wilson campaign, $1 billion is sent to the Mujahedin to shoot down Russian helicopters - the first step toward victory, as Wilson predicted. Beyond the scope of the film, the unresolved turmoil in Afghanistan led to further, less ignorable problems, which Wilson presumably foresaw.

During the course of Charlie Wilson's War, the main characters travel from the United States to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Jerusalem to Egypt, but wherever they go, sarcasm always follows. There's a surprising amount of comedy in the film, considering the political undertones are generally serious. Hoffman provides jokes with almost every exchange of dialogue, as does Hanks, with his naturally witty woman-chasing ideals. A scene early on featuring Gust being continually ushered in out of Wilson's office as he tries to straighten out a legal issue with his posse of gorgeous gals (""you can teach 'em to type, but you can't teach 'em to grow tits"") reminds me of a slapstick routine from the Marx Brothers.

With the press focusing on the drug allegations against Wilson, instead of the important issues of the Cold War, and the conflicting desire of officials to budget their help, it's clear that by the end of the film, the politicians are still oblivious to what's really necessary. And since the screenplay is so quick-witted and astute, some audience members may not be able to keep up with all of the dialogue-intensive events. But, as demonstrated by the politicians who are ignorant as to the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's essentially another argument to support Charlie Wilson's point.

- Mike Massie",1 -"SPOILERS: I'm always surprised at how many people gave this game good reviews. It was awful. The script and voice acting alone ruined it. Gabriel and Grace are the most unlikeable characters in the game. You almost pray for their deaths. And worst of all, there are less vampires in this game than there were werewolves in The Beast Within.

The lack of real vampires was incredibly disappointing. If you're expecting some kind of Anne Rice style vampire story, forget it. This game's story has very little to do with vampires. You won't even see any till about the very end and even then, you won't get to fight them.

The story has radical, and pretty much blasphemous, views of Christianity. I'm amazed it got off the drawing board. I'm not even Christian and I found it offensive. Mostly, the story centers around a search for The Holy Grail and buried treasure. The kidnapping of a royal baby, which should have been the focus, really gets pushed aside. There is no sense of urgency for Gabriel to find the baby. In fact, he almost never asks anyone about the baby after the first few time blocks.

The graphics are pretty bad. The characters move about at a snail's pace even on the best of systems. They are chunky and outdated. And it's hard to go from the FMV of The Beast Within to this horrible game engine for Blood of the Sacred.

The relationship between Gabriel and Grace takes an awful turn, too. I really don't know why it was so horribly rushed, but they do sleep together. And it's not fun. Gabriel spends most of the game telling his best friend Mosely how he thinks of Grace as more of a sister and he doesn't think she's the one for him. And he seems really grossed out that they slept together. But he's so unlikeable throughout the game, that you almost don't even care at that point. His dialogue was the worst in the game. And he was constantly making stupid sexual innuendos at anything female the entire game. By the end of the game, Grace leaves him with what appears to be a Dear John letter. I guess she was as fed up with him as most of the players were.

I found the story to be annoying and boring. I was expecting to play a story of a royal baby who was kidnapped by vampires. And I was expecting to get to see and fight vampires, maybe even have Gabriel or Grace turn into one. But no. Instead, the story focused on the author's warped vision of Christianity. What a shame. Here they had the elements for a great adventure, and instead we got this.

For me, the only interesting parts of the game were actually at the very end. We do get a few action style puzzles at the end. But it wasn't worth suffering through the entire game to get to them.

I can't really recommend this game. I had gotten it back when it came out, years ago, and I hated the game engine so much that I shelved it for years. I only recently dusted it off to see what I'd been missing. And now, I'm very sorry that I did. My favorite characters were ruined. I hope there will be a fourth game just to redeem the series. And I hope they get it right next time. It would be a terrible shame to end the series with this installment.",0 -Atlantis was much better than I had anticipated. In some ways it had a better story than come of the other films aimed at a higher age. Although this film did demand a soid attention span at times. It was a great film for all ages. I noticed some of the younger audience expected a comedy but got an adventure. I think everyone is tired of an endless parade of extreme parodies. A lot of these kids have seen nothing but parodies. After a short time everyone seemed very intensely watching Atlantis.,1 -"In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle ""free-love"" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.",0 -"You may have serious doubts about watching the third sequel to The Stepford Wifes, but this is an absolute classic. Much scarier in premise than the first, and very entertaining. It only got a video release here in the UK, but should be released worldwide for everyone to enjoy.",1 -"""It's funny your worst nightmare always seems so far away!""

Dark Habour's characters, a married couple (Alan Rickman & Polly Hunter) and a vagabond (Norman Reedus), are slipping into a game full of hidden sexual energy and treason. Now-and-then tantalizing breaks increase the tensions and give much space for interpretations. Good acting and a story which, if not using the brain, will leave you in confusion. You have to watch it twice at least. The very strength lies in its unconventionality and in Alan Rickman, of course. Those who love him will love this movie.

Conclusion: It is not a typical prime time movie but Well Done !",1 -"1993 was a time of change in the WWE but for this Wrestlemania they decided to wind back the clock as Hulk Hogan returned, along with his good friend Brutus Beefcake, who had been out of wrestling since a paragliding accident in 1990.

This was not a great event. Only two matches had any real build and the whole thing came off as being rushed. The in ring action wasn't great and the twist at the end, which I'll discuss later, really wasn't the earth shattering moment the WWE hoped it would be.

This forgettable night started off with Shawn Micheals defending his Intercontinental Championship against the undefeated Tatanka. Tatanka had beaten Michaels a couple of times leading into the fight. Michaels had a new manager, Luna Vachon while Tatanka was accompanied by Michaels' former manager and future WWE Hall of Famer Sherri Martel. Tatanka won by DQ. Michaels kept his title and went straight back into his feud with Marty Janetty, which had been put on hold just for Wrestlemania. Why, I have no idea.

Next up saw the Steiner Brothers (Scott and Rick) defeat the Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) with Scott scoring the pin after hitting Samu with the Frankensteiner. Good match.

Doink the clown needed help from another clown to win his match against Crush. A second Doink distracting Crush when he was in complete control and allowing Doink to get the pin and the victory. Doink was an entertaining gimmick character, who got old rather quickly.

Razor Ramon easily defeated the returning Bob Backlund in the next match.

This brings us to the first in our double main event. As the Mega Maniacs Team of Hulk Hogan and Brutus Beefcake, with the newly turned good guy Jimmy Hart in their corner, took on Hart's former buddies Money Inc (Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster). This was a fairly sketchy finish. Beefcake, as mentioned, had been in a paragliding accident requiring full facial surgery and had wrestled the match with a face mask on. Shyster ripped the mask off him and beat Beefcake to a pulp. The ref went down, Hogan grabbed the face mask and knocked out DiBIase and Shyster and then Hart, who was wearing a referee shirt, counted the three. Another ref came down and reversed the decision, declaring Money Inc winners by DQ.

Next up Lex Luger or the Narcissist as he was also known at the time defeated Mr Perfect. This match came about because Luger was being managed by Perfect's old manager Bobby Heenan. Perfect had is feet on the ropes when he was pinned, but the ref missed it.

The Undertaker picked up a lacklustre DQ victory in a pretty poor match against the Giant Gonzales. THe Undertaker had earned the ire of Gonzales' manager Harvey Wippleman in 1992 and Taker had defeated his big monster Kamala at Survivor Series. Wippleman vowed revenge and took it at the Royal Rumble as Gonzales attacked Taker, costing him the match. Gonzales dominated Undertaker in this match, but was DQ'd for choking Taker out with chloroform. Weird finish to a bad match.

This bought us to our main event as WWE Champion Bret Hart, seriously challenged as champion for the first time, put his title on the line against Mr Fuji's unstoppable monster Yokozuna. Yokozuna controlled the early going, but Hart resisted and then took control. He had Yokozuna in the sharpshooter, surely he would give in and Hart would be established as an heroic hero after taking out the big monster. But Fuji had other ideas, throwing salt in Hart's face, rendering the Canadian helpless as Yokozuna got the pin.

What a downer ending. But wait here comes Hulk Hogan. He's checking Hart to make sure he's OK. Suddenly Fuji challenges Hogan to a WWE Title right then and there. Hogan accepts. Fuji throws salt towards Hogan, but hits Yokozuna instead. Hogan hits the leg drop and wins the match and the title. What did I just watch? And so, what most fans thought was going to be the night we either saw Hart establish himself as a giant killer, or Yokozuna establish himself as an unstoppable monster, we instead saw Hulk Hogan pick up a meaningless title win. A title that he would not defend for three months. As a matter of fact this was the only match Hogan wrestled for the WWE before the King of the Ring PPV in June 1993.",0 -"Lackawanna Blues is a touching story about Nanny, a woman who gives all of herself to help those in need. It's told from the viewpoint of a boy, taken in by Nanny when his own mother isn't quite up to the task.

I have respect for this movie for three main reasons: 1) It is touching, but not sappy. It's told in a very real fashion, without a lot of the aggravating Hollywood storytelling baggage. And the ending is quite good (teary but not over-the-top).

2) Although it's clearly an African-American film, being set in the post-segregation black community of Lackawanna, New York, it doesn't wear its ethnicity on its sleeve. The story stands on the strength of the characters and the dramas (and comedies) surrounding their lives. It's not preachy, it's simply good.

3) It has a great soundtrack (can't beat old-school R&B and Chicago blues).

Generally the acting is strong, but not universally so. Some of the performances simply don't hold up to the characters the actors are supposed to portray. But considering it was a made-for-TV movie, that's to be expected.

8 out of 10. Imperfect but likable, good film for a rainy day.",1 -"Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's ""Rough Riders"". Soon, they get suspended in order to ""Round-up"" the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up!

This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings/yodels ""Ridin' Down the Trail"", one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall.

** Rough Riders' Round-up (3/13/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts",0 -"This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, ""What the hell is this?"", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you.",1 -"""Miss Cast Away"" is an amusing trifle, which dispenses with serious plot or character development to pack in as many gags as possible. Best enjoyed with a large audience that is open to such entertainments and perhaps, has had a few drinks. Most of the jokes are current-event based so in future years this film may become a time-capsule of turn-of-the-21st-century pop culture references.

The 30i to 24p conversion of the footage does create a jerky appearance in some parts, most noticeably the opening aerial shots.

The appearance of Micheal Jackson is indeed a strange non-sequiter event. But I, for one, find it encouraging that Mr. Jackson has shown a helpful interest in one of his protégés even after he (the director) has passed from the cute-preteen-boy stage.

The effects work is not as bad as one review suggested. Most of it was done by a one-man crew in a brief span of time consisting of animator William Sutton, whose name seems to have been omitted from the IMDb credits. His work is an extraordinary achievement and really helps to fill in the gaps in this movie. I hope he's finally been paid!",1 -"Not a box office success; no-one really knows why. It may have failed simply because of its title. It looks as though you need a two-word tough-guy title to attract a sufficient proportion of the idiot crowd - ""Die Hard"", ""Lethal Weapon"", ""Hard Weapon"", ""Die Lethal"", etc. - talking about ""the long kiss goodnight"" will get you nowhere. But for once Renny Harlin has made a GOOD action movie. A large part of the reason for this lies in the fact that the central character, Samantha, earns our affection and interest early on. As she becomes Charly again, we're torn: we certainly want Charly to thwart the bad guys, and all that; but we don't want her to lose touch with Samantha in order to do so - even though we like Charly, too. Geena Davis bestows all of her considerable charm on both halves of the central character. Samuel L. Jackson plays second fiddle for a change. It turns out he's good at it. That was a compliment.

Intelligent, far superior to anything in the ""Die Hard"" series - if I were more cynical I'd add, ""it's not surprising that it didn't do well"", but I don't really feel that way; it IS surprising that it didn't do well.",1 -"Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful ""Swept Away"" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!'",0 -"I searched out this one after seeing the hilarious and linguistically challenging ""Clueless"" (1995), perhaps Alicia Silverstone's best known effort from early in her film career. ""True Crime"" has Kevin Dillon, which should be helpful in improving most film projects. In fact everyone in the cast does a good job . The only disappointment I think the movie has for me is an awkward ""feel"" to some of the scenes, coming from the need to run a quite uncompromising, grown up theme as part of what in tone starts out as a schoolgirl adventure.

Alicia Silverstone is pretty good in this one. She carries off well the naive enthusiasm and growing unease that affects Mary Giordano as she manoeuvres towards the truth behind the serial murders. I reckon her characterization of MG has some mileage in it too. The inference of the story line is that she goes on to a career in law enforcement. It could be really interesting for an older Silverstone to revisit Giordano at a time of crisis later in the officer's life. Just a thought!

""True Crime"" shows its director in a good light. Pat Verducci also has the writing credit. I don't know of any other film work PV has done. I can only wonder what happened after such a promising start.

Like most productions, this one has a largely unknown supporting cast, although Bill Nunn (Detective Jerry Guinn) is hardly that. Over the past decade he seems to have been able to secure an impressive number of screen appearances. I recall seeing him recently in ""Carriers"" (1998), a made for TV presentation with a military theme. Bill Nunn played ""Captain Arends"". Fans of the classic US TV comedy show ""Who's the Boss"" may also have an interest in ""Carriers"" because the leading player is Judith Light, remembered with affection by many because of her lengthy involvement with the show.

""True Crime"" could easily not have worked, but it does OK. I think it is an entertaining story worth seeing.",1 -"Continuing in the string of ""stalker/slasher"" flicks in the vein of ""Wolf Creek,"" ""Hostel,"" ""Joy Ride,"" etc., comes ""Rest Stop."" The most unoriginal and useless one of them all.

We start, reasonably promising, with the violent death of a pretty young girl in a filthy restroom.

This is where our interest is lost. We, then, move to the cliché road trip couple, on their way to LA with their eyes on acting stardom. . . which, doing movies like this, they'll never achieve.

From the sexual romp in the park, the couple drives, arguing all the way, to a deserted and disgusting rest area for the girl to use the bathroom. Harmless enough until she exits and finds her boyfriend missing and realizes she's being stalked by a lame version of ""Joy Ride""'s Rusty Nail. . . only driving around in Mater from ""Cars"".

Honestly, if this had been directed/written/produced/acted by anyone else, it might've been fairly good. But no.

Because then comes the ghost story. Yup. . . you guessed it. Plenty of ""oh, i'll help you, but wait, you're dead"" to ""wait is this stalker a person, monster, or ghost?"".

But wait? Who comes to the rescue to save the girl's life and possibly the movie? That one Lawerence brother. Excellent. We're saved. (sarcasm) Oh wait, no we're not.

You know. . . if you want to laugh off a pretty bad, or if you get free rentals like I do, give it a try.

If anything, you'll learn how NOT to make a movie.

-AP3-",0 -"This film must have been quietly released on some other side of the world, perhaps even in English. Hopefully nobody understood a word, not there's anything to understand in this movie anyways! Haahaa! Call me a nut, but I think this is one of the best movies ever. Why would I come to that conclusion?? Because it's my national pasttime to sabotage horrible films and this one begs for it every other minute! Once I became a fan of Myster Science Theater 3000, I had no doubt in my mind they'd find it somewhere and use it. Sure enough! The version they acquired was entitled ""Cave Dwellers"" using some strange intro footage not even from the film itself (apparently, they were ashamed to use footage from their OWN film!). I can't say I recommend buying this film. Rather, I highly recommend getting the MST3K version. Sure to find it most anywhere MST3K DVD's are sold, don't miss out!",1 -"I first came across this film when I read a book (written in the 1970s) about the career of Mitchell Leisin. I have to admit that over the years I have watched many of his films and find his best work really high quality. SWING HIGH, SWING LOW was supposed to be one of his best. While it did not bore me, it did not impress me as much as HOLD BACK THE DAWN, DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY, KITTY, or even GOLDEN EARINGS. I suspect it just dates too much now to be well liked.

Working at Paramount Leisin had a problem in those films that he did which were musicals. Most of the scores he worked with were fairly mediocre. It's true that twice standards appeared in his films, but they were really rare cases: ""Cocktales for Two"" appeared in MURDER AT THE VANITIES, and ""Mona Lisa"" came out of CAPTAIN CAREY, U.S.A. But the rest of the score for MURDER AT THE VANITIES was forgettable. ""Mona Lisa"" was the only tune in CAPTAIN CAREY. It shouldn't have been this way - Leisin's studio had Rogers and Hart working for it in the early 1930s. Why couldn't he have been assigned to a project with them? The score for SWING HIGH, SWING LOW, is pleasant but forgettable. Unfortunately, the movie is centered in the entertainment world, as Fred Macmurray demonstrates great talents as a trumpet player (he even works Carole Lombard into his act by looping his arms around her when he blows his trumpet). The song (sung by Lombard) about how her lover's playing thrills her, is important to the plot. It works in the film, but it would have been better if the song was more memorable.

There is a picaresque style to the film - it begins on an ocean liner that Lombard works on, as a manicurist. She is constantly being bullied by her boss Franklin Pangborn (the ship's barber). Then the ship is entering into the Panama Canal, and we see MacMurray as a soldier, who's enlistment is ending shortly. Their first scene together has a nice Leisin touch in it: MacMurray is talking to Lombard, she on the deck of the boat and he on the edge of the wall of the lock. Nice way to keep the action going while the dialog hits a dull bit.

The film follows the rise and fall of the Skid Johnson (MacMurray) as he meets Lombard, and begins his reputation as a trumpet player, but meets the ""other woman"" in the film, Dorothy Lamore. The best moments in the film deal with the collapse of the relationship with Lombard, and his collapse as a jazz trumpeter (his appearance and need for alcohol is very untypical for a MacMurray character - even his darker figures like Walter Neff or Mr. Sheldrake or the naval officer who pushes the Caine Mutiny did not demonstrate a reliance on alcohol.

Lombard is good as the woman loved but wronged by MacMurray. Lamore has little to really do - possibly the film had more scenes with her in it, but one stands out is her attempt to get MacMurray onto the wagon again. In his opening bit Pangborn is fine. Rarely noticed in films, small part actor Carl Judels is effective as a fair weather fan/friend of MacMurray, who drops him as he goes under (though he gives him a hand-out).

Charles Butterworth is as trivial in this film as usual, but he does have one moment when he looks sheepishly at his hands on the keyboard of a piano in the rooms he, his girlfriend, MacMurray, and Lombard share - his red faced appearance is due to embarrassment about a lie that MacMurray is insisting is true. It was a nice, subtle moment. If only his subtlety had been in his acting rather than his moments of diffident humor.",1 -"Satisfying fantasy with ships sailing thru clouds with cannons, evil plotters, strange landscapes, manipulations of time, great sets, void of reality, maybe like Never Ending Story or some Merlin stuff. If you like that, you'll love it. Christine Taylor is beautiful. Sword fighting is phoney. Music is delightful. Good wins out, they kiss, all is well, and the cook is pleased.",1 -"Lets face it, Australian TV is for the most part terrible, but this is a real diamond in the rough that not enough people are watching. The Chaser crew who do the satirical newspaper and CNNN try something new by mixing live comedy, pre-recorded skits and political satire into one show filmed in front of a live audience, sorta like Rove, but funny. They love causing controversy and this causes some of the shows funniest moments, especially Chris telling his wife to ""f-- off"" live on breakfast television and Julian handing a novelty cheque signed by Saddam Heusein to the head of the AWB. It has to be one of the funniest Aussie shows since the Micallef Program.",1 -"Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.

The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.

Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.",0 -"I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.",0 -"Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the ""film""! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.

It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?

As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish ""slap in the face"" of recycled cliché and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead ""actress"" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky.",0 -"Follow the Fleet, an RKO production in 1936, stars Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in a complex romantic comedy. Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have had many similar romantic movies together, RKO helped them to once again create a worth-while storyline that incorporates relevant situations to society at the time it was made. The narrative of Follow the Fleet relies heavily on the use of layered story lines between the two sets of main characters to create a satisfying romantic comedy.

The general plot of the movie revolves around Bake Baker, a Sailor in the U.S. Navy played by Fred Astaire, and Sherry Martin, Bake's former love and dance partner who is now a singer and dancer played by Ginger Rogers. Their story begins when Bake is on the ship and his shipmate Bilge Smith finds a photo of the two of them together, and Bake reveals that the last time he saw her he had asked her to marry him, so Bilge suggests that they try and meet up with her when they are on land, in hopes that she might have a friend.

The next major scene begins the second plot of the movie when Connie Martin, Sherry's sister, is refused entry into Paradise where her sister works unless she is escorted by a gentleman. She turns around to find Bilge behind her with a bag full of beverages, so she plays it off like she was waiting on him and buys his entrance into Paradise as well. Connie then finds Sherry and tells her that she is depressed because she cannot have the luck Sherry does with men, so Sherry suggests she get a makeover from her friends while she is performing on stage. Connie gets made over, and enters the ballroom once again, and approaches Bilge again, who is awestruck by the sight of her. This commences the second romantic storyline between Bilge and Connie.

Throughout the remainder of the movie the story and rising actions are transitioned between altering comedic reliefs of the two couples' troubles that create several mini rising and falling actions within the overall plot. Bake and Sherry hit it off their first moments together as they compete in a dance competition and end up winning it, reminding them of the success and pleasure the two have when they are together. Similarly, Bilge is able to swoon Connie through his romantic attempts of pleasing her, and they retire to her house.

This series of happy events is soon followed by unsettling measures that brings the rising action back down. Bake left Sherry the previous night to retire to the ship before midnight, and told her that he would come for her in the morning. Unfortunately the ship sets course after the shipmates have returned, upsetting Sherry and leaving her to think Bake was still being a typical sailor looking for a good time when he's on land.

The mood is again changed as another subplot is entered into the film when a ""party of big shots"" is taking a tour of the ship. This alternate storyline is used to create a buffer between the stories of the two main relationships of the film, as well as help build confidence and fondness of Bake's overall good intentions. The party is interrupted by the oblivious music playing coming from Bake and his companions when they missed the sounding to report on deck for the company. The ladies are intrigued and ask to hear them play, and Bake gladly begins to entertain them with some dancing, which ultimately helps brighten the mood of the film, as well as bring happiness to the sailors.

After returning to the couple's intertwined stories, Sherry is trying to prove to Bake that she does not need his help with landing a job. Unfortunately Bake is unaware that she is auditioning, and goes to put in a good word for Sherry when he overhears his friend at the studio talking about the remarkable lady auditioning. Bake takes it upon himself to help Sherry out by tampering with her water, making her unable to sing correctly and destroying her audition. In addition to Bake's mistake, Connie spent all of her money to repair a ship that she was hoping Bilge would take over as captain. She had also planned a remarkable dinner date for him when he was supposed to come over, but Bilge was aware of her intentions and hopes of soon marrying and was no longer interested, so he stood her up.

The remainder of the movie continues in the same format of mini rising and falling actions until the climactic point is reached between the two couples, ending the movie with the happiness of both couples. The use of the altering stories helps to build interest and emotion within each couple as they deal with both happiness and pain through each of their struggles. The intertwining stories are also able to relate with one another, as well as incorporate other unrelated subplots to help carry the narrative through to the concluding scenes.

Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have countless films together that incorporate romance, comedy, song, and dance, Follow the Fleet is a unique film for the two actors that successfully use the technique of subplots to aid the narrative between the two main characters.",1 -"Dire! Dismal! Awful! Laughable! Disappointing!

Right, your trapped in ""The Cave"" with several ""hard"" Men and a Woman or two, your being systematically killed by ""Something"" and you STILL don't get to hear ANY naughty Grown Up words!!! A 15 Cert' here in England, and you could tell!

The Egos of the ""Macho Men"" was just too much, pass the bucket I'm going to be sick.

This movie should never be exposed to daylight and ironically, be kept in the darkest, deepest hole in the ground and be forgotten forever. I have a feeling that this description isn't the first time to pop its his head from a hole in the ground.

Just like the film The Cube, it looked like a good concept but was just let down at the last post by, well its self.

This Comment contains Spoilers alright, its called The Cave.

Thanks Bruce.",0 -"I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accurately and without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography.",1 -"There are not many movies around that have given me a feeling like Stardust did all throughout the course of the film. As magically fairy-tale-like as The Princess Bride, Stardust is most definitely the most wonderful fantasy spectacle of the 2000's as well as the 1990's. Exciting, hilarious and equipped with wonderful imagery as well as unforgettable characters, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro's especially, I challenge anyone to watch this movie without a smile. From the first ten minutes of the film you know perfectly well how it will end, but it is the journey and not the destination that enthralls the viewer from start to finish.

Ten stars, and not a decimal less.",1 -"I have never seen such a movie before. I was on the edge of my seat and constantly laughing throughout the entire movie. I never thought such horrible acting existed it was all just too funny. The story behind the movie is decent but the movies scenes fail to portray them. I have never seen such a stupid movie in my life which is why it I think its worth watching. I give this movie 10 out of 10 for being the most pathetic movie ever created, this movie seems like it was solely created to become trash. I mean the scenes seem so fake and the actors act like ""the camera is in front of them"". You will get a kick just watching how lame this movie is, me and my friend could not stop making jokes during the movie, the darthvader guy who tries to get the girl got ran over not once but twice and the second time he got ran over it sounded like he said sh!# although he doesn't speak English lol. If you watch this movie you will think to yourself that all those other movies you didn't like you took for granted they are way better than this. This movie should be seen out of curiosity as well as what kind of movie DEFINES lame. The evil serpent encountered the girl so many times it was ridiculous, the evil serpent just roared and roared and let her get away every time. The evil serpent had so many chances it was like god was trying to say hurry up and eat the girl how many miracles do you want. The transition between scenes leaves you wondering did I miss something? So many plot holes from scene to scene. I was laughing like crazy when they decided to ""Escape To Mexico"" to get away from the serpent. Hmmmm hopping the border will save you from a serpent from Korea? interesting... very interesting.... I guess hopping the border solves all problems. Another scene that completely stupified me.. they met for the first time and had a romantic scene at the beach they kissed and didn't even know each other... the scene was so clichéd and the was no substance at least in other movies it might seem logical afterwhile but i mean they JUST MET even though they are reincarnations there feelings were like they instantly loved each other instead of it rather developing. Anyways this movie is worth watching for the sake of opening your eyes and seeing the light. Bad Hollywood movies will seem like heaven when compared to this. In the end its worth watching you wont get bored you will be occupied criticizing every moment, every scene in your head.",1 -"Overshadowed by ""Braveheart"" released the same year, the two costume dramas beg comparison. I admit my bias against Mel Gibson, yet I maintain a rational preference for ""Rob Roy."" Both ""Braveheart"" and ""Rob Roy"" compellingly depict Scots history in bloody, romantic fashion. ""Braveheart"" is an epic paean to individual honor and courage and a fine revenge fantasy. It's also melodramatic, anachronistic and maudlin. Note its cornball usage of slow motion filming. Its violence is both ugly and glorious. It is the latter quality which makes it more appealing to the adolescent mindset. While ""Braveheart"" surpasses ""Rob Roy"" in sheer levels of carnage (not to mention its indulgent running time), the latter film is ultimately more mature and satisfying. Its action is more understated, yet more surprising and clever. Its sex is less showy, yet more erotic. ""Rob Roy"" also has a better realized romantic interest. Its dialog attempts to approximate the poetry of the period. Its rotted teeth in the mouths of the actors attempt to approximate the dentistry of the era. And Tim Roth is a superlative villain. Also recommended: ""The Last of the Mohicans"" and ""The Patriot."" You may find the latter more akin to ""Braveheart"" with its emphasis on blood lust, with the former more similar to ""Rob Roy"" in tone. All the of the aforementioned movies merit their R ratings for violence.",1 -"Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.

Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.

Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.

If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then.",0 -"I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted ""proof"" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA ""deserved"" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:

""In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.""

WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean ""we"", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount.

But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we ""deserved"" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out ""fact"" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's ""Facts"" added up to guacamole.

But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver ""Captain Conspiracy"" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to ""Release the Hounds."" Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.

Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10.",0 -"I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Well, let's make no mistake about it. ""Munchie Strikes Back"" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?

Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was ""borrowing"" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.

Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. ""Munchie Strikes Back""'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, ""Munchie Hangs Ten"". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10",0 -"As a fan of the Sookie Stackhouse books, I find this series to be a totally crass representation of them. Vampire Bill is not very good looking and looks much older than described in the book. I found that they have made already wonderfully colourful characters seem very course and vulgar. One of the things I loved about the books is that despite all the crap that she is going through Sookie is always a lady, and yet in the TV series she doesn't seem like that at all. Not only that but the prejudices displayed in the TV series are not nearly as wide spread in the books. I didn't expect an exact replica of the books but I at least expected the feel of them to be used for the series.",0 -It's this sort of movie that you try and imitate. By attempting to realise something... then flying through the air almost immediately. I'd like to do that and I know you would too!

Great stuff!,1 -"In the early 19th century, a young woman with a harelip falls foul of her family's ambition and the superstitions of the local community, but she meets a man who may see her differently, and just may, change Pru's life forever.

Precious Bane is a British Broadcasting Corporation adaptation of the highly acclaimed novel by Mary Webb. It's a beautifully filmed piece that is acted to an incredibly high standard, the story {screenplay by Maggie Wadey} is excellent, and the period detail and use of dialect is second to none. It's such a shame that this film has yet to get a DVD release, one would have thought that with Clive Owen's {great here as Gideon} rise to stardom, the BBC would get it out there, but sadly no, so the only way of catching it is on the very rare occasions that TCM shows it. The lead performance from Janet McTeer as Pru Sarn is simply brilliant, guts and genuine emotion go hand in hand as McTeer gives it her all. Pru has to not only contend with her facial disfigurement, but also the constant snides and hurt from the ignorant villagers. This is a time when folk believed that if a Hare ran in front of a pregnant woman it spelt doom, a time of Bull Baiting, a time of superstitions and talk of witches. In spite of constant set backs Pru is strong and resourceful, even her own family knock her dreams back without realising it, but this road may well be a terribly bumpy one, but hope is everlasting, and Pru has hope in abundance.

8.5/10",1 -"This is one of those films that makes you want the time you spent watching it back, and then some, like the time you spent accidentally picking it out, the time you spent getting to the video store, etc.

First off, the look: It's grainy, it's low budget. Now that in itself doesn't make for a bad film. But the way it was filmed makes the action look unnatural, so that's kind of distracting.

Then, the story. 3 gals go on a gal's weekend away from guys. Of course, as EVERYONE does when going on a camping trip, they stop on the way to get earrings. When they arrive at the area in which they're going to stay, they get pulled over by Mr. Ranger Sir, who scolds them for throwing a lit cigarette out of the car at fire season, and then drives them where they're going (a remote cabin). Of course, 2 ""cute guys"" wander into their vicinity, and Bambi (yes, Bambi) and Aubry are immediately smitten, but apparently Bambi is smitten by anything with two legs. Mady is rather disappointed by this development because she was looking forward to a weekend of forgetting about her ex by getting sh**-faced and stoned with her gal-pals.

Oh, and I almost forgot, there's a mean old hermit that lives up that way, that's perhaps someone to not tangle with, and the area & cabin in which they're staying have a sort of ""reputation"".

So of course, sooner or later (unfortunately, MUCH later) some of our weekend wood-visitors begin to die, and find various booby traps (although a couple of them actually hit a little lower than that) and of course, the remaining campers are understandably upset. No cell phone reception of course (who would miss out on a chance to check their cell phone for reception in a movie anymore?). Mr. Ranger Sir keeps popping up at odd times & his behavior seems a bit odd but he has said he will get help.

There's a fantastic twist to this that you just won't want to miss too, if you're still awake. Pray that you wake up to a blank screen.

The acting in this is terrible, the production values are terrible, and the whole undertaking is just lame & I find it amazing this was even released. Avoid at all costs, 1 out of 10.",0 -"I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the ""Mother Night"" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively ""easy"" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of ""Bluebeard"" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's ""Sirens of Titan"" would probably have been the equivalent of ""R"" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at ""Jailbird"", ""Galapagos"" and ""Hocus Pocus"".

The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like ""talkovers"". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, ""Breakfast of Champions"" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, ""Slapstick"" in an even more spectacular way.

Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and ""Mother Night"" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.

Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.

It survives quite well watching back to back with ""Slaughterhouse-5"", and there is actually quite a bit more ""good"" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - ""Harrison Bergeron"", ""Who Am I This Time?"" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, ""Happy Birthday Wanda June"". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called ""Between Time And Timbuktu"" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale ""The Island of Dr. Moreau"", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.

But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.

As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head.",1 -"This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book.

Above all this movie just leaves me asking ""WHY?"" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, ""The Real World: Tudor England""? Why are the camera angles so bad in general?

Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.

Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says ""Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..."" It's just bad.

Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.",0 -"I honestly fail to understand why people love this show so much. A friend of mine watches this and since I like sci-fi, I tried to watch along since the plot of the show sounded promising, but in truth it really is a very boring show. The only thing that will keep you awake during this show are the video game-like CGI-effects and the complete overuse of muppets. Note that I call it muppets because they actually really look like muppets, not like the aliens they should be.

Speaking of which; the muppets and make-up effects are horribly overused in this show. You have this guy who could be best described as a alien/dwarf-hybrid, you have a pale girl who looks like a cheesy vamp-girl, you've got a floating potty-mouth frog-alien... It just feels very unnecessary and furthermore even to the point that you feel distracted from the whole storyline about a lost astronaut.

Every episode is also too much of a stand-alone. The creators of this show directed this in such a way that every episode almost feels like a whole other show. At least up until the point that you see the main-characters/muppets again, that is. The whole plot about the main-character getting back to earth is way to much pushed to the background at points. The acting is also quite bad.

Conclusion: if you want good sci-fi, just look somewhere else. This isn't even real sci-fi to begin with in my opinion, since the show is more aimed at fantasy-elements with all the puppetry and weird dreams going on. And if you just want to see muppets then I suggest you watch the Muppet Show and feel glad that this abomination of a show has come to a end.

By the way; doesn't anyone have dejavu's with the concept of a living spaceship? Ohyeah thats right; Doctor Who started that concept almost about 30 years ago! This show is like a collection of 'sci-fi' leftovers. Scripts and events that were abandoned for a good reason, only to be picked up by this horrible show.",0 -"Have you ever heard the saying that people ""telegraph their intentions?"" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.

The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque ""Southern"" accents employed by British actors.",0 -"Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.

Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current ""edgy film-making"". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.

What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.

I know I didn't.

Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.",0 -"If you thought Herbie trying to kill himself by driving off a bridge in 'The Love Bug' was daft, wait 'till you see him acting horny in this bewilderingly silly second sequel. Dean Jones is back as the driver who competes in the Paris to Monte Carlo rally; this time his sentient VW falls in love with another car in the race, a Lancia driven by Julie Sommars. By this point in the series the energy and charm is lacking even more than in 'Herbie Rides Again'; the movie is overlong and threadbare, although it's watchable thanks to the return of Jones's typically likable performance, a few funny bits, and the cast's frantic mugging.",0 -"I went to see this one with much expectation. Quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. Even a child can see the missing logic to character's behaviors. Today's kids need creative stories which would inspire them, which would make them 'daydream' about the events. That's precisely what happened with movies like E.T. and Star Wars a decade ago. (How many kids imagined about becoming Jedi Knights and igniting their own lightsabers?) Seriously don't waste your time & money on this one.",0