Datasets:

---

sanad

/

imdbs

like 0

train_9962

I was a bit scared to watch this movie due to its rates. But living in Italy titles like this never ever come across and I love step so much that I decided to give it try. And how surprised I was! The story is different from any other dance-movie I've seen lately, with a deeper meaning than just "winning". It's touching and well written and well directed. Raya is such a strong character, I love the fact that she never doubts herself, she's so mature and focused and AWARE of her TALENT (and what talent Rutina Wesley has, my jaw dropped in the final dance scene). The way she pursues her dream and refuses to let anything stop her is, honestly, inspiring. Also, the fact that she's not the typical super-hot chick (see Jessica Alba, Briana Evigan, Jenna Dewan, Zoe Seldana...) makes her really appealing and real. Seriously, why is this movie rated so low? You can understand between the first 5 minutes that it's a good work. Really good actually. I even cried at the end of the movie. And the dancing routines are just sick.

train_7876

I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here.

train_3244

I couldn't agree more with Nomad 7's and I A HVR's comments. A perfect laid back Sunday morning movie. The humor is subtle (exact opposite of "slapstick" as one misguided commenter noted).But what always ceases to amaze me is how often I find myself wanting to come back to this movie over and over. I originally copied this movie onto VHS about 12 years ago when it was premiered on one of those Pay Cable free weekend previews(HBO maybe?). Had never heard of it previously. Don't know why it wasn't marketed that well. ?? When DVD's were released en mass, it was one of the first movies I replaced. A great combination of cast and writing. Plus, the back drop of Montana wilderness doesn't hurt things either (beautiful).It's probably not the type of comedy for everyone, but what is? If Adam Sandler type stuff is up your alley, this probably won't be your cup of tea. This movie needs your full attention. The humor is mostly in the dialog.I believe my next viewing will probably be about my 12th. But I still know that when it gets to the scenes like the one where the hoods of the police cars start blowing off, I'm going to loose it (Ed O'Neill's face is PRICELESS!). Recommended 110%.

train_19293

Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from ****

train_22031

This is an atrocious movie. Two demented young women seduce and torture a middle aged man. There's not much to give away in regards to a plot or a "spoiler". I would only comment that the ending is nearly the most preposterous part of the flick. Much of the film involves Locke and Camp cackling obnoxiously, all the while grinning psychotically at the camera. Add to this a soundtrack that repeats again and again, including a vaudevillian song about "dear old dad" that suggests an incestuous quality the viewer never really sees. The music is annoying at first, then ends up subjecting the viewer to a torture worse than that depicted on the screen. The theme here is of youth run amok, understandable as a reaction to the '60s, but done with little imagination or style. Avoid it!

train_18065

I think Dolph Lundgren had potential at being a big action star a la Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and even Van Damme to certain degree. He had some big moments in his career but he also made some poor choices and this is definitely one of them although made later in his career. The strange thing about Jill The Ripper (or Jill Rips...or Tied Up) is that I honestly think they seriously thought they were making a provocative and serious thriller? It shows in the way that they describe it on IMDb, on the DVD case, in the commentaries, and this film is not serious. To call it campy would be a huge understatement. The film tries to be complex and intelligent when in fact it's nothing more than shallow, confusing and gratuitous. On top of that they put Lundgren, who is known for action films, in an attempt at a serious role which makes it even more campy because his range as an actor is pretty limited. The entire film revolves around the kinky sex world and yet they attempt at making it a serious thriller? Just the plot and premise immediately make it a B-Movie Porn at very best.Dolph Lundgren plays disgraced former cop and raging alcoholic Matt Sorenson who decides to play Detective when his brother is murdered. I mean put aside the numerous plot holes that has Lundgren getting free roam to investigate crime scenes, and witnesses and everything else even though he's not a cop anymore and you still have a pretty strange and rather lack luster performance from Lundgren. Danielle Brett is Lundgren's eventual love interest and his brother's widow. Brett plays her role decently enough considering the script and campy story. The supporting cast is huge and no one particularly stands out in their performances unless it's on the negative side such as the absolutely horrible performance by Victor Pedtrchenko who seems to go by several different names in the film, boasts an awful accent and is a really awful villain.I honestly tried to get into the mystery and film and watch closely but there wasn't any reason to because it was all a jumble of ridiculous plot and gratuitous sex games including a downright ridiculously hilarious scene where Lundgren goes under cover and is strung upside down nearly naked. To explain how classy and well done this movie is (sarcasm...sarcasm) the back of the DVD I picked up (it was really cheap) has Lundgren's character listed as "Murray Wilson" (not the name of his character in the film.) While somehow Lundgren manages to be usually watchable the film falls flat on it's face trying to be serious. Considering director Anthony Hickox is infamous for really B-Movie Horror flicks it only makes sense even though I think he was really trying to be serious. Hard core cult Lundgren fans will have to see it...no one else should...certainly for any sort of mystery or suspense. 3/10

train_1392

Bizarre, trippy, forget-about-a-story-and-full-steam-ahead low budget sci-fi about the Williams family, living in the California desert. They become witness to a series of events that escalate in their level of strangeness; apparently, they've been caught in a time-space warp, where past, present and future collide.This is the excuse for a parade of highly amusing special effects - a constant light and sound show, dinosaur-like creatures that have at each other, a friendly and tiny little E.T. who enchants the granddaughter, and so on. This picture does show off a little imagination, if nothing else.Very nice music by Richard Band, engaging special effects work from the likes of David Allen, Randall William Cook, and Peter Kuran, and, importantly, a likable family are key assets. It generates a sense of child-like amazement; it may very well be that it's more of a romp for kids (or the kids inside many of us) who are able to gloss over any flaws in the narrative or presentation.I found it hard to resist; it's a short and sweet (80 minutes) diversion, and a decent credit for director John "Bud" Cardos (of "Kingdom of the Spiders" fame) and executive producer Charles Band.7/10

train_5801

This movie is exciting,daring and the music is very good.The movie Moonwalker was meant to coincide with the album Bad(1987).I have Bad.It is excellent(*****).The movie begins with Michael Jackson performing"Man In The Mirror"on stage.then,it shows a history of Michael,from his early days in the Jackson 5 right up to the Bad era. Oh,and Badder is good too(Badder is a music video parody of the music video for Bad the single).It then shows the Speed Demon video.The song and the video are very,very good indeed.Same for leave me alone,which appears after.Then it shows the movie Moonwalker.after a few minutes,he plays smooth criminal in a club called club 30s.like it when he does the lean.anyway,nice to see you.bye bye.

train_16724

STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **

train_24042

An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.

train_6693

Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL!

train_20438

A family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.Final verdict: 2.5/10.

train_807

Dear Readers,The final battle between the Rebellion and Empire. The Second Death Star is nearing completion and when it is completed it will spell doom for the Rebel Alliance. Luke Skywalker, now a Jedi knight, returns from Tatooine with Han Solo and Princess Leia, now revealed as Luke's twin sister! They agree to lead the attack on the Shield generator on the Forest moon of Endor while Lando Calrissian leads the attack on the Death Star. Little do they know that a most ingenious trap has been laid for them and the Emperor Palpatine himself is personally overseeing the construction of the Second Death Star.Return of the Jedi is my favorite of the Original Trilogy. It's got action, drama, romance, great battles, fantastic Acting, amazing fight scenes, and awesome music by John Williams. Mark Hamill is fully matured now into a Jedi Knight, gone is the naive farm-boy and in his place is a calm, relaxed Jedi determined to save the galaxy. Leia is still cool in this film as well as Han and Lando. 3P0, R2, and Chewie do their roles to a T while James Earl Jones still is cinema's greatest villain: Darth Vader. Ian McDiarmid is also an excellent villain as the twisted and brutally ruthless Emperor Palpatine. The Action sequences of this movie are breathtakingly amazing and the sword fights are serious and gritty. John Williams's score is still cool and enhances the film by several levels.Signed, The Constant DVD Collector

train_13987

Thanks to this film, I now can answer the question, "What is the worst movie you have ever seen?"I can't even think of a close second, and I've seen some really bad movies.Absolutely nothing works in this film. Name a single element of any horror film and this movie fails. Honestly, I've seen better on YouTube. Here's some typical dialogue:"Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve, is that you?" "Steve, I'm not kidding" "Steve, this isn't funny!" "Steve, are you there?" "Steve?" "Steve?" "Steve?""ARggh!!!! Ahhhhhh!!!! Nooooooo!"

train_17955

Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.

train_1650

An excellent series, masterfully acted and directed, but unloved (I am told) by Mr Deighton and withdrawn by him after a single presentation. It is now only viewable in private collections, and via the British Film Institute at special request. Very unfortunate, as Ian Holm's nuanced portrayal of the weary-but-determined Bernard Samson is superb; one of his very best performances. The supporting cast, including the young Amanda Donohoe and Hugh Fraser, are superb. With Mel Martin playing the conflicted and traitorous wife, and Michael Degen as the mercurial Werner, the story positively simmers with the tragic and fateful personal consequences of the great game.

train_10120

The movie starts something like a less hyper-kinetic, more pastiche Dead or Alive: strange underground activities are done while bodies are discovered by police officers. But when a police officer is killed, one Tatsuhito gets involved... and when he discovers that his brother Shihito is also involved, things get bloody quite fast.An earlier work of Miike's, Shinjuku Triad Society is still filled with his usual in the ol' ultraviolence and sadistic sex acts, though it's not one of his more eclectic or flamboyant pieces. Rather, it's a pretty well crafted bit of pulp fiction, as Tatsuhito digs his way through the underground, a maze that leads him to a gay Triad leader who sells illegally gained body organs from Taiwan and keeps an almost-brothel of young boys (one in particular the character who kills the cop at the beginning). Tatsuhito's brother is getting involved with said society, so Tatsuhito himself is forced to become a dirty cop and use similarly violent and sadistic tactics to penetrate into this sordid realm.What's mainly interesting about this little bit of work is the relationship Tatsuhito has with his nemesis, Wang. Tatsuhito is a Japanese born in China, later moved back into Japan, and alienated for it. Wang is a Chinese who felt alienated in China, so killed his father and developed a crime wing in Japan. Wang also is a surprisingly Shakespearian character, which is weird enough as it is, much less that you actually begin to feel sorry for him by the time his ultimate showdown with Tatsuhito comes to be. And Tatsuhito himself is a similarly tragic figure when he's forced to contend with his lack of ability to control his brother. While it would be rude to state that Miike's movies are successful mostly on their shock value, it is true that sometimes it's easy to lose track of how well Miike can create bitter, dis-impassioned characters.--PolarisDiB

train_20365

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

train_21018

I'm amazed how many comments on this show are about how "real" it is. Maybe I'm not part of the same universe because if Veronica Mars is anything, it's over the top in a big way.The acting is chewing the scenery with enthusiasm and the plots have holes you could drive a truck through. That's not what I call real.It is so earnest in its desire to be "relevant" that it only shows how cut-off from reality Rob Thomas and his staff are.Overall, I found it to be at best a snooze-fest and at worst more than a little annoying. Kristen Bell looks like she could be a good actress, but it's hard to tell with the over-the-top style of the whole show.

train_21646

Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied.

train_9616

Worth watching twice because of the rapid-paced causal shifts among several compelling stories, "Bug" emerges as a wholly satisfying work of art that plays ever-optimistic love against myriad examples of frustrating reality.My favorite characters are Wallace (John Carroll Lynch)whose overriding concern for life--from that of a cockroach to the airline passengers for whom he is partially responsible--frames the film; Olive (Christina Kirk), who spends considerable time creating surreal but tasty meals for her impossible husband Ernie (Chris Bauer); and Mitchell, a cable TV technician with unbounded trust in fortune cookie messages: "You will meet the girl of your dreams."Against such optimism are the forces of quirky reality, all generated by actions of the characters: parking tickets, a clogged drain in a Chinese food/donut shop, TV disruption, a crushed auto fender, an obliterated dinner reservation that eventually results in cancellation of a Hawaiian vacation.The film is funny: Olive getting drunk at a Chippendale performance, Johnston (Michael Hitchcock)as a customer service rep attempting to deal with an irate customer, the germ-obsessive Cyr (Brian Cox) facing a restaurant inspector, Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) reacting to his girlfriend's refusal to have children by writing hostile Chinese cookie fortunes: "Your girlfriend is lying to you" and the guy who falls asleep while manning a jackhammer because he spent the night looking for his girlfriend's missing cat.A minor story with public cable access host (Darryl Theirse) and a local acting teacher reading from "The Boy in the Bubble" expresses the major theme: love comes from the heart."Bug" entertains on much the same level as "trains, planes and automobiles" but on a lower budget and with a fresher eye.

train_5499

I had no idea of the facts this film presents. As I remember this situation I accepted the information presented then in the media: a confused happening around a dubious personality: Mr. Chavez. The film is a revelation of many realities, I wonder if something of this caliber has ever been made. I supposed the protagonist was Mr.Chavez but everyone coming up on picturewas important and at the end the reality of that entelechy: the people, was overwhelming. Thank you Kim Bartley and Donnacha O´Briain.

train_19262

This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess.

train_12931

Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure. He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem. An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller. It's not.City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind. In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc. And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen! But again, it really doesn't.Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society. But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.

train_1940

I was really impressed with this film. The writing was fantastic, and the characters were all rich, and simple. It's very easy to get emotionally attached to all of them. The creators of this movie really hit the nail right on the head when it comes to creating real life characters, and getting the viewer sucked right into their world. Further, the music is terrific. They employed some independents to do the score, and some of the soundtrack, and they do a fantastic job adding to the movie. If you have a chance to catch this movie in a small theater or at a film festival (like I did), I highly recommend that you go see it. Also, on a personal note, Paget Brewster is beautiful in this movie. That's reason enough to go check it out.

train_17882

Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way. However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.

train_8090

When a small hobbit named Frodo Baggins inherits a magic ring from his uncle, the wizard Gandalf investigates and discovers that the ring is an ancient creation of an evil dark lord. Should the ring end up back in his hands, he will regain his power and destroy Middle Earth. Frodo and his loyal friends set out on a a quest to destroy the ring with a band of warriors. This is an underrated adaption of the classic novels as it only covers the first half of the story. Regardless, this is an epic and wonderfully animated film.The animation is superbly done with rotoscope, which is tracing over live action footage. Ralph Bakshi worked well with the low budget he was given. The film also boasts a grand music score by Leonard Rosenman that fits every scene. There are a few plot holes with the script, but that has to be excused, considering the original deal was to make the book trilogy into two films, much had to crammed in the first one. My biggest gripe is some of the character design, Samwise was a bit too goofy, while the other hobbits act completely normal. The other characters are actually well written for the screen, and the voice actors do a great job, I was pleased that Legolas is actually a bit more helpful to the plot. The rotoscoped orcs are more comical than frightening, while the ringwraiths are eerie and nightmarish.Another problem is that the evil wizard Saruman is called Aruman, thanks to the writers. Overall, I think a little more money and better writers would have done this a lot of justice, but there is something charming about it. Ralph Bakshi made a valiant effort of making screen adaption of these classic stories. The film suffers terribly from being overshadowed by the live action films, but it's still a great movie for animation lovers of all ages.

train_14544

This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.

train_8645

I had seen this film many years ago and it had made a lasting impression on me. Alas, I have hardened to many films over the years and did not expect to be impressed by 'Kalifornia' upon watching again recently. I am pleased to say that it is every bit as unnerving and watchable as it was ten or so years ago.There are two things which really give this movie its power. The first is its cast. We have a staggeringly disturbing turn by a young Brad Pitt as Early Grace. Knowing Pitt, as we all do, as one of the most enduring heart-throbs Hollywood has ever had, it is refreshing to see him play such a vile, unattractive character. Pitt pulls the show off without resorting to white-trash cliché or parody, and manages to remain genuinely terrifying throughout the movie.Juliette Lewis is equally impressive as Grace's tragic girlfriend, playing the character like a ten year old girl with a forty year old's life experience. Lewis manages to evoke pity (for her character's station in life) as well as contempt (for her naivety), but she underpins her performance with the kind of subtlety rarely seen by an actor so young. Personally, I think it's a tragedy that neither Pitt nor Lewis were nominated for any awards for their performances here.David Duchovony and Michelle Forbes are both perfectly cast as the yuppy couple who unwittingly end up travelling across the US with Pitt and Lewis. Duchovony is aptly geeky and naive, and Forbes seems emphatically cynical and shut-off, but both actors manage to convincingly portray their characters' changes as they are equally intrigued, repulsed and strangely attracted to Pitt.The fine casting and uniformly brilliant acting aside, this film really grabs us by the proverbial balls through its flawless pacing. At the time 'Kalifornia' was released, Hollywood was releasing a slew of nice-character-turns-out-to-be-psychotic movies ('Single White Female', 'Pacific Heights', 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle', 'Deceived', 'Sleeping With The Enemy' etc). Most of these movies followed the same formula, the only variation being the nature of the relationship between good guy and bad guy. 'Kalifornia' doesn't really stray too far from this territory, but its first two acts are the perfect example of the slow-boil thriller, and we are kept on the very edge of our seats waiting for the tide to turn.When the penny does drop, and Pitt is let loose to play the maniacal bad guy, the film shifts gears completely and the last twenty minutes don't quite live up to rest of the movie. That said, the action is thick and fast and the resolution is suitable cold. The fight is over, but the scars will always be there.Much of the narration (provided by a somewhat whiny, pre X-files Duchovony) is a tad contrived. Of course, it's meant to be from the book the Duchovony's journalist character has written, so one could argue that the self-conscious narration is meant to be a nod to the kind of sensationalised style in which most journalists write.The film is largely a success and is certainly a cut above 90% of the thrillers of the past twenty years. Highly recommended, but not for the weak of stomach or mind. This film is disturbing on more than one level. But then, it's meant to be.

train_10223

*some spoilers*I was pleasantly surprised to find the harsh criticisms (acting, dated dialogue, unclear storyline) unfounded. Belafonte is great as a Brandoesque, menacing, swearing spirit who must earn his wings but is realistically ill-equipped from his past life to do so. He learns too late how empty his hustling, materialistic life was without love. Mostel is likewise great as an anguished man with his dying wife Fanny. In spite of his prayers for a miracle, his bitterness prevents him from accepting (or believing) in one. The two social worlds the characters represent alternately collide and complement the other, the result being hilarious and touchingly sad.The perplexing ending is actually quite consistent with the rest of the film. After looking everywhere for Belafonte, Mostel looks up to see a falling feather, and he frantically reaches for it as if he's finally willing to believe in angels and miracles. But Belafonte wasn't allowed to finish his miracle (either to restore Fanny's health or Mostel's faith), so he never got his wings. The feather floats tauntingly out of Mostel's grasp, a metaphor for both men's live: it's too late and you don't get a second chance. Like "It's a Wonderful life," this movie is magical, wonderful, funny, but terribly tragic.

train_20431

The explosion of TV channels must be eternally grateful to the Randolph Scott Western production line, because any any moment there must be one of what seems like a hundred Randolph Scott movies playing on at least one no-budget station."Man Behind The Gun" is a typical early 1950's period melodrama with pre-WWII production values that relies on a historically-topical murder mystery plot peppered with action scenes to disguise the script's complete absence of character development, and thus lack of suspense. In years to come the role of these films would be taken over by TV shows like 'Gunsmoke', 'Bonanza', etc - and these actually did the job better. Randolph Scott, looking particularly grizzled in this, is the good guy, struggling against the bad guys against whom he will eventually prevail. There's no more interest in what he goes through emotionally than in what his horse is feeling, unless you count wondering whether he'll sort out the initial misunderstanding with the female lead by the end. The music is a stronger indication of the emotional state of the 'characters' than the acting is. But it's fine if that floats your boat; and I wouldn't berate you for enjoying 'Diagnosis, Murder', either.Workmanlike, pedestrian, and ageing rapidly. 3 stars for being competently put together; 0 for artistic endeavour.

train_182

If you are uninitiated to the Gundam world, this is a good place to start. If you are burned out on Star Wars or Star Trek, here is a compelling, realistic sci-fi series you can become immersed in. Not the simplistic boy-saves-world-in-giant robot story you might have expected, but rather a complex, emotionally compelling space war drama where the line between the "good" and "bad" guys is decidedly less than distinct.Gundam 0080 focuses on the story of Al Izuruha, a young, naive boy living in a neutral space colony. He spends his days daydreaming about Mobile Suits and playing war with his friends. During the course of this series, Al befriends an "enemy" soldier, Bernie Wiseman. By the end, little Al learns some hard lessons about the reality of war and the requisite suffering and sacrifice.I loved this OAV series, with its cool mecha designs, involving story, and likeable characters. I recommend this series to anyone who likes realistic SF anime, or to those who think anime is just silly or sexy entertainment.

train_1387

A bit slow (somehow like a Sofia Coppola movie) but still a very captivating film about the discovery of sexuality by three teenage girls. The magic of the movie lies in its capacity to bring back many memories to how it felt like to be their age. The confusion and the insecurities are portrayed in a very simple way but so true to life. The music is perfect and the acting is amazing. The camera works beautifully also. I highly recommend it for those who are not afraid to look back at this particular period of life when we discover our sexual impulses and our desires. I would also say that it is a fine film for young people going through that period. So many movies have been made about adolescence but this really captures the true essence of discovering the adult world of romance and its complexities.

train_14665

This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.Really not worth your time.4/10

train_16479

OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.

train_18900

The comedic might of Pryor and Gleason couldn't save this dog from the tissue-thin plot, weak script, dismal acting, and laughable continuity in editing this mess together. It has a very few memorable moments, but the well dries up quickly. As a kid I remember this as a Luke-warm vehicle for the two actor-comedians, but there was always something strange about the flow and feeling of what was being conveyed in each scene and how this ties to the plot overall. Watching it again after many years, it screams schlock-a-mania. I'm not so concerned with the racial controversy, as I wouldn't mind seeing a movie take that issue on with a little levity. The most obvious fault to me is that the scenes are laid out like a jumbled, non-related series of 2 minute situation comedy bits (any not very good ones at that), that were stapled together by the editor after an all-nighter at the local watering hole. Characters change feelings and motivations on a dime, without rhyme nor reason, between scenes and within scenes, making this feel as though no one had any idea of what to get out of the screenplay. Not that it was any gem to start with. I feel bad for the two actors whose legacy is marred by this disaster that should never have been made. Maybe my sense of humor has become too refined...

train_2031

Such a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet again.

train_16026

(Spoiler included, some would say)This film is not possible to take seriously. At some parts it is so awfully stupid that I just can't help laughing at it all. Try me for the sequence where Stallone's character jumps some 20 meters with full climbing gear or (and this is really my favorite) snuffs a bad guy by sticking him onto a stalactite. Yeah, what ungodly strength did he muster to accomplish such feats? I dunno, but he sure gives reality a run for the money.

train_8338

This movie is so great. Its set back in probably the 40's and Meg Ryan's character struggles to be known as 'smart.' Plus Tim Robbins is so cute in this movie. And everything about it has a magical feeling towards it. Everytime I watch it I feel happy. It's definitely a girl movie, and I'm a girl, so I like it. I also love the music. The violin is awesome. but besides that I think it's a cute story and everyone should watch it.

train_9643

This movie has everything. Emotion, power, affection, Stephane Rideau's adorable naked beach dance... It exposes the need for real inner communion and outer communication in any relationship. Just because Cedric and Mathieu are a couple who happen to be gay doesn't mean there isn't quite useful insight for anybody in it. I would probably classify it as a gay movie, but one that can be appreciated and loved by heterosexual people as well as homosexual and bisexual people. Mathieu's incapacity to handle his emotions divulges the way our society doesn't encourage us to act any differently, and that is what engenders the discord between him and Cedric. This is definitely a must-see!!!!

train_23090

This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!

train_23320

What was Franco Zeffirelli thinking? Was Hollywood responsible for this travesty, or can I take comfort in the idea that someone who didn't speak English as a first language just completely missed the point of Charlotte Bronte's classic? I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast. But pity the actors, because the screenwriter left out all of the best scenes. The dialog that makes you understand the Jane and Rochester have a meeting of minds and a shared sense of fun...deleted from the script. The marriage proposal, the fortune teller...gone. The allusions, half joking, half sincerely felt, to Jane as a fairy sprite from olde England come to rescue Rochester in his despair...eliminated.It is unfortunate that Zeffirelli felt the need to completely rewrite the end of the novel and Jane's interactions with the Rivers family. But it is unforgivable that he has surgically removed the love from one of the best love stories ever written.Do yourself a favor and go find the 1983 (?) mini series with Timothy Dalton.

train_3549

It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the "stage", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the "heat is on", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the "saitn" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A-

train_6168

Aileen Gonsalves, my girlfriend, is in this film playing a secretary at the main character's bank. She has a lovely scene with Roshan Seth in a restaurant. There's more information on her website at >Having stated my personal interest in the film, I have to say that I think it is a beautiful movie - moving, funny and beautifully filmed.

train_17069

I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV

train_6842

Brian De Palma's undeniable virtuosity can't really camouflage the fact that his plot here is a thinly disguised "Psycho" carbon copy, but he does provide a genuinely terrifying climax. His "Blow Out", made the next year, was an improvement.

train_2174

I think I truly love this film . "Prix de Beaute" was originally a silent film but later dubbed into French in 1930. Despite having someone else's voice dubbed over hers, this remains a stunning tour de force for Louis Brooks. The fact that her singing voice is dubbed by the legendary Edith Piaf helps to mollify us purists about the dubbing deception. This is the story of Lulu and we first see her at a resort with her macho boyfriend, Andre (Georges Charlia) and their friend Antonin (Augusto Bandini). Lulu enters the frame as a pair of legs: we see her inside the car changing into her bathing costume. Lulu is very free with showing off her body and this does not sit well with the irksome Andre. When Lulu considers applying for the title of 'Miss Europe' we know that a happy ending is not going to be sitting at the end of Easy Street. The film seems to focus a lot on men ogling beautiful women. We see plenty of bathing beauties and the reactions of the men staring at them. But at the center of it all is the magnificent Louise Brooks. If you don't mind watching films from the bygone eras, then consider checking out this one. Louise Brooks is not a name that most average movie buffs may readily know but as soon as you see her you will be mesmerised and you'll want to know more. Also check her out in 'Pandora's Box' if you can find it.Be wary of the US Kino DVD release. I don't know if their projection speed is correct. A lot of the scenes appear to be shown at too fast a speed. This may have been the way they were shot. I don't know. But since it's the only way to see this film, it's worth swallowing that one minor bitter pill.

train_22593

I cant believe blockbuster carries this movie. It was SO BAD. I was totally fooled by the box art. DON'T BE FOOLED!! Its not worth your time I promise you. I don't know if the positive reviews for this flick were a joke or what. I am so disappointed. :( The description on the back of the box doesn't even match! The girl that has the voodoo done on her is a stripper. The synopsis on the back says she is only 17. Did the people writing the description for the film even bother to watch it!? Those positive reviews had to be a joke they just had to be. If anyone actually liked this flick then I've lost all faith in humanity.And don't even get me started on the story compared to the title. Or the fact that the entire movie was done all in 2 locations. Or that the cops didn't even have close to real uniforms. Why would i even say that?? Who cares about the cops uniforms!? Compared to the rest of the movie the uniforms were spot on. This movie is an insult to the zombie genre and all of its fans.

train_64

This is Paul F. Ryan's first and only full-length feature. He hasn't done anything since. However, he managed to get an amazing ensemble cast to portray the characters of his story. I don't know when or why the idea emerged in his head, but Ryan wrote a screenplay which later became his own directed movie, "Home room".Busy Philipps carries the movie on her shoulders as Alicia, a troubled girl; the ones we always see in television series. With dark hair and black clothes; a package of cigarettes in the pocket, weird look and disturbing eyes (with makeup, of course). An event has occurred at her school; a shooting. Some students have died, and she saw everything. Now Detective Martin Van Zandt (Victor Garber) is investigating the case, and, as expected, Alicia is a suspect. But the shooting is just the genesis; the movie is not about the shooting.Lying in bed in a hospital room is Deanna Cartwright (Erika Christensen). She is one of the survivors of the hospital. The script establishes a bond between them, by the school Principal (James Pickens Jr). He is helping all the students to recover from the event, but Alicia doesn't seem to care. She's isolated. So the Principal punishes her; she needs to visit Deanna every day until five o' clock. Then the movie starts.I can't even describe how wonderfully written I think the movie is. I can identify with the characters and the situations they live; I like reality. These things could happen to anyone. And the things they say are totally understandable. They're growing up and trying to deal with things they haven't experienced; they're doing their best. Without knowing it, Alicia (when she visits Deanna for the first time) and Deanna (when she sees Alicia standing in front of her) are commencing a journey of that will define their personalities and ideas for the next step in life; after high school.The director leads Christensen and Philipps through their roles very well. Look the contrast between them. Deanna seems naive and with plain thoughts; no complexity inside of her mind. When Alicia enters her room and sees tons of flowers she asks: "Who has brought them?". "Many people", Deanna answers; although some days later we learn they're from her parents, who come every week. The parental figures are all well represented, but are not as important as their sons' characters. Deanna is lonely. Alicia seems mature and violent; smoking cigarettes and talking roughly. But after two days of visiting, she finds herself coming back to the hospital every day; even sleeping in Deanna's room all night. When they both have a fight afterwards, I believe Deanna says: "Why do you keep coming back?". Alicia is lonely too.The ending of the movie, without ruining it, comes a bit disappointing; it's something I wasn't waiting for. It eliminates some of the strength the movie has. The revelation comes totally unnecessary; ruining the logical climax the movie could have had. It was an excellent script anyway; and an excellent direction. A damn fine movie.When it comes to Erika Christensen, this was the role she needed to fly higher. Her role in "Traffic" was impressing, but this was the big step; the main role. Maybe not many had the chance to see her in this film, and that's a pity. She hasn't made one false move since then. She has even come out with good performances in awful movies. On the other hand, Busy Philipps, who proved to be very promising in this movie (what a transformation), hasn't got many opportunities for other roles.The same I say about Paul F. Ryan (in directing, of curse), and I expect he is sitting now in his computer finishing his new script; I'm waiting for his next movie. I'm hoping the best for all of them.

train_13902

Dynasty Revisited in Hawaii... Full of clichés, highly predictable, unrealistic and sometimes even stupid. If you have nothing better to do however, it does provide 40 minutes of simple, unpretensive entertainment, endless looks at great male and female muscles and very good photography of the spectacular Hawaiian scenery. On the other hand, If you are looking for anything more than that, stay away...Oh, and by the way, if you have ever worked in a Hotel or know anything about running one, you have two options: 1. You will feel sick every two minutes at the sheer stupidity and silliness of how the show presents Hotel Business or, 2. Look at it as science fiction comedy as I did, lie back, relax, and laugh about it!

train_5737

I'm gonna tip the scales here a bit and say I enjoyed this. However, the cartoon is really only going to appeal to those who have very absurdist tendencies. It's definitely something that most people will not get, as is the nature of absurdism.the animation is horrible, but yes, that's the point. The main character is foul mouthed, violent, and stupid. no redeeming qualities whatsoever. his wife shrieks and wails, apparently just barely capable of the most basic communication skills. most of these stories completely lack any kind of point.but again, that's the point ;)If non sequiters, foul language, and complete and utter randomness are your thing, you're going to love this.It is really short, so I would probably rent instead of buying.

train_2907

In conception a splendid film, investigating the tensions that occur in family life in the idyllic setting of Galiano Island off the coast of British Columbia, _The Lotus Eaters_ is marred by the fact that it has been packaged as a made-for-TV movie, diminishing itself throughout by the addition of chirpy music over potentially powerful scenes, as if to get ready for the interruption of commercials. A pity, really.

train_17796

I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.

train_14799

Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.

train_22789

This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously.

train_4487

"Fraidy Cat", the 4th of these cartoons, is a good one. At least I like it, so I'm surprised that this is getting mixed reviews.This one is more of a macabre story than a funny one, although it has its moments of comedy. The atmosphere is dark and spooky. Suspense is another strong element here. As for humor, it's mostly dark humor.In this short, Tom listens to a creepy radio show at night and is absolutely terrified because it is about ghosts, something he believes. While Tom is scared to death, Jerry is watching everything and can't help but laugh the whole time. In fact, Jerry quickly finds a way to torture him more and more. With the help of a white shirt and a vacuum cleaner he creates a big "ghost".Tom lives the scariest experience of his whole life. Although Jerry scares Tom without a good reason, the way the story is made ends up being funny. Plus, once again, there is no violence here because this is one of Tom & Jerry's oldest cartoons. However, I don't get that joke of Tom's 9 lives nearly sucked into the vacuum cleaner.When Tom finally finds out that it was all a Jerry's scheme and that Jerry made a fool out of him, Jerry is «caught with the hand in the cookie jar» (he deserves to be discovered). Yet, Tom shows an incredible patience before reacting. He angrily looks at Jerry for about a minute. The funny thing is that Jerry invites Tom to laugh with him and takes about half a minute to realize that Tom is looking at him with a very serious face. Jerry tries to be funny, but Tom doesn't laugh.Overall, this is a different, peculiar and remarkable Tom & Jerry experience.

train_4132

A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up.

train_22707

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 ....

train_14625

If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.

train_8624

What's the best way to start a review of a movie like Der Todesking? Let me start by saying I've just come direct from viewing this movie, and the images are still burned deep into my brain - and I don't think they'll be moving any time soon.It's probably fair to say that if you're on this page you have a good idea what sort of film this is even if you haven't seen it. If not, let me forewarn you that this is not a moderate-budget gem that's been lost for a few years a la "Near Dark", nor is it a low budget, schlocky, "fun" B-movie. What it is it low-budget art, put forward in a simple yet poignant way. The idea is a simple one - seven stories revolving around, and ending in, suicides interspersed with footage of a decomposing corpse. Sounds simple right, even boring? It isn't. Words can't really describe how powerful this film becomes by the time you are halfway through; it virtually draws you into it whether you want to go or not.I could go on a ramble here about the technical pros and cons of the direction; maybe point out that the scenes are obviously shot on super-8 cameras and are at sometimes shaky. I could point out that some of the sound effects are out-of-sync in a way to rival any Fulci movie, but at the end of the day this all seems to pale into insignificance.As far as extreme movies go, I've seen the hardest of them, and yet Der Todesking moved me in a way that few others have managed, despite not being particularly gory and having very few scenes that I would consider "gratuitous". In fact, the most disturbing scene I found was the last tale. I won't ruin it, just to say that the character's emotional agony virtually drips from the screen and makes you sympathise, if not yearn for his end. Sure, it's not the best movie ever made, and in a lot of places is seems crude and maybe a little amateurish, but in spite of these flaws Der Todesking is an experience I would recommend to anyone who likes challenging cinema. If you're someone who likes comfortable viewing or "nice" movies, or simply wants to gross out on something brutal and pointless, this is not what you're looking for. Whether you enjoy it or not, It's one you won't forget in a hurry.

train_9323

For me this movie was powerful. I don't want to be a spoiler, but I had a friend years ago; we were like brothers. This movie brought back some vivid memories.For some reason, I couldn't place my vote for this movie which would have been a 10. I kept getting a message like "No votes have been placed...." And yet I saw in the stats that there were. Will try again tomorrow (Monday).Minor flaws I overlooked. It was the relationships between the characters that got me. Beautifully acted and real situations. I've been in a couple of them.A small gem of a movie. Just like "Spring Forward" is another overlooked gem. I'm very glad movies like these are still being made; about relationships between people, well written, sensitively unfolded with first-class acting and direction. After all, isn't that what it's all about?

train_24954

I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so "engrossed" with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)

train_5386

This film is one that played very well back in 1932 and probably wouldn't work as well today because its style it a bit old fashioned and contrived. However, if you are the sort person, like me, who adores older Hollywood films, you cut the film a bit of slack and can enjoy it for what it is--an interesting soap.The film is set in a ward for problem pregnancies. In this large room are about a half dozen beds in which women are waiting to give birth--but doctors are concerned about possible complications (yikes--such a room would really traumatize the mothers!). And, like an episode of "Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", each mother has her own special story. With so many rather extreme and crazy stories, you have to suspend disbelief. I could and enjoyed the film quite a bit.Here are a few of the stories: One involves a father. You don't see the mom, but he is a very, very nervous father and it's included for comic relief. However, he was wonderful here--very touching.Loretta Young and Eric Linden are a sad case. Loretta is sent to the hospital from prison--she apparently killed some horrible guy. You don't know exactly what occurred, but you assume he was trying to force himself on her! Yet, she was given a 20 year sentence--and her husband is devoted to her and is by her side as much as he can.Glenda Farrell is an awful person. She has the maternal instincts of a hamster--a really, really bad and alcoholic hamster! She is pretty funny and worth seeing through most of the film. I loved her drinking from a hot water bottle filled with gin as well as becoming upset when she learns she can't make money selling her twins!! Late in the film, she has a typical Hollywood-style change of heart that was supposed to be touching--I found it contrived.There is a woman who has given birth to a still-born baby. Amazingly, afterwords, they put the lady back in the same ward as the women waiting to give birth!!! A crazy woman, who you assumed lost a baby some time ago,wanders down from the psychiatric unit. She insists she's having a baby. Later, she escapes again and actually takes one of the kids!There are most stories than this but the ones I mentioned are the main ones. As I said, it's a soap opera of sorts and is highly entertaining--and quite sad in the case of several of the stories. The ending, in particular, is heart-breaking and exceptionally well done. There were a few particularly good performances--especially Farrell and Aline MacMahon as the head nurse. All in all, a very good film--and I have no idea why they felt they had to remake the film just a few years later (which was typical for Warner Brothers).

train_22944

the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake!

train_24427

Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.

train_9932

If you go to this movie expecting something it isn't, you will be disappointed, as with any movie. This movie contains what Hemmingway described as the "iceberg effect". On the surface, its simply a cache of random movie clips smashed together to make a movie. If this would be written in a book, it would be a short story, because the action in the movie is very fast paced, and unless you actually try to catch it, the reasoning behind the plot (along with some subtle foreshadowing) can very well pass you by. Definitely a movie you will have to see twice in order to fully appreciate. Experimental Cinematography barely describes this movie. The camera-work and post production add much to the overall flavour of the film, making it quite artistic at some points and open to interpretation at others (something to be desired in American movies as of late). Although, at some parts it may get a little raunchy, gruesome and too heavy for some audiences, the movie never becomes completely unrealistic. The only aspect of the movie that I would write off as "needs improvement" is the soundtrack selection. No movie is ever good without a fitting soundtrack, and although the soundtrack is quite fitting, the opening is a little too long, and the other rap songs in the film really could have been replaced with something more appropriate (heavy, grungy rock or psychedelic electronica would have made this film a real trip). The flooding of imagery and dynamic... color palettes adds another "artistic" aspect to it, also combined with the events that happen throughout the film, this is not a movie you can miss any part of and still understand. However, that also makes it much more of a desirable film to watch, and not one you'll quickly get bored of. 8.5/10

train_20140

I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."

train_4141

This movie is not only the funniest film ever created, it's the greatest. My hats off to Mr. and Mrs. Zodsworth and the rest of the wacky, wacky cast. Good morning Satan, Want a donut? See it post haste! GO SEE IT NOW!

train_9196

Kimi wa petto is a cute story about a girl who one day finds a boy inside a box that is outside her apartment one day. She decides to bring him in and fix his cuts. She then leaves a note for him to eats some food she made then go home because she had to go to work. When she gets home however she finds that he is still there. He tells her that he wants to live there with her like a brother or cousin. In desperation to get him to leave she tells him that if he became her pet then he could stay. And as a pet she says that he would have no rights and do whatever she told him. (not in that perverted way!) To her surprise he agrees and from then on he is known as Momo, her pet.

train_13067

This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!

train_21752

...but the actress playing the daughter just doesn't come across as credible.It doesn't work for me when I see an actress of about 25 years playing the role of a 12-year-old... Other commentators have suggested that this is one of the messages of this film, that children may sometimes seem more adult-like than adults, but with the casting as it is in this film, it just doesn't work for me.you might want to check other comments to find out what this film is actually about, because i couldn't bear watching it to the end.i agree that the premise for this film is beautiful though - I wish another director would try to pick up this story again.

train_17718

All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"

train_344

Another entry in the "holiday horror" category that fills the shelves of your local video store. The *spoiler* "wronged nerdy teen taking revenge on the 'cool' kids who wronged him" plot will of course be familiar to those who've watched it before. And those who've seen it before will probably watch it again; those who are expecting Ingmar Bergman and will subsequently become indignant about their wasted time should just skip it. Marilyn Manson on the soundtrack and David Boreanaz, Denise Richards and Katherine Heigl as eye candy--go with the flow and enjoy it. Oh, and I loved the creepy mask.

train_21576

This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.

train_11819

Just picked this up on DVD and watched it again. I love the bright colors vs. dark imagery. Not a big Beatty fan, but this is an excellent popcorn movie. Pacino is astounding, as always, and well, this movie marked the period where Madonna was her absolute sexiest. I wish she had stuck with the "Breathless" look for a while longer. Charlie Korsmo's first really big role, other than "What about bob?". The makeup effects were cutting edge then and still hold up for the most part. Beautiful scenery and mood transport you directly into a comic strip environment. The cars, wardrobe, buildings, and even the streetlights et a great tone, not to mention the perfect lighting, although the scenes with a lot of red can get a tad annoying, as it tends to blur a little. Just wish Beatty had gotten the chance to make a sequel. All in all, a fun few hours.

train_19434

OK, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.

train_18172

I am ashamed to have this movie in my collection. The most redeeming factor to owning the DVD is the short film in the bonus features. My vote for this movie is a big fat ZERO. Don't misunderstand, I'm a horror girl. but i want some meat behind the story, not to mention i prefer the evil to happen to humans, not to be tricked in to watching, what seemed like forever, clips of animal snuff. Acts of brutality interrupt achingly long silence and poor acting. If i was forced to make a comparison to another film, the only one that comes to mind is Cannibal Holocaust. Bad, boring, pointless and a wholly uncomfortable watch.

train_24489

This clunker of a film sets a new standard for bad filmmaking. Jared Rushton gives an adequate performance of a very poorly-created character in an ill-fated movie, thereby creating a net effect of a very bad movie. The film's main thrust is how a boy's temporary excursion into the Canadian wilderness after surviving a plane crash solo allows the disgruntled adolescent to deal with his anguish over discovering his mother's extramarital affair. Unfortunately it turns into a bizarre collage of random "survival events" (including two especially hokey scenes involving fighting a bear) and strange hallucinations that make you wonder if this kid isn't just sitting in an alley somewhere on pot dreaming up this whole movie (and what a nightmare it is!). Furthermore, despite the heralds of some reviewers of the family viewability of the film, there are several scenes not suitable for very young children or family viewing, including a graphic scene of the dead pilot underwater with one of his eyes apparently exploded.All in all, a terrible movie that nobody should be subjected to, much less innocent kids.

train_18787

I read about this movie in a magazine and I was intrigued. A woman, who one day sees herself drive past in her own car. Well, I thought, this could be interesting......but it isn't. First, the title. The Broken? The Broken...what? What is broken? The...oh, wait...I get it, the title itself is "broken"! WOW, clever! Unfortunately, this is virtually the only thing going for it.The premise is not that bad, but I think Kiefer Suderland did much better in 'Mirrors'. A cross between Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Mirrors, and a rather mediocre one at that. A more suited title would be 'The Boring', since it draws out every single scene for bloody ages. Or maybe 'The Confusing' since it doesn't explain anything at all, not in the narrative nor in the story itself, only some vague idea about evil copies and somesuch, dotted with cheap scares and scenes used to death, but nothing tangible. It's just messed up.On the other hand, the acting and the special effects are quite good, but then again, it's not a difficult role to act.After watching the movie twice, I still feel unsatisfied, a little confused maybe, and not in the E. A. Poe or Stephen King kind of way. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this one. Simply put, there are better thrillers out there.

train_14944

Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though! I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!

train_18946

The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, "When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?"Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch "Monsoon Wedding".

train_11497

This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.It's a document.It's mind-blowing.I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.

train_8817

French production in which leading film directors from 11 countries were invited to create 11-minute short films conveying their reflections on the events of September 11.The film segments vary widely in content and quality. Two allude to U.S. complicity in terrorist acts (in Chile against Allende, who died on September 11, 1973, depicted in the segment by British director Ken Loach; and in Palestine by U.S.-backed Israelis, shown in the segment from Egyptian director Youssef Chahine). Two more recall other destructive acts (a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, shot by Israeli director Amos Gitan; the Japanese "holy war" against the west in WW II, by Shohei Imamura).Ironies abound in several stories. Shadows that darken the New York City apartment of a grieving old man suddenly disappear as the World Trade towers telescope to the ground in Sean Penn's piece, bringing the man momentary joy. But in this bright light he can finally see that his wife is really gone. In Mira Nair's film, based on a real incident, a missing young man, also in New York City, the son of a Pakistani family, is first presumed to be a fugitive terrorist, but later he proves to a hero who sacrificed himself trying to save others in the towers.There are poignant moments dotted throughout. Loach has his exiled Chilean man quote St. Augustine, to the effect that hope is built of anger and courage: anger at the way things are, courage to change them. Imamura tells us that there is no such thing as a holy war. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher with her very young Afghan schoolchildren, exiled in Iran, trying to tell them about the events that have just transpired in New York. But they are understandably more impressed with a major event in their refugee camp, where two men have fallen into a deep well, one killed, the other sustaining a broken leg. This is comprehensible tragedy on a grand scale for the 6 year olds. Idrissa Ouedraogo, from Burkina Faso, creates a drama in which the son of an ailing woman spots Osama bin Laden in their village and gathers his buddies to help capture the fugitive terrorist, in order to get the $25 million U. S. reward. He tells his friends not to let any of the adults know their plans, for the older folks would merely waste the money on cars and cigarettes, while he plans to help his mother and others who are sick and destitute.It is Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (maker of "Amores Perros") who provides by far the most powerful and chilling segment, one that, for the most part, shows only a darkened screen with audio tape loops of chanting and voices and occasional thudding sounds. Brief visual flashes gradually permit us to see bodies falling from the high floors of the towers, and it dawns on us that the thuds are these bodies hitting the ground. The sequence ends with elegiac orchestral music and a still shot, bearing a phrase first shown only in Arabic, then with a translation added: "Does God's light guide us or blind us?" (In various languages with English subtitles) Grade: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 10/31/04). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

train_20829

I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?" The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously.

train_6365

This highly derivative film will be entertaining for the many who have not seen some of the more obscure anime films. I enjoyed most of it, especially after the rather flat opening minutes in the museum (although the pre-title sequence is very entertaining and includes some of the better bits of animation). James Garner as the Commander and Leonard Nimoy as the King give impressive performances.

train_7932

When I watch a low budget film I know what to expect. I expect the acting not to be as good (budget reasons), I expect the lighting not to be as good (budget reasons)I expect the sound not to be as good (budget again). Stop judging these low budget movies like a big budget film!!! I'm a filmmaker myself so I understand the budget constraints on a low budget film. Stealing locations, shots etc... the list goes on and on. I don't want to say all the acting was bad. Jose Rosete, Chris Angelo, Victor Zaragoza are good. Raul Martinez is a natural. Not sold on Carl Washington yet. He has to understand that every line is not important, some are throw away lines. I say if a film makes you want to see what happens next, it's a good film. I liked this movie. I gave it an 8. I wanted to see what was gonna happen next. Great job Quiroz brothers!

train_22632

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.) This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *

train_13120

I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.

train_16017

I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...

train_24577

Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!

train_8191

The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit together comprise the two best episodes of the 'new' Doctor Who's second season. Having said that, it should be obvious that much of the story basically transposes the plot of Quatermass and the Pit (1967) to an outer space setting, with the history of the universe intertwined with that of the Beast 666. These episodes cement the emotional ties between Rose and the Doctor, whilst also highlighting Rose's increasing self-confidence, establishing her as a not-quite-equal-yet-but-getting-there partner with our beloved Time Lord. Also of note is Matt Jones elegant screenplay, which decreases the occasional over-reliance on one-liners for the Doctor, and the performances of the entire cast, most notably the excellent Shaun Parkes as acting Captain Zachary Cross Flane.

train_20606

Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.

train_24555

Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film.

train_8447

In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...

train_12613

Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")

train_13517

Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.

train_24525

This movie was on the Romance channel, and I thought it might be a goofy 80's movie that would be enjoyable on some level, so my brother and I watched it. Boy did it suck. Boy gets crush on girl--correction, his *dream*-girl (apparently there is a difference; and I'm surprised he realized she was his dream girl--he was smitten with her from over 30 feet away. I guess that just goes to show the power of dream-girls), boy ends up masquerading as a female to be near dream-girl (creative in the sense that it's a far-out plan, but un-creative in the sense that there are probably better solutions one might think up), awkward situations ensue, a match is made (all of which takes seems to take place around late afternoon--either the location was somehow responsible for this odd lighting, or the actors had to wait until they got off of their day-jobs to come to the set; I suspect the latter). Very clumsily done, very pathetic. It's almost never even amusing *accidentally*, so there really is nothing to redeem it. Unless you're interested in seeing Chad Lowe's early days, before he finally got his piece of the pie with his role as the HIV-positive gay guy on the series "Life Goes On", or Gail O'Grady who was on NYPD Blue and probably got to stare at Dennis Franz's buttocks). But those are unlikely motives--I'd say "systematic derangement of the senses" would be a more justified purpose. I'm surprised I watched it all. I guess it's the kind of thing where, halfway through, you find yourself *still* watching due to some morbid, self-flagellistic inner-issue, and think you might as well finish it so you can tell your friends and family that you actually sat through such a horrible movie, on the off-chance that it'll garner you some sympathy for the questionable state of your mental health. Can *You* Take the Challenge?

train_22005

I'm not going to criticize the movie. There isn't that much to talk about. It has good animal actions scenes which were probably pretty astonishing at the time. Clyde Beatty isn't exactly a matinée idol. He's a little slight and not particularly good looking. But that's OK. He's the man in that lion cage. We know that when he can't take the time away from his lions to tend to his girlfriend, he will end up on an island with her and have to save the day. Someone said earlier that it is a history lesson. The scenes at the circus are of another day, especially the kids who hang around. I didn't realize that even back in the thirties, they sailed on three masted schooners. It looked like something out of 1860. I guess that's the stock footage they had. No wonder the thing got wrecked. They're always talking about fixing her up. There's even a dirigible. It tells us a little about male female relationships at the time, a kind of giggly silliness. But if you don't take it too seriously, you can have fun watching it.

train_19496

What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.

train_7175

This film is brilliant! It touches everyone who sees it in an extraordinary way. It really takes you back to your youth and puts a new perspective on how you view your childhood memories. There are so many layers to this film. It is innovative and absolutely fabulous!