Datasets:

DT4LM

/

imdb

like 0

The fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.<br /><br />The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.<br /><br />Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is "priceless"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.<br /><br />The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).

this was a personal favorite of mine when i was young, it had everything that was great with 90's kids movies... lovable dinosaurs, cute kids, an eccentric villain, and a few great songs (and not the typical little mermaid/beauty and the beast type songs, but ones that are atually entertaining)! i ran into this movie again recently and i still love it as much as ever! i recommend that everyone of every age should see this movie, and i definitely think that it should be introduced to the younger generations! sorry not the most informative, i'm in kinda a rush... just please, trust me. all who go against this movie are killing their inner child!

"Tumbling Doll of Flesh" by Tamakichi Anaru is a Japanese shocker about three thugs who sexually abuse,torture and dismember a young woman whilst filming their horrible actions.Typically twisted Japanese porno sickie that offers plenty of sadistic sexual violence and grisly gore.There is no plot to speak of,just plenty of hard core sex scenes(optically censored again)and lots of blood.The special effects are quite impressive-the dismemberment of Japanese porn actress is shown in unflinching detail.The tongue cutting scene really made me squirm.Her arm is also chopped off and her stomach is graphically sliced open and finally one of the sickos is having sex with her intestines."Psycho:The Snuff Reels" actually reminds me "Guinea Pig:Flowers of Flesh and Blood",but it's not as memorable.So if you're a fan of ultra-depraved Japanese sickies like "All Women Are Whores" or "Raping My Virgin Slave" give this one a look.8 out of 10.

Even MST3K couldn't make this painful, long, and ultimately mind-bending drek funny or entertaining. While most bad movies in and of themselves are hilariously bad, this one is one of those few videos that uses the word bad in its literal sense.<br /><br />The element that makes this so PAINFUL to watch is not the lack of story, but the fact that SOOOO much background is crammed into the first half-hour that it is utterly ridiculous and harder to follow than a highway while driving with no headlights.<br /><br />The hero of the film, Ator, is no more than eye-candy for this literal energy-sucker of a film. Dressed in a loin-cloth and sporting "pecs like melons," as Joel put it, he belongs more in a fitness magazine than here.<br /><br />I would recommend this ONLY to die-hard, and I mean die-hard followers of cheese. If you have an enemy, recommend them this film. If you make it through this, I commend you. You should be able to make it through anything.

he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.<br /><br />Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.<br /><br />The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.<br /><br />There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10.

This is a movie you'll either love or hate. I loved it. If you are looking for suspense, great special effects, action, sophistication, cynicism, etc. you won't find it in this movie. It is a feel good movie, sentimental, positive, uplifting. The heroes of the movie are Coach Jones (played by Ed Harris), a man of strength and integrity, and Radio (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) a mentally retarded man who finds a way to contribute to his world. I guess I didn't find this movie to be "sentimental hogwash" as so many did, because it felt very real to me. I know people like these. I've seen jocks who think it's fun to pick on the vulnerable. I've seen men of integrity stand up for the vulnerable. I've seen people who think high school football is serious business. I've seen people who know what really is important in life. Any of these people could have been people I knew. I did laugh; I did cry. I left the movie feeling good, remembering that there are people like Coach Jones and Radio in my world. If there aren't people like them in yours, you might not like the movie. If you don't like a movie that shows the better side of human nature, you'll hate it.

I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs.

Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.

I love this film. Shehzad Khan's portrayal as Bhalla a.k.a. "Shut up, Robert!" was so hilarious. Whenever he got hit during a fight scene, you could hear him squeal. Viju Khote is the dumbfounded Robert a.k.a. "Rabbit". I love that Shakti Kapoor a.k.a. "Crime Master Gogo". Paresh Rawal's double role is so awesomely hilarious for his portrayal as Ramgopal Bajaj & Shyamgopal Bajaj. Raveena Tandon and Karishma Kapoor are out of this world. My brother does a really good mimicry of Bhalla saying. "Relax. PLEASE relax." I love the scene in which Aamir Khan puts a laxative in Salman "Muscles" Khan's food which caused the irregular bowel movements forcing him to use the toilet umpteen number of times.

Probably the most whimsical installment of the first season, 'Shore Leave' has its ups and downs; some parts drag on too long and others are unambitiously cut short, but one can't deny they threw in everything but the proverbial kitchen sink to make this an entertaining episode. Kirk and crew seem to have found the perfect planet for shore leave after an extended tour of duty has left everyone on board in need of rest, relaxation and so on. It appears for all intents and purposes to be an uninhabited Earth, with beautiful scenery and an ideal climate. The first indication that things might go just a little awry is when McCoy, leading an advance team, spots Alice (from Wonderland) following a large white rabbit wearing a vest. Kirk beams down and finds the others reporting similarly bizarre happenings and encounters. The one thing they all have in common is that each crew member was thinking about the person/place/thing they discovered right before they discovered it. This doesn't immediately sink in with Kirk or anyone else. More strangeness ensues, including sightings of Don Juan, a Siberian tiger, a WW2 fighter plane, etc; Kirk meets up with Ruth, a gorgeous old girlfriend (of course) and a bully from his Academy days, Finnegan. The chase/fight scene with Finnegan goes on too long but at the same time, McCoy is run through with a lance by a knight on horseback and apparently killed. Finally, an elderly man appears and explains what has been happening. The planet is a futuristic 'amusement park' where visitors have only to imagine something to have it appear. Nothing is permanent; McCoy isn't really dead. Once this is explained, Kirk decides to order shore leave for everyone after all. Despite the 'it was all a dream' sort of ending, 'Shore Leave' holds up as another first-rate episode of Star Trek's first season.

A thin story with many fine shots. Eyecatchers here are the three ladies from the D.R.E.A.M. team. And, to a lesser extent, the guy accompanying them. Traci Lords convincingly acts out the female half of an evil business-couple intending to poison the world with antrax. Original in this movie is the bra-bomb, put on a captured member of the D.R.E.A.M.-team. Of course she is rescued by a co-member, three seconds before explosion. Although clearly lent from James Bond's 'Goldfinger' and 'You only live twice', such a climax always works well. All in all a nice watch, James Bond replaced here by three Charlie's Angels.

John Voight plays the title character in this movie based on author Pat Conroy's (Prince of Tides) autobiography. A fine teacher film, it tells the story of a naive Pat Conroy, a young English teacher whose first assignment is in an elementary school on a rural island. The only white man on the island, he must battle internal and external pressures as he attempts to instill education and values in children who for generations have been systematically denied such things. A solid performance that really makes you think.

Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.<br /><br />I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all!

I love the way that this game can make you literally jump out of your seat while you are playing it. The way that the screen jumps and flashes when you get hit, its very realistic while at the same time you have to remember that its just a game and your not really there. The sound effects and audio are amazing. There are a lot of weapons and different spells to cast and you can even choose which spells to make stronger or not. You get this stone that can knock back enemies while you recover mana to blast your foes with even more magic. The best part is that the whole time you are playing it you are really jumpy and afraid of what might lurk around the next corner or what might jump out behind you. If you want to get the full experience, try playing it with head phones on.

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

Most of this film is an alternately hilarious and brutal satire on Nazism and Fascism, made at the height of those movements' success.<br /><br />Sadly, in the final moments of the film, Chaplin abandons all pretense of making art (not to mention comedy) and switches completely to propaganda. And not anti-Nazi propaganda, either, but some of the most mawkish and idiotic "progressive" propaganda ever to ooze out of Hollywood.<br /><br />Never mind that nothing we have seen so far indicates that the barber is even capable of giving the speech we see him give (delivered, ironically, with a disturbing wild-eyed fanaticism); such trivialities must not be permitted to interfere with The Message.

I have to hold Barney drilling my head every day; well.. I guess there must be reasons. First, I'm convinced that our kids are not stupids, they are just kids, but they know (my 1 and a half years old son "selects" what to see) what's nice or disgusting. Did you see the news? Do you think your kids HAVE TO KNOW the reality as it is? Maybe..or maybe not; we (the adults) have the responsibility about what we want for our kids, and what to teach them. A film of drug dealers? news about massacres in Middle East? Of course, the kids must know there is a Real Life, but... they are kids; let's give them some mercy. What do you want for them? If you wanna have kids trained on weapons or the best way to kill a neighbor, go ahead, impose them Lethal Weapon, Kill Bill, any manga's anime, tell them Santa's a depraved who enters through the chimney directly to violate them. I want illusions for my son (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barney and Friends is the best; in fact, the show have a lot of defects, I read other comments and I agree with most); maybe the happiness is made of dreams, or illusions. At least, I want to teach him to grow WITHOUT FEAR BUT CAUTIOUS, that learns to think and believe that everything is not serial killers or hijackers, whom they're reasons to worth to grow. That, at least, he can be a little happy with his own dreams. So, parents, don't underestimate your kids; they know what they want.

OK I went to this website before I watched this movie, read the comments, got pumped, - cause they where all pretty good for a B-flick - watched it and was completely disappointed. The main characters wannabe lone rebel straight out of the mid-west act was sickening to the stomach, and don't even get me started on the two cops, I mean there's a bloody door right there in plain view, check it out! The plot was completely predictable, the editing was rather limited, I swear the editor was even dozing off near the end when he was cutting this movie, and the direction was clouded by bad cinematography. Now please don't get me wrong, I love B-flicks, some are really good.<br /><br />Want to watch a good B rated flick???<br /><br />Dave recommends<br /><br />" High Tension "<br /><br />http://imdb.com/title/tt0338095/

Like many other people, I've heard about "more" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it <br /><br />seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.

I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.

This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews.

I watched this on the movies with my girlfriend at the time and I can say that I didn't have the best time mainly because I didn't know about Ned Kelly or his story.<br /><br />But since this is a biopic, it's important to at least know what to expect from the character.<br /><br />I don't know if the manner the events are told are true, or if it everything is fictional. But the way Ned Kelly is portrayed as a hero and a fighter for justice really makes me want to believe everything is true. I don't think he's portrayed as a redneck criminal or thief, but that's just my opinion.<br /><br />This is a solid Western-type movie for everybody's tastes. Heath Ledger is great as always and the sexy Naomi Watts charms the screen.<br /><br />Give this movie a chance if it airs on cable. Otherwise, I don't think I could recommend it.

Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.<br /><br />Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.<br /><br />For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.<br /><br />This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films. <br /><br />Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****<br /><br />

All those who criticize The Sopranos for its stereotypical portrayals of Italians haven't seen anything until they've gotten a good look at this cornball gangster film which focuses on a family so irritating, you almost want them to be rubbed out.<br /><br />The parents in this clan aren't so bad, but their two little boys--one a total brat, one cloyingly cutesy-poo--are insufferable, while their older good-for-nothing son and Pollyanna daughter ably compete for audience contempt. But the granddaddy of them all is, well, Granddaddy. As played by Chic Sale (in full "Dag-nabbit!" mode) he serves as the films moral compass, throwing in lots of diatribes about "dang, dirty foreigners" for good measure. If these are the good guys, it's no wonder the actors of that era who played baddies became the big stars.<br /><br />Not that there are any stellar performances to be found among the criminal actors, but they at least acquit themselves better than the grating Leeds family. The incompetent police officers aren't even given enough screen time to bring things down any further. Only Walter Huston, as the district attorney, elevates the cliché-riddled material in his futile attempts to breathe some levelheadedness into these dolts.<br /><br />The film deserves credit for being an early entry in what would prove to be a very popular silencing-the-witness formula, and it doesn't flinch in its depiction of the hard-bitten underworld lifestyle, but there are quite simply better--and less xenophobic--examples in the genre.

Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel

Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit "chatty" at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film "Bright Victory", also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area!

I'm a fan of C&C, going back to their records, and liked this movie, but at one point in the mid-1980's on cable television in San Jose California, it was aired with an alternate plot line that destroyed the entire point of the movie. All references to marijuana were replaced with "diamonds". The bag that "Red" drops to Chong has diamonds in it instead of marijuana, but the conversation still remains the same ("...it's worth ~$3000/lb"). There is also a subplot in which clips of aliens on a ship were added observing C&C, and talking to each other about getting the diamonds. At the end, instead of "space coke", it's something else. I'm not sure who created this version, but it was horrible, and obvious that they were attempting to make it family/child friendly. It would have been better if that network had not aired it at all.

If the directors/producers/publicists wish to promote a film as "based on actual events" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.<br /><br />A team wearing "all black" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the "All Blacks" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.<br /><br />Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.<br /><br />The question is "Why"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?<br /><br />I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought "wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great."<br /><br />How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting "oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo" react? They'd laugh their heads off!<br /><br />The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can "fool all the people all the time".<br /><br />It's just dumb!

"Tourist Trap" is an odd thriller that came out in the 70's, it's about 5 friends Molly (Jocelyn Jones), Jerry (Jon Van Hess), Eileen (Robin Sherwood), Becky (Tanya Roberts) and Woody (Kevin McDermott), who stumble upon a cloesd down museum SLAUSEN'S LOST OASIS, a curious and eerie roadside museum. This goldmine of decaying, but strangely life-like mannequins is run by Slausen (Chuck Conners), an eccentric, but seemingly harmless has-been. Slausen has one warning for the youngsters: Stay away from Davey, Slausen's reclusive and disturbed brother.<br /><br />The youngsters' curiosity gets the best of them and they go exploring. The trap is sprung! Amidst flying objects, slamming doors, scarves that strangle on their own, empowered by some hidden force, the trap slowly closes in on the group. The "Creature" Davey and his army of murderous mannequins make quick and brutal work of the friends, until only one remains.<br /><br />Although not a Slasher movie "Tourist Trap" still contains elements of slasher movies such as the chase scenes and the stalking and the fact the killer wears a mask.<br /><br />The seemingly telekinetic abilities of the killer to lock bolts and animate the wax dummies, is used to great effect. Perhaps the scariest thing about this movie are the mannequins, which are admittedly scary enough to start off with, but are rally spooky here. The film succeeds despite, or perhaps because of, an obviously meagre budget. These wax figures are blatantly plastic shop dummies- but this only goes to serve as even more eerie when their eyes move with an incredible human The acting is actually pretty good, Chuck Conners gives a well rounded and creepy performance as Mr Slausen, Jocelyn Jones is great as the female lead.

This one is a very solid Randolph Scott Western. He plays Bat Masterson and goes to Liberal, Kansas to clean up the town. He becomes good friends with Robert Ryan who played a very, straight up leading man role. It was not until after this that Robert Ryan began playing much darker roles. In fact, in 1947 Randolph Scott made one other movie which was not a western and never made anything but westerns after that until he retired in 1962. This movie has good pacing and builds up to the climax steadily. I can't say any more as it would give away the plot. Be sure to see this one. 8/10

As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.

My favorite movie. What a great story this really was. I'd just like to be able to buy a copy of it but this does not seem possible.

I had no expectations when I started to watch this movie. How surprised I was! This is a great, beautiful, twisted movie which will give your mind a good work-out! It's not simple. If you only enjoy Police Academy style, no-brains movies, this is not for you. The Cell is a deep, complex film with influences from movies like Cube, Silence of the Lambs and The Lawnmower Man, along with lots of completely new ideas. Wonderful, twisted environments, good acting and a compelling story makes this one of the best films I have seen in a long time! Be open-minded, and you will love it!

THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN is a superb example of an anti-80s film. While many other films of the decade in general lacked substance, this film is pure substance. There's nothing stylish or fake or superfluous about it. It boasts two superb performances: Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as lifelong friends Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee, respectively. Hutton, Penn, and Tom Cruise were a triumvirate of early 80s actors who all looked headed to much bigger and better things (all 3 starred in TAPS). While Penn and Cruise's popularity soared, Hutton has been largely forgotten about, and that's a shame. Actually, Hutton is the first of the 3 to win an Oscar for supporting role in ORDINARY PEOPLE in 1980, but I think his performance in this movie is even more outstanding.<br /><br />Hutton really captures the post-Vietnam war rebelliousness in his character Chris Boyce. A failed seminary school student, Chris has a love-hate relationship with his father, well played by the great character actor Pat Hingle. The scene where Chris quotes the poem his father thought he'd long forgotten is a particularly powerful one.<br /><br />Chris gets job at Dept. of Defense and uses his hatred of U.S. gov't and its foreign policy to sell seemingly useless plans of old projects to the Soviets. He gets his buddy Daulton, a hyper drug-dealing self-server, in on it to be the courier of the project plans on microfilm. While Chris is doing it based on his beliefs, Daulton is doing it strictly for the money. The Soviet liaison is excellently played by David Suchet. Penn and Suchet have a real quirky chemistry and it's a kind of funny set of exchanges between them. But, make no mistake, this film is anything but that. It is a serious character study about pessimism, malaise, paranoia and mistrust.<br /><br />Again, the leads make this film. Hutton delivers a brilliantly understated performance as Chris, a rather smart young man who had so much potential. Penn, as usual, does a tremendous characterization as Daulton, a pathetic loser who acts before he thinks, and most of the time doesn't think at all. The ending of this fact-based film is very saddening on several levels. A truly powerful character study.

Alan Rudolph is a so-so director, without that special touch. As an example, there was one shot in The Secret Lives of Dentists in the dental office which could have expressed the entire relationship between the husband and wife. Rudolph squandered it. The camera is in the hallway looking through the doorways of the two dental offices, with Dana and Dave each alone in their respective rooms. You get the idea of their desolation and isolation, but not much more. The lighting, the colors, the body language, the facial expressions could all have been vastly improved upon. If I were directing, I would have spent all day, if necessary, to get that shot right. That's the beauty and power of film: it can express so much, whole lives, in a matter of seconds<br /><br />The shot with the toddler stepping in the puddle of puke could have been improved on. The child should have shown more fascination with the puddle, should have stomped and shuffled her feet, should have had her head bent down to look at the puddle with all her attention. <br /><br />Campbell didn't deliver. He plays a uncommunicative man, true, but instead of conveying his inner turmoil in voice, gesture, body movement, the film relies on voice-over narration and dialogue with his imaginary macho alter-ego, played by Denis Leary.

*MINOR SPOILERS*<br /><br />Need any further proof that Tsai Ming-liang ranks among the most original and provocative filmmakers working anywhere today? See this film.<br /><br />Working from slight variations of a theme running through most of his work, THE HOLE represents a study in alienation and loneliness - in this case between a man and woman who are upstairs/downstairs neighbors - and how varied structures (real or psychological) of modernity wall people off from one another. Here, the woman (the downstairs neighbor) attempts to endure as her apartment is flooded by a prodigious leak from upstairs. A plumber attempts to locate the source of the problem, then disappears after creating a large hole in the floor. Already isolated and desperate (both characters are among the few residents of a housing project who haven't fled in advance of a mysterious, near-apocalyptic epidemic). The hole linking the two apartments functions first as yet another in a long line of indignities, but soon begins to take on a significance of near-mythic proportions.<br /><br />Tsai's sense of humor, and sense of cinematic history is displayed with a bit more overtness than usual - as the woman's occasional daydreams revolving around her upstairs neighbor are visualized as musical numbers (set to the music of Grace Chang) which explode from the screen in brief bits of sensualistic, surreal romance and humor - quite reminiscent of the big-screen PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. And for all of the ennui and alienation on display here, Tsai's skewering of late 90s pre-millennial tensions is funny, absurd, and gives this film a very appealing strageness. The final scene is extraordinary.<br /><br />Meanwhile Tsai - in typical fashion - subverts most of the usual expectations or preconceptions Westerners bring to Asian cinema with a nonchalant, casually-revealed directness, focusing on both the absurdist tendencies of the human mind, and the most absolute of mundanities. There's an utter, nonchalant demystification of almost everything about his characters, sidestepping backstory or most cultural signifiers (which does amplify the isolation of the characters), making THE HOLE - and his other films - rather disorienting, but also always fascinating and insightful.

How bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch "Bad Taste" or "Dawn of the Dead" if you want to see some good zombies.

I'll start by confessing that I tend to really enjoy action movies (military or other). I'm a guy. But this dreck was awful. I saw it for free, showtime or hbo and still feel I paid too much. It was a prolonged episode of general hospital. <br /><br />I gave it a 1, only because 0 or 0.1 was not possible. How or why 59 others would give it a rating of between 5 and 6 boggles my mind. Unless they are all family of the cast or crew. <br /><br />It might be, this movie was so bad many bailed out.......and as such, were too uninvested to bother.<br /><br />I'm sorry for repeating but the 10 line minimum seems silly, for what essentially boils down to a warning.........in hopes of saving others the 2 hr black hole, this movie represents. Trust me, stare at a blank wall, they'll be more action.

The author sets out on a "journey of discovery" of his "roots" in the southern tobacco industry because he believes that the (completely and deservedly forgotten) movie "Bright Leaf" is about an ancestor of his. Its not, and he in fact discovers nothing of even mild interest in this absolutely silly and self-indulgent glorified home movie, suitable for screening at (the director's) drunken family reunions but certainly not for commercial - or even non-commercial release. A good reminder of why most independent films are not picked up by major studios - because they are boring, irrelevant and of no interest to anyone but the director and his/her immediate circles. Avoid at all costs!

THHE remake was a superior movie remake in every way. Most remakes end up being total garbage but under the very talented direction of Alexandre Aja became one of the best ever made in terms of remakes and also as far as the mutant inbreed human sub-genre of horror is concerned. In steps part 2 directed by another individual Martin Weisz and written by the father and son combo of Jonathan and Wes "I cannot make a good horror movie to save my life anymore" Craven and if this is any indication of Weisz directing skills and young Craven's writing skills we are all in for a painful future as THHE 2 not only fails to be as good as the first but also fails to entertain on ANY level.<br /><br />We start off with a fairly graphic mutant baby birth which though is rather cool will not prepare you for the utter garbage that is to come, only hint to what could have been in this film. We then get to see a crew of scientists who all to briefly are introduced and dispatched by our radiated rejects. In steps our main cast of army reservist to save the day, this is where the major problems begin.<br /><br />From very sub par acting (yes even for this kind of movie) to the horrible characters to the lack of true carnage for most of its running time THHE 2 becomes a labor to watch as a lot of nothing happens as idiotic soldiers make mistake after mistake only to meet there demise not by the mutants but themselves. Think the Marines in Aliens only the exact opposite and you have the idea of how well these soldiers are trained. This is the true shame of the film as most of the Hills occupants do not get the kills you would like to see, like in the first film, in fact if this did not have THHE 2 attachment in the beginning and the brief overview in the beginning tying this loosely to the first this could have nearly been a Sci-Fi Channel original.<br /><br />The Mutant Mountainbillies as well are not as amusing this time around in fact in a lot of way they are far inferior to our prior batch as they all come off as being rather under designed and uninteresting. Also the one that took the cake was the Sloth-like Mutant (you know Sloth from the Goonies) who helps them out in the 3rd act. I was waiting for him to ask for a Baby Ruth or start going on about Rocky Road Ice Cream. Truly disappointing and shameful is the only way to describe most of the goings on here.<br /><br />The gore is in the film but not nearly as visceral as the original in fact it seemed toned down for the most part as other than the mutant baby birth scene there really isn't anything that stood out like in the first. Another major strike against this movie. So what did work here, the answer is nothing at all. This felt like a sequel designed specifically to make money off the success of the first and not to make an actually "good" film.<br /><br />I can go on about the crappy Drill SGT., the radio man that has a speech impediment (that's right, he is the kind of guy I want radioing in for help in a real crisis) or the pacifist fighter that resembles the exact same character mold as our "hero" in the first film but I believe you get the point. This movie is not even in the same league or even the same planet as the first. It should have been given another title and been added to the Saturday Night Line up on The Sci-Fi Channel. A true shame as a solid sequel could have been made but alas it looks like another horror movie that drops the ball on nearly every level and will get one of my lowest scores as I give THHE 2 the same score as its part: 2/10 Dreadful: Words cannot describe how bad this movie is a total polar opposite of its predecessor in every way, uninspired and down-right unnecessary. Next time guys if your going to make a sequel this bad...don't even bother. Please don't go support this garbage at the theaters, save your money and thank me later!!!!

Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were: handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17 years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo, The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour.

Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.<br /><br />Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.<br /><br />Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.<br /><br />The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8/10

"Lion King 1 1/2" is the funniest non-theatrical release from Disney. I recently saw this movie again after not seeing it in many years. I remember first time I saw it I didn't had any expectations at all and were pleasantly surprised by this watchable and highly entertaining movie.<br /><br />Is it better than "Simba's Pride"? In many ways, yes. Though "Simba's Pride" wasn't exactly bad, it did suffer some problems: lack of an good script and bad characterizations, which made impact of what otherwise a okay film.<br /><br />Anyway: It's nice to see Timon and Pumbaa's personalities blossom again in the way that we (or certainly me) loved about them in this film; in "Simba's Pride" they were completely annoying and I didn't liked the "Timon and Pumbaa" series neither.<br /><br />This film could easily have been a stupid one, but fortunately the filmmakers didn't took the wrong turn and instead focused to make this film at times extremely hilarious. There are a few jokes that adults can enjoy on their own. The score is quite good. There are two new songs, which are catchy and two new characters, Timon's mom, (voiced by recognizable Marge Simpsons' Julie Kavner) and Uncle Max, which are enjoyable. The friendship between Timon and Pumbaa are touchingly portrayed. The emotional scenes are well integrated in the comical story and doesn't feel out of place, which it could have easily done (especially in comedies).<br /><br />But is there something that distracts this picture from getting 10 votes from me? Yes, there is. Although they fortunately doesn't impact too much, but I'll mention them: 1. Many of the scenes from the first film are used in this one. Personally, it was weird to see the old scenes integrated with the new ones.<br /><br />2. During the climax, some of the jokes becomes lame.<br /><br />3. Storywise, this is Timon's story and although the filmmakers try to integrate his tale with Simba's, it makes the screenplay feel a little rushed at times.<br /><br />But hey, those details doesn't impact this otherwise amusing movie. It is the only really acceptable Disney sequel, which should be in every movie collection.

Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.<br /><br />While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.<br /><br />There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.<br /><br />In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.

Technically speaking, this movie sucks...lol. However, it's also hilarious. Whether or not it's intentionally funny I don't know. Horrible in every aspect, it also is the only movie I know of that has 1) a fat kid being played by a slim actor in a (very obvious) fat suit, 2) an attractive 30-something actress playing a character who's supposed to be in her late 60's, and 3) the most compliments for plastic yard daisies ever. Don't take this film seriously, just watch it for laughs....a great party movie.

The Thief of Baghdad is one of my ten all-time favorite movies. It is exciting without gore, it is beautifully filmed and the art direction is flawless. The casting couldn't have been better. Rex Ingram made me believe in genies. And the epitome of evil is certainly captured by Conrad Veight as Jafar. He set the bar very high.<br /><br />..I watch this movie at least twice a year...and never tire of it. This film is an adventure for all ages..no-one too old to enjoy it. The Thief of Bahgdad jogs my memories to a more innocent time...I was ten years old the first time I saw it and the U.S. was just about to enter WWII. Conrad Vieght was such a great actor that he was able to continue this underlying "evilness" a few years later in "Casablanca." And Korda teamed up,I believe, with Justin and Dupree again in "The Four Feathers"....great film-making!

This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered "hip"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.

From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian!

It's hard to know what was going through Per Kristensen and Morten Lindberg's heads when they wrote "Gayniggers from Outer Space" - the movie is billed as a comedy, yet there are no real jokes beside the crude character names (Capt. B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls). The rest of the movie is a (presumably) unintentionally funny affair with ridiculously unsynchronised voice-overs (with the 'actors' basically reading their lines with no hint of feeling), 'futuristic' computer displays filled with spelling mistakes, and a plot that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Even though 65% of viewers have given this movie a perfect 10 out of 10, this is the complete opposite of what a good film is. It may be ENTERTAINING to watch with some friends, but this film only deserves about a '2' out of ten...slightly higher than the lower possible rating only because of the sheer fact that the writers somehow managed to get some black guys to star in this movie.

When my 14-year-old daughter and her friends get together for movie night, there's one movie they insist on watching over and over again: You guessed it, K-911, the third installment in the highly successful K-9 franchise starring everybody's favorite TV dad, Jim Belushi.<br /><br />Folks, I knew it was possible to wear out a VHS tape, but a DVD?! This has been played so often that it's starting to skip; no joke! But of course you'll have that when you own a film so charming, so brilliant.<br /><br />Of course, we have to thank the one and only Tom Hanks for introducing us to the beloved Cop-Dog genre with Turner and Hooch; however, even that film doesn't measure up to the sheer excellence presented in all three K-9 movies.<br /><br />Some nay-sayers say Belushi ran out of steam with this third movie in the series. Poppycock, I say. While you might suspect that a third installment - direct-to-video, at that - may not seem like something worth watching, you'd prove yourself wrong after watching this quality movie.<br /><br />I won't give away the plot, but I will say that Belushi and his panting partner give their best performance yet - one that will have you HOWLING with laughter! It's a shame John Belushi isn't alive to see what great strides his brother has made in the acting world.<br /><br />I highly recommend your teenage daughter introduces this film to her BFFs at her next slumber party. Don't forget the puppy chow!

As an avid fan of Cary Grant, I expected to watch this movie and howl with laughter, as AMC billed it as a comedy. I have never been more disappointed with a film! Cary's usual charm and effortless comedy are AWOL from this entire movie; he comes across as strained, bored, and just not himself. Mississip's character ranks among one of the worst stereotypes I have ever witnessed - his accent is terribly exaggerated (and incorrect, according to which part of Mississippi he claims to hail from), and whenever he does deliver a line, it's several decibels higher than any other cast member. Mississip tried to make himself stand out in the film as a lovable, country-bumpkin goofball, but in the end, he manages only to detract from the already weak plot. Mansfield looks more like an obscene blow-up doll than a Hollywood sex kitten, and while she was never known in Hollywood for her acting ability, this film screams that she never had that ability to begin with. Ray Walston's character was sugary and ultimately contrived. For four men on shore leave, it was the tamest leave I've ever seen. I watched this nightmare until its very end, and while I won't spoil that for anyone, I will tell you that it's the most absurd you'll ever see. The film tries to spark patriotism and a sense of debt to the fighting men, but the film misses that point totally because of its weak plot line and weak cast. Sorry, Cary!

To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.

Robert Montgomery and Robert Young are outstanding as a duo of young submarine officers stationed in Italy during World War I. The dialog is highly entertaining, and Jimmy Durante is hilarious as the ship's cook, "Ptomaine". Walter Huston's character is inspiring as the captain of the submarine, a stellar example of an officer and a gentleman. One of the most interesting aspects of this movie was the level of technology displayed in the battle scenes. I was surprised at how similar the technology of World War I was to the technology displayed 25 years later in World War II. Basic human nature was portrayed as very similar to modern times, and far from the conservativism I thought existed in the so-called "innocent" past. All in all I felt that the cast, characters, action scenes, and view of history depicted in this movie were first-rate.

I think it's the sort of film you either love or hate and I'm really not the type to go in for arty movies. My mother rented "mullhuland DR" the other night and I nearly ran from the room, ha. But I love this film.<br /><br />We recorded "The Beat" one night when we had just let the tape run and got a great film that way by accident. Saved that tape and watched it a lot. I eventually got the VHS to add to my collection. I've watched it many times and at one point copied down the poems. I even tried to preform one scene for my high school drama class. She had said we could do any scene we wanted and just cut out the bad words. She refused to let me do it. If it could upset my drama teacher that much it has to be good :) Honest she never treated me the same after that.<br /><br />I liked the acting it came off very true and honest. It wasn't clean and polished but it was better than that. It was true to life, how anyone would truly behave and display emotions not how Hollywood does. It was great acting especially by the one playing Rex.<br /><br />The story was original. Not only do the characters get drawn into his world but you do too. Not your typical person meets inner city kids and saves them through knowledge film at all. Simply caring and friendship make things a bit better.<br /><br />The only thing is that even in the 80's there was more gun violence and less simple stuff like rock throwing but that little bit of innocence didn't hurt this film.<br /><br />I think it's a must see. you will either love or hate it but either way it makes an impact and that makes a good film that you will remember and talk about later.

Dan Finnerty and the Dan Band are so-o-o-o-o-o good, they must be seen to believe. Does anyone out there have a copy of the Bravo concert for sale?? Please, if there is an upcoming release, let us all know. I checked the Bravo site, but there is no future date scheduled for a repeat performance by the most appealing guys ever choreographed, the Dan Band. What great energy they exude, flinging themselves about with cute American-boy attitude, based on butch sensitivity being wrapped up in sequins and tears, making men and women alike fall in love with them. I hope enough people can influence the powers that be at Bravo to bring the show back into our lives, as a semi-annual special.

First let me say I am not from the south but I am an American. I don't love Country music but I can stomach it. I would never wear a cowboy hat but I wear hats. I don't live in a trailer but I do eat tuna salad and own a home. What does that have to do with this comment? A lot if you are one of those people who say only "country" people love this movie. This movie is loosely based on the "They loved and lost" premise. James Bridges directs an American love story as real as it gets. In an era of Jerry Springer and "Lets put it out there" mentality, this film rings truer than ever. <br /><br />Bud is "coming of age" and embarks on a life of his own with a little help from his aunt and uncle so he moves to the big city with them. Bud finds himself drawn into the local honky tonk world for the only escape a blue collar man can afford. He quickly meets Sissy who is from a similar background and the two have a whirlwind romance filled with painful ups and downs. <br /><br />(*This plot takes so many turns that one has to just sit for a few minutes before they get hooked. Marriage is a focus here that is often missed. Early in the film they marry and we view the transition from being single to married. The film highlights some of the modern struggles a woman has when she marries an old fashioned man. It also brings into view the male ego with women and competition.)<br /><br />Bud is challenged and is excited when Micky's puts in an electronic bull. Sissy gets ideas of having fun on it too but is quickly reminded that she is married and need to start "acting like it." The emotion between the two characters is raw and expressive and the plot continues from there especially when they (NOTE THIS IS GIVING SOME OF THE STORYLINE AWAY) split and Sissy falls for an ex con with a penchant for abuse and cruelty. She soon realizes that the grass is not always greener on the other side.<br /><br />How anyone can compare Bud to Vinnie Barbirino is shocking to me. John Travolta gave an exceptional performance that was worthy recognition. He was believable and real. The scene where he shaves his beard and you first see him at the bar..still gives me goosebumps. Mind you I am not a huge Travolta fan, but come on, I see why Sissy was kicking of her boots so early in the film. Deb Winger was so real that you found yourself sympathizing with her as she pens a note of emotions to Bud, after sneaking in to clean his house during their break up. <br /><br />The supporting cast was incredible. Wes played by Scott Glenn gave a first rate performance that made you hate him and curse him as he abused Sissy. Madolyn Smith-Osborne, as Buds Mistress/girlfriend was so authentic that large chested girls across the U.S. prayed to wake up flat chested to wear the clothes she donned in the film. My biggest kudos's go to Barry Corbin and Brooke Anderson as Bud's aunt and uncle. They seemed like someone's aunt and uncle somewhere in Texas and however small their role, they made the film so much bigger and lifelike. Two memorable scenes were the Dolly Parton contest and the unforgettable scene where Bud and his aunt stand outside after one of the characters death. The dialog between them is touching.<br /><br />If you can watch this for what it is, a true American love story. Then I recommend that you take it for what it is...a film before it's time that gave us voyeurism into a world unlike our own but real enough for our enjoyment and entertainment. If this world sounds similar to yours then you will enjoy it so much more. Lastly, the music however dated, is sure to send you back in time if you are over 30 years of age.

This is not a good film.<br /><br />I can usually sit through a Van Damme movie if I have to, as they are usually a bit of a laugh and don't require much thought. This one has no redeeming features. <br /><br />It has a distinct lack of plot, humour, acting, direction etc etc. A real stinker on all levels. <br /><br />I have never walked out of a cinema during a movie, although I came damme close here. <br /><br />Avoid at all costs.

I have grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.<br /><br />It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.<br /><br />I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.

Thirty years after its initial release, the third version of "A Star Is Born" finally comes to DVD in a package that should please the most devoted fans of Barbra Streisand. That would include me since I just saw her in concert singing among other numbers, the feminist anthem "Woman in the Moon" from this 1976 film. Easy to dismiss, the movie's career-polarizing story is such a sturdy pile of Hollywood-style clichés that variations of it exist in other films including Streisand's own "Funny Girl". This time reset to the then-contemporary music scene, the timeworn plot follows self-destructive rock star John Norman Howard on his deep-dive career descent just as he meets club singer Esther Hoffman who is awaiting her big break.<br /><br />Troubles dog their courtship from the outset, as John Norman (both names please) responds to grasping fans and bloodless DJs with random acts of violence (from which he inexplicably escapes prosecution). To John Norman, Esther represents his last shot at happiness, and in turn, she is drawn to the innately decent, creative musician underneath the façade. In the movie's most pivotal scene, he gives Esther her big break at a benefit concert, and her career takes off. Inevitably, he can't handle the failure of his career in light of her meteoric success, and if you are familiar with any version of this story, you know the rest. Directed by Frank Pierson (although Streisand's budding directorial talents are obviously on display), the film still manages to draw me in, even though I know it is shamelessly contrived and manipulative. It still has a certain emotional resonance despite its numerous flaws.<br /><br />Although Streisand in her prime seems like the ideal choice to play a rising singing star, her screen persona is simply too strong and predefined to play Esther credibly. The same can be said for her performing style since the script seems to make allowances for her softer Adult Contemporary-oriented material to be accepted within the otherwise hardened world of arena rock. From the moment she pops her head up as the middle of the Oreos, she can't help but come across as an established star. I can forgive the lapse simply because she is an unparalleled vocal talent, but what becomes less forgiving is how she makes Esther more strident than poignant when John Norman's woes become overwhelming. This creates an oddly discomfiting dynamic in the last part of the film when it becomes less about what caused the climactic event than Esther's response to it. This is capped off by an uninterrupted eight-minute close-up of her memorial performance - great except when she regrettably mimics John Norman's style toward the end.<br /><br />Kristofferson, on the other hand, gives a superb performance throughout, managing a level of honesty that grounds the film and makes palpable his concurrent feelings of love, pride and resentment toward Esther. He makes his vodka-soaked onstage growling work within this context. Otherwise, what always strikes me as strange about this version is how all the supporting characters are relegated to the background as if they didn't exist unless they were interacting with the two principals. The only ones who register are Paul Mazursky as John Norman's level-headed manager Brian and Gary Busey as his cynical band manager Bobbie. Veteran cameraman Robert Surtees provides a nice burnish to the cinematography though a level of graininess persists in the print. A big seller in its day, the soundtrack is a hodgepodge of different styles from the 1970's - some songs still quite good ("Everything", "Woman in the Moon", "Watch Closely Now"), some that have moved to kitsch ("Queen Bee", Kenny Loggins' "I Believe in Love") and of course, the inescapable "Evergreen".<br /><br />The print transfer on the 2006 DVD is clean and the sound gratefully crisp thanks to digital remastering. Streisand's participation is the chief lure of the extras beginning with her feature-length commentary. She gives insightful information about the genesis of the film, the casting and the reportedly troubled production. She is also refreshingly candid about the megalomania of Jon Peters, her hairdresser boyfriend who became the movie's producer, and her dissatisfaction with Pierson as a director. I just wish she could have provided more scene-specific comments that directly relate to what is on screen. She also tends to repeat the same anecdotes when the mood strikes her, e.g., it gets tiring to hear for the third time how the person playing the chauffeur was a friend of Peters. I think having a second commentator could have drawn out other nuggets from her.<br /><br />There is a wardrobe test reel that shows some amusing 1970's clothes, especially Kristofferson's mixed-fabric poncho and orange polyester shirt. There are also twelve deleted scenes included with Streisand's optional commentary. One is a comic bread-baking scene which reminded me how much I like Streisand in farcical comedies. Another is an extended scene in which she plays "Evergreen" on the guitar in front of an awestruck Kristofferson who then falls asleep. The most interesting is an alternate take on the musical finale incorporating fast cuts, which I agree with Streisand should have been used. Fittingly, the theatrical trailers for all three versions of "A Star Is Born" are also included.

A thinly veiled attempt to push Hulkamania to the film going non-wrestling fan. What could be worse than Hogan in the movies? Bad actors in the wrestling ring, and this film produced both, as Tiny Lester made his way to the WWE that summer in the mother of all promotional blunders. See the dictionary under Oops. As a card carrying member of the stupid kids of the world paid to see this in theaters and when I came out I immediately checked into H.A. - Hulkamaniacs Annoynimous. I am proud to say I have been off the Hulk for 17 years now and have never had a craving since. Since this was made to bring in more fans to the juggernaut that was the WWE in Hogans hey day one has to wonder if there weren't more fans like me who turned to other past times that did not poison ones mind like this offense to celluloid did, such as huffing gas or Russian Roulette.

**** Spitfire (1934) John Cromwell ~ Katharine Hepburn, Ralph Bellamy, Robert Young <br /><br />Mountain hillbilly Katharine Hepburn (as Trigger Hicks) is a religious back-woods laundry woman. "Going on 18", she begins to attract male attention, and responds by throwing rocks. The arrival of a dam-building construction crew triggers dreams of romance in Ms. Hepburn. She quickly attracts the attention of suave engineer Robert Young (as John Stafford), who flirtingly hides his marital status. Supervising engineer Ralph Bellamy (as George Fleetwood) is also interested in Hepburn, but for different reasons; Mr. Bellamy wants to know more about Jesus Christ, whom Hepburn worships.<br /><br />After Hepburn employs the power of prayer to heal a child, neighborhood folks suspect she is a witch.<br /><br />If it weren't so serious, "Spitfire" might be more amusing; it is an atypical and wildly inappropriate vehicle for its star, who is thoroughly unconvincing. Of the leads, Mr. Bellamy performs best. However, the best characterization is essayed by Sarah Haden (as Etta Dawson), who appeared in George Cukor's stage version, along with Louis Mason (as Bill Grayson). Will Geer (as West Fry), "Grandpa Walton" in the 1970s, has a small role. An unexpected ending helps.

Malcolm McDowell diagnoses Megan Gallagher's daughter and she as having a form of illness, when they believe they are seeing "The Huldre", troll-like creatures which live with "the rocks and the roots" (to quote the movie).<br /><br />Basically a family moves into an older house, which has a smaller doll-house in the backyard. The daughter (well played by Sofia Vassiliova) starts to befriend the creatures, until they become vindictive. The family cat also disappears.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes with Megan Gallagher ("Millennium") and Malcolm McDowell as the psychiatrist. There is also something strange which occurred to one of McDowell's patients.<br /><br />If you enjoy this type of story, you may also like "Bad Ronald", which had a similar odd theme, and the house is haunted by bad Ronald (Scott Jacoby) only that movie is from the 70's. 7/10.

This is a story of a Jewish dysfunctional family. The parents have divorced and mom remains back east in the house. The father, Murray Abromowitz, moves with his children to California, and moves around Beverly Hills so that his children can get the best education possible.<br /><br />Things really become funny when Marisa Tomei, Murray's niece, comes to lives with the group.<br /><br />The film deals with the various adventures of the family complicated by the drug scene of the affluent neighborhood.<br /><br />Jessica Walter costars as a woman who wants Murray to move in with her since she wants a companion.<br /><br />Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno come in towards the end. They play Murray's brother and sister-in-law respectively; they're also the parents of Tomei. In front of the children, Reiner lets loose reminding Murray that he has been paying the bills for them all along.<br /><br />The film ends on a sour note as the embarrassed family moves out of their fancy digs and take to riding around Beverly Hills in their car. I guess the film is promoting independence and some good old self-esteem.

well i was a teenager when i saw the movie..the songs were a huge hit but the elite class skipped govinda movies back then coz watching govinda and karishma (aka karizma )movies were not the in thing for that 'class' but anyways a lot of people liked it as the series of these movies rocked the 90's through out and most of them were successful..today i was watching it again after a long time and i remembered, there was a long que of people and the riot they created when the a aa e uo uo o song came on screen....the dresses of govinda and karishma were complimentary to each other(the worst dressing duo of that time) well karisma in the late 90's transformed but govinda has still been very faithful to his designer as his dress sense remains the same...but back then it all blended it was all good ..everything worked and slowly the elite class realized what fun it was missing and then .....there was no looking back for this jodi as it went on n on making those Indian carry on series ..hated by a few but loved by the masses.<br /><br />if you are looking for a good time with nothing to do rent it or watch it on TV i don't think you will regret it...but remember its the worst at its best ..<br /><br />still i watch those movies when i get time coz i cant stop laughing...so i say go ahead and have a good time as there are times when we all love stupidity and specially when its done by the kings of their times it surely is watchable ...i recommend it to all movie lovers ...

I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out.

Maybe I'm really getting old, but this one just missed me and the old Funny Bone completely. Surely there must be something powerful wrong with this Irishman (that's me, Schultz!). Lordy, lordy what I would give to see the light! Firstly, that Phil Silvers manic energy, wit and drive was very much a part of the comedic upbringing and overall education in life, if you will. Although it is possible that the series, first titled: "YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH" (1955-59*) could have gotten on the CBS TV Network with someone else in the title role of Sgt. Bilko, it is very hard to picture any other Actor/Comedian in the business wearing those Master Sergeant's stripes.<br /><br />Such a strong identification is inescapable, though not the same sort of career-wrecking typecasting of a nightmare that it proved to be to some other guys, like Clayton More("THE LONE RANGER"), George Reeves ("THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN") and Charles Nelson Riley ("UNCLE CROC'S BLOCK").<br /><br />One major stumbling block to successfully adapting and updating such a work from the 1950's TV Screen to the 1990's Movie-going public is our collective memory. Without being sure about what percentage of the crowd remembered the Bilko character from seeing the original run and early syndication revivals, and their numbers were surely considerable; even a large segment of the young had seen Bilko reruns in recent times. It was obvious that the new film and the source were miles; or even light years apart.<br /><br />So as not to be thought of as a totally square, old grouch please let's consider some other points.<br /><br />Right here today, the 14th Day of November In The Year of Our Lord 2007, let me swear and affirm under Oath that I have been a Steve Martin fan for nearly 30 years, Furthermore, I've enjoyed the wit and talents of Bilko '96 Co-Stars Dan Akroyd and the Late Phil Hartman. After all, it was the talents of guys like this and so many others, Alumni of "NBC;s Saturday NIGHT" and "SECOND CITY TV" that kept the last quarter of the 20th Century laughing. But a BILKO re-make; it just didn't click.<br /><br />Perhaps if the film had been made as a Service Comedy (always liked 'em!) but without the Bilko Show names and gave it some identity of it self it would be more highly regarded by crabby, old guys like me.<br /><br />So, we've already had so many sitcom and cartoon series turned into movies lately, what's next? Howse about somebody doing Hal Roach's World War II Army Comedy Series of Sergeants DOUBLEDAY & AMES and TV's 1st Cartoon Series "CRUSADER RABBIT"? Remember where you heard it first! POODLE SCHNITZ!

Hm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.<br /><br />I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.<br /><br />I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.<br /><br />Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :/

There is no denying that this is a bad movie. The acting isn't great, likewise the script, acting and direction. Still, I cannot wait until its 2/23/99 video release from Anchor Bay. Everyone knows there are several bad movies out there that have a tremendous appeal to them. This one tops my list.

AWFUL wot more can i say i remember seeing it in the cinema (see how it sticks painfully in the memory)as a 16 yr old lad. Mark Hamill was the older generations skywalker and wasn't great at that, he was worse in this. Plus a dour soundtrack by Then Jericho AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH. There is one film equally as bad as this i saw in the cinema Arthur 2 on the rocks. Funny how that question "What is the worst film you have ever seen is?" is easier than "what is the best film?" which incidentally varies between The Italian Job (original), Untouchables, Casino, Things to Do in Denver, Goodfellas (getting a sense of what I like??? - this will fool you!) Finding Nemo, Pirates of The Caribbean and Moulin Rouge! Please Never Watch this film or it will stick in your memory too!

This so-called "documentary" tries to tell that USA faked the moon-landing. Year right.<br /><br />All those who have actually studied the case knows different.<br /><br />First of all: there is definitely proof. When the astronauts was on the moon, they brought back MANY pounds of rock from the moon - for geological studies. These where spread around the world to hundreds of labs, who tested them. And they all concluded that they came from the same planet, not earth: because the inner isotopes of the basic elements are different from those found on earth, but similar to those calculated to be on the moon. I.E. the conspiracy theorists never studies anything: they only take the thing that fit into their theory and ignores the rest.<br /><br />Another wrongful claim from them is that their was wind in the hangar where they shot the moon landing, I.E. the flag moves. There is a logical explanation: the astronaut moved it with his hand, so it moved. And what proves this: well, if the conspiracy theorists even studied the footage, they would see that the flag NEVER moves after the astronaut have let it be, I.E. the conspiracy theorists are bad-scientists, they cant study a subject properly, or only studies it until they have what they came for, so that they can make a lie from that, and make a profit (I.E. this so-called "documentary").<br /><br />A claim says that it cant possible have been filmed on the moon because all the shadows come from different places, because there are different light-sources, the artificial lighting from the studio. Once again the conspiracy theorists are wrong (as usual), the same would happen in an earth desert at night, with no light-sources. But i doubt that any Conspiracy theorists have ever been outside their grandmothers basement for more than how many days a Star Treck-convention is held over.<br /><br />The Conspiracy theorists are in denial, BIG TIME. They only see what they want to see. So they make up all these lies to seem important - that is a fact.

This movie really left me thinking ... but not about the plot, the direction, the characters, an underlying message, or a clever script. Far from it. I was left wondering what in Sam Hill went wrong behind the scenes. Clearly, something was badly amiss from the beginning.<br /><br />I'm amazed at the positive comments for the movie and for Jodie Foster's performance. From the get-go it was clear that Foster had phoned this one in. One earlier comment even made a favorable mention of her facial expressions. I must have been watching a different movie since Ms Foster (usually a personal favorite) seemed to be totally disinterested.<br /><br />In one of his first scenes with Foster, Fred Ward looks as though he, also, is distracted by her lack of energy and he struggles to deliver his own lines with any enthusiasm. By the time he's called upon to take part in a supposedly desperate search for runaway Foster, Ward also seems to have become embarrassingly half-hearted about the project.<br /><br />In my opinion, Dennis Hopper has always been a uni-dimensional performer, so I wasn't expecting much from him ... and he delivered.<br /><br />Yes, this one left me thinking long after it ended. The fact that Joe Pesci and Charlie Sheen refused to have their names attached to the project suggests that this was a real stinker for everyone involved. But to then learn that the Director preferred to hide behind a pseudonym speaks volumes.<br /><br />But why listen to me? I always think Foster looks ridiculous in a dress, yet she's sensational in lacy underwear.

Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.<br /><br />Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.<br /><br />This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.<br /><br />The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.<br /><br />Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts.

This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.<br /><br />It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.<br /><br />The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.<br /><br />The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.<br /><br />The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.<br /><br />All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.<br /><br />7/10

Let me start out by saying i will try not to put too many spoilers in this. Normally I enjoy Robin Williams movies, however this gem was not one of them. It was billed as a suspenseful thriller. The night listener was anything but. To be blunt there were 6 people in the theater opening day, 2 walked out, for good reason. The movie was in my opinion poorly written and directed. The acting was alright but again there wasn't anything to work with. The movie is about A storyteller who reads a good book by a dying kid. However *insert spooky here* no one can verify the kids existence. So Williams goes to Wisconsin to try and find the author, however all he gets is a headache and excuses from the boys caretaker. There thats it, thats all. You wait for about an hour and a half and movie ends. It had as many thrills and chills as a dentist office visit. The homosexual undertones, or overtones had really nothing to do with the story, and the movie had a little profanity but it seemed to be thrown in there for absolutely no reason and made little sense. In conclusion i really can't write a decent review on this film because there was nothing to it, it was as captivating as watching paint dry. I gave it a 2 because the acting for what it was worth was alright and it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll.

Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"… but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.<br /><br />There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.<br /><br />This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. <br /><br />*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady

SHOWTIME is a mess, but it's an entertaining mess. The plot is forgettable, the satire is lightweight and the action sequences, though well-staged, aren't that exciting. But I laughed. A lot. Credit goes to the inspired pairing of De Niro and Murphy. They have great chemistry. Murphy delivers the one-liners, De Niro cracks us up with a look or grimace. This movie will get a RUSH HOUR-like reception from the critics. Don't listen to them. If you're a fan of De Niro or Murphy, you're going to enjoy this movie.

I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.<br /><br />I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...<br /><br />*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************<br /><br />Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!

Stephane Rideau was already a star for his tour de force in "Wild Reeds," and he is one of France's biggest indie stars. In this film, he plays Cedric, a local boy who meets vacationing Mathieu (newcomer Jamie Elkaim, in a stunning, nuanced, ethereal performance) at the beach. Mathieu has a complex relationship with his ill mother, demanding aunt and sister (with whom he has a competitive relationship). Soon, the two are falling in love.<br /><br />The film's fractured narrative -- which is comprised of lengthy flash-backs, bits and pieces of the present, and real-time forward-movement into the future -- is a little daunting. Director Sebastien Lifshitz doesn't signal which time-period we are in, and the story line can be difficult to follow. But stick it out: The film's final 45 minutes are so engrossing that you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. By turns heart-breaking and uplifting, this film ranks with "Beautiful Thing" as must-see cinema.

Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.<br /><br />The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.

This movie was simply amazing.The writing was incredible as well as the directing and acting.The story instantly gets you interested.This movie is one of those movies that has your heart pounding the whole time.As always Damian Chapa is brilliant,his on screen acting is as powerful as any Hollywood actor.The cast in this film is perfect.Each character made the story more complete.The cinematography was captivating and it uplifted the movie.I was totally stuck to the screen and couldn't stop watching it,there was no getting up for popcorn or anything.This movie is one of the best all year,maybe even the best.Definitely rent this movie,I recommend it this movie if u want to see great filmaking or just for pure entertainment.

With the mixed reviews this got I wasn't expecting too much, and was pleasantly surprised. It's a very entertaining small crime film with interesting characters, excellent portrayals, writing that's breezy without being glib, and a good pace. It looks good too, in a funky way. Apparently people either like this movie or just hate it, and I'm one who liked it.

"The Aristocats" is classic Disney at it's best. It's not considered as the ultimate Disney classic along side the more well-known Disney-films, but it's a well-made and fun film that certainly deserves to be a Disney classic. "Aristocats" is certainly a sure kids-pleaser, cause it has all the components for a fun kids film. I'll liked it very much as a kid. I'm not sure if this film is a sure pleaser to the adults, who could watch Disney classics for the nostalgia sake, but I still enjoy this film as an young adult.<br /><br />Storywise, "Aristocats" may not be so complex or innovative, but it doesn't matter. This film was made on that period where the filmmakers followed the motto that the characters were the story and wise versa, which "Aristocats" certainly shows. The characters make the film; they're all likable, fun, have great lines and have a great interaction with each other. The voice actors are also a part for making the characters so compelling (Eva Gabor as Duchess, Phil Harris as Thomas O'Malley and etc). A misconception could have been the dogs Napoleon and Lafayette, since they're showstoppers and haven't so much to do with the actual story, but fortunately they're fun and amusing characters and the scenes with them are pure gold.<br /><br />"Aristocats" is both entertaining and cute, but it's also a very funny cartoon. The animation style and look fits perfectly for the film's French surroundings (especially the city of Paris looks greats). The character animation and design is great. And the songs are really catchy too. My favorite is "Scale and Arpeggios", but the title song is a cute song, along with "Thomas O'Malley Cat" and the memorable show-stopper "Everybody Want's To Be A Cat". And the score by George Burns is a perfect fit for the film funny and emotional situations.<br /><br />Overall, "Aristocats" is in my opinion the best Disney cartoon from the 70's and it's a film that deserves to both be seen and remembered. So what you're waiting for? Do your self a favor and share this Disney classic with your kids. It deserves to be in their memories.

Given the opposite circumstance of 2009 where the reality is we do have a black president, this movie takes on quite a powerful historical significance. For entertainment value I found this movie to be both engaging and repugnant. I was quite taken back of course by the blatant racism of the time, but also found the music and dancing incredible. Also it is quite cool to see Sammy Davis Jr as such a very young child actor. He plays Rufus Jones, a young boy who is being consoled by his Mammy. He is told 'Why some day you could be President'. This was so ridiculous in 1933 that it was mocked and thought to be endearing, charming and funny. The bulk of the movie is a fantasy sequence of what the government would be like if it was run by a black man. They depict the seats of government as being like a revivalist Baptist church.<br /><br />The fact was when I stumbled onto this movie one day it drew me in. It is really well done and very entertaining. I believe if we can look beyond the racism we can see this movie for all it brings us. In fact to realize that it is not only not ridiculous to have a black president, but that it is normal, just makes this movie that much more relevant. It clearly marks a moment in time for our collective consciousness.

Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self.

"Why?"<br /><br />That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".<br /><br />Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."<br /><br />Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.<br /><br />"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"<br /><br />Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?<br /><br />You decide.

It's awful.<br /><br />Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.<br /><br />The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.<br /><br />Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.<br /><br />He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.<br /><br />Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.<br /><br />'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).<br /><br />Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.<br /><br />The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.<br /><br />This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture.

I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.<br /><br />Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.<br /><br />I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.<br /><br />Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)

This movie isn't terrible, really. Somebody commented that Mo is the type of American Europeans snicker at. But there are those, and not necessarily Anglo-Saxon yahoos, who do not care for Frenchmen; and the Xavier character isn't going to sway them.<br /><br />Let's consider his stereotypical Frenchman attributes:<br /><br />1). Cynical - very cynical. Check.<br /><br />2). Reedy, underfed appearance, check, despite:<br /><br />3). A great appreciation of cuisine. Check.<br /><br />4). Lukewarm work ethic. Check. (Forget the fact he is supposedly a rich stockbroker, from watching him in the film he seems to put in ten hour workweeks.) <br /><br />5). Beautiful wife, check. Despite that:<br /><br />6). Loose interpretation of the marriage vows. Check.<br /><br />7). Big sexual ego, which says an American girl owes you sex if you buy her dinner. Check.<br /><br />Whether Mo is a hick or not, there's no reason for her to fall for this smug European twit other than the script dictates so.<br /><br />On the other hand, as other male reviewers have, I did enjoy seeing Karen Allen's cute, petite body. I'll give the movie four stars; two of them are for that.

I rented this by mistake. I thought, after a cursory examination of the box, that this was a time-travel/sci-fi story. Instead, it's a "Christian" story, and I suppose is fairly typical example. If you are sold on the message you probably will overlook the awkwardness of the plot/acting/etc., but I found it rather painful. <br /><br />I have to admit that I'm bothered by the rewriting of history in this story. It paints the 1890's as some sort of paradise of family values and morality (a character is aghast that 5% of marriages end in divorce!), but it overlooks very unsavory sides of this "highly moral" society (rigid racial, sexual, and social discrimination were widespread, for instance). And at one point the hero complains to a clothing store owner about things that sound not all that different than the complaints of some Iranian leaders about women's clothing styles (as reported in a recent WSJ).<br /><br />Overall, thought, I suppose that it's the sort of thing you'll like if you like this sort of thing, and it's certainly wholesome...

Scarecrows is one of those films that, with a little more acting, a little more direction, and a lot more story logic, would have been quite compelling as a horror entry. As it stands, it is still a creepy film that has solid make-up and gore effects, and a premise that sustains the mood of terror in spite of itself. And hey, there are no teenagers getting killed one by one--just dumb adults, so that is a refreshing change of pace. And the plot line is amazingly similar to Dead Birds, with a precipitating robbery, an abandoned spooky house in the middle of nowhere, and demonic monsters. But just like Dead Birds, the adults are still witless, they run around cluelessly before getting slaughtered one by one, and they ignore the obvious danger.<br /><br />In Scarecrows, though, we never really find out the supernatural why, and that sustains the atmosphere of creepiness. And like clowns, scarecrows can be very creepy; unless they look like Ray Bolger, of course. Escaping in a hijacked plane with the pilot and his daughter, after a robbery netting millions, a para-military bunch is double-crossed by one of their own; a very nervous guy named Burt. He jumps out of the plane with the big, and heavy, box that holds the money with apparently no plans as to how to move it around once he is on the ground. Being the dumbest of the bunch, he is murdered first. But not before he happens upon the Fowler residence, nestled snuggly amid lots of really creepy-looking scarecrows, and surrounded with a wooden fence encircled with barbed-wire and lots of warnings to stay away. And the weird weathervane on the roof, with the pitchfork and pterodactyl, should have been a warning sign, too. The inside of the house is also quite foreboding (to us in the audience, anyway).<br /><br />Annoyingly, we must listen to Burt's thoughts in voice-over, as he walks around and mysteriously comes across the key to the decrepit truck in the yard. The way the key pops up would be enough to have my pants--with me in them--flying out the door. Perhaps it's just me, but I really enjoy watching people's lips move on screen, even when they are just thinking out loud. It helps to intensify the action, and gives the actor more to do than just look like what the voice-over is saying. Burt hoists the box onto the truck and makes his getaway. Sure why not? decrepit trucks always have lots of gas in them, especially with today's prices, and the battery? no problem. Now, I did mention that Burt was the dumbest of the bunch, and here is why (in addition to the above, of course). Wearing night-vision goggles to walk through the foliage and find the house, he takes them off to drive the truck away, and instead, turns on the headlights to see where he is going. Of course, the crooks still in the plane spot the headlights of his truck, and know where he is headed. Brilliant. He deserves to die. Definitely. I am not sure why he needed night vision goggles in the first place, as every scene is brightly lit, from the interior of the plane, to the night-time outside scenery, and the house. The cinematographer was either a. myopic, b. just out of school, or c. dealing with really cheap filmstock.<br /><br />Burt meets his demise when the truck dies in the middle of nowhere. Go figure. One very nice touch, and there are, I must admit, a few in the film, is the fact that when he opens the truck's lid, there is no engine. Creepy, to be sure (and insert pants comment again here). The story logic fails when dead, now-stuffed-like-a-flounder-with-money-and-straw-Burt returns to the house. The rest of the bunch are there, rough him up, then realize that he is indeed dead, and was gutted and stuffed like a flounder with money and straw. Dead Burt does manage to put up quite a fight, though, and grabs one fellow by the mouth, pushing him through a window, causing him to bite off more than he could chew in a gorylicious scene. At this point, you would think they'd would be racing out of the house and back to the plane--but noooo, they decide to stay and look for the rest of the money. In fact, the whole Burt is dead episode is treated rather matter-of-factly, although one bright bulb in the bunch does argue, "Burt was walking around dead, for chrissakes!"<br /><br />The stolen money suddenly appears on the grounds outside the house, and the crooks blithely go for the bait. Soon, another one of them, Jack, is dispatched, and again the scene is well done and horrific, involving a dull handsaw and no anethesia. Now there are three scarecrows going about wreaking mayhem, and one of them needs a hand, literally.<br /><br />When one of the crooks sees the scarecrows and Jack getting scarecrow-ized, he starts screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun in typical para-military fashion. So much for all that training under pressure crap. He meets up with the others and stops in his tracks to explain why he is screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun, even though the scarecrows appear to be chasing him. Again, that script logic thing... Dead and gutted, Jack returns to the house, and goes after the screamer with the usual results. If you listen to Jack's demonic growl, by the way, you may notice, depending on your age, that it is the same monster-growling sound heard often in the Lost In Space TV episodes.<br /><br />The last two survivors race away from the house and back to the plane, barely escaping. But do they? You will have to see the film to find out.

Excellent and moving story of the end of a uniquely intimate affair. Then again, the point of the film, to paraphrase another comment, is that every relationship can be unique and intimate. A truly quality short film which caught me at my busiest, yet had the power to pull me down onto the sofa and watch, fixed and quiet, for the duration. Bobby and Tessa are powerfully moving characters and anyone who has suffered the end of a love affair will find this film to be a cathartic exercise. Beyond that, the 'film within a film' idea plays out very well with this cast and is quite riveting, though in a somewhat melancholic way.

I gather at least a few people watched it on Sept.2 on TCM. If you did you know that Hedy had to change her name to avoid being associated with this movie when she came the U.S. It was a huge scandal and I gather that the original release in the U.S. was so chopped up by censors that it was practically unintelligible. I watched because I had just seen a documentary on "bad women", actresses in the U.S. pre- movie censorship board set up in the early '30s. It looked to me as though they got away with a lot more than Hedy's most "sensational" shots in "Ecstasy". In fact Hedy looked positively innocent in this, by today's standards, and it was nice to see her early unspoiled beauty. It was a nice, lyrical movie to relax to. I loved it for what it was: a simple romance. I watched it after pre- recording it during a sleepless early A.M. I would love to see the first version released in the U.S. for comparison's sake.

Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.<br /><br />This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.

The worst thing I have ever watch.<br /><br />The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.<br /><br />May I say more?<br /><br />The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.<br /><br />The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.<br /><br />As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.<br /><br />I learned how to "do not" make a movie.

I think it great example of the differences between two cultures. It would be a great movie to show in a sociology class. I thought it was pretty funny and I must say that i am a sucker for that "lets band together and get the job done" plot device. It seems most people don't realize that this movie is not just a comedy. It has a few dramatic elements in it as well and I think they blend in nicely. Overall, I give it a solid 8.

From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called " The Good Earth." It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. ****

This is one of my favorite series, all categories, all time.<br /><br />I was fortunate enough to get a hold of the whole series on VHS a few years ago. I loved it when I saw it back in -91 -92, when I was about 12. I love it as much, or more, today, which is remarkable considering my (hopefully) improved film appreciation and criticism skills. Most of the movies I liked back then I'm not that fond of today, besides for the nostalgia factor. That factor is present here as well, but there's so much more to Robin of Sherwood than nostalgia.<br /><br />There are only a few bad things about this series. First, the picture and sound quality is so-so, at least in the first couple of episodes. Fortunately, it gets better. Secondly, you could have wished for a bit more blood and realism in the fighting scenes, although I know that was not an option in this case.<br /><br />So, on to the good things! And there are a lot of them. First of all, Michael Praed IS Robin Hood. I don't think I have seen him in a single role since then, which only strengthen this fact for me. He delivers such a believable performance as Robin. Jason Connery had an impossible task replacing him. The fact that Michael Praed hasn't become a bigger name as an actor is unbelievable. Or perhaps that was his fate, to do this one role perfectly, then disappear.<br /><br />I love Nickolas Graces Sheriff of Nottingham. He is really not a complex character, but totally rotten. The relation between him and Gisburne is just hilarious. Actually, just looking at de Rainault sitting in his throne, bored, glaring, makes me laugh even before he has said anything. Another actor that deserves extra praise is Ray Winstone as Will Scarlet. You can really feel the sadness inside of him as well as his hate for the soldiers who killed his wife. Winstone is an actor that finally has gotten his well deserved Hollywood breakthrough (in films as The Departed and Beowulf). There are a lot of other great actors here, too.<br /><br />I love the portrayal of the Robin gang. They are having fun, playing, laughing, you really get a feel of the camaraderie between them, the closeness that comes from a tight bound group such as this. Those bonding scenes are so important.<br /><br />I think that it being UK produced with British actors really made it better, compared to for example the -92 feature film version with Kevin Costner, that just feels fake, fake, fake. (Christian Slater as Will Scarlet, come on..) The cast being able to speak English with British accent makes it more believable, and I get the feeling that the actors, as well as the director and writers, behind the series can put themselves much more into the shoes of the Robin Hood gang than an American crew could have. The music is wonderful, Clannad is perfect for the feel of the series. The music is another of those things they just nailed.<br /><br />An exciting addition also is the fantasy and magic spice that is put in there. It's not over the top, but believable and just makes the whole thing better and more interesting. I also love how nicely the mix of comedy, adventure and drama is blended.<br /><br />Those are a few of the things that makes this series so alive and so genuine. It's by far the best Robin Hood version I have ever seen. I won't wrap up with the "Nothing's forgotten" quote. But one thing that never will be forgotten, for me, is this fantastic Robin Hood retelling. See it.

Sabrina the Teenage Witch was one of my favorite T.V shows of life :D i used to watch back to back episodes everyday when i got home from school. So far i think i've watched every episode at least once and the whole series 3 or 4 times. Melissa Joan Hart plays the perfect teenage girl/witch with normal teenager troubles that we can all relate to. She's funny, smart, outgoing, witty, and a lot more. Caroline Rhea and Beth Broderick both fit the part very well as Sabrina's aunts. Zelda, the intelligent scientist, and Hilda the crazy, wacky one make a perfect balance in Sabrina's life. Though i must agree that the college years aren't as good as her high school years, but that doesn't mean they weren't still good. I think the ending was awesome although it was not what i hoped, it made sense and i loved it anyways. :)

The book on which this movie is based was excellent; it took a while to come to grips with Houellebecq's unconventional style but once I understood the mood behind the writing I was completely drawn into the author's world of sadness. In fact, no other book has affected me so much. This is not necessarily a good thing - it elucidated my own personal struggle and has made the futility of my own struggle harder to accept. Houellebecq's insights are masterfully captured by Harel and the hero's apathy and indifference to a world which has rejected him is perfectly portrayed. This is a movie which reveals today's society for the lowly male in all its horror. Hopefully, things will change in the future but for the present we have to accept the rat-race as shown in this movie. It's probably best that Harel or Houellebecq do not create a work of genius like this again. One is enough for any man.

I bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.<br /><br />The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.<br /><br />Why was this movie ever made?