Datasets:

FranckArmand

/

imdb_5k

like 0

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

Thats My Bush is first of all a very entertaining show by Parker and Stone, I thought. Its often very very funny, and its quite subversive and crazy. South Park fans would surely get something here. <br /><br />Another surprise is the production value here. A lot of money must have been put into this, and it shows. A lot of expensive little details. Its not a little show. And Comedy Central is not an extremely rich channel, but they put a lot into this show obviously. In a way I understand that was the death of the show as well though, too costy. It surely could have been done cheaper and went on the will was there. <br /><br />The critics liked it, and it had its little fanbase, but it failed gaining a big audience. As we know, the show stopped after 8 episodes, which I guess is almost 1 season. <br /><br />As I really liked the show it has its faults. The problem of the show is kind of that it doesn't know what it wants to be really. Its like it tries to be a sitcom AND a parody of a sitcom at the same time. The actors do a good job, and some of them are well casted, but in my opinion they seem to not always get 100% the bizarre humor they're supposed to present. <br /><br />I personally think that the show needed some characters that were more down to earth for the show to work. In South Park you have Kyle and Stan, that are kind of a realistic touch in the more looney universe. I think thats kind of what makes South Park work. You need some sane characters that you can relate to in a realistic way, and that makes the insane stuff so much more interesting too because that forces you to take them seriously at some level. If everything is archetypes and stereotypes its difficult to get emotionally included in the show, which really is Thats My Bush biggest problem. Kyle and Stan is characters in South Park that makes sense of the insanity in the show. We have nothing like that here, and this show suffers from it. <br /><br />Another anchorpoint is Parker and Stones flirting with republicans. Its the only thing about them I don't really get what they're trying to do. Not portraying Bush as nothing else than a dumb Homer Simpsons lovable kind of character IS kind of subversive in a world where a lot of people that can't stand him and think he's the worst president since Nixon, and a parallel comedy world of Letterman and so on that only satirizes his every move... but its difficult to understand if Parker and Stone actually means anything by it. Its like the joke is on us, but somehow it doesn't hit the mark. It seems awkward, because it doesn't remind you of the real Bush at all. <br /><br />Besides that I actually thought the show was very enjoyable. Some of the jokes in here are hilarious. The pro-life supporter who was a surviving aborted fetus is probably one of my favorite jokes by them in any show. And the show is packed with great material, and is sometimes insanely funny if you use your head a little while watching it.

The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.<br /><br />This film could've been called "The Search for Jose Iturbi" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years. <br /><br />The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that "GI" meant "Get Iturbi" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).<br /><br />Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.<br /><br />And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.<br /><br />Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them "ignorantly" complimenting the other's music.<br /><br />If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews "of the day" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.<br /><br />Trout

This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.

and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.

Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...<br /><br />so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!<br /><br />All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.<br /><br />Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!<br /><br />You've got to see it!!! <br /><br />And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice

I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible.

I am obsessed! The story is amazing and the show is highly addictive, but I love it. I am on Season 2, disc 5, and I tell you that I am too attached to the characters now. For anything bad to happen to them would seriously affect my vote for the show. And, Michael is on my list now. Kidding... I am so happy to see there is a Season 3, because I was too afraid to go onto disc 6 thinking that it would be ending. I can't wait to see the rest now. Thanks to the directors/producers/and actors of Lost...I enjoy watching TV again. Before Lost I surfed through every channel going to bed sad because of my disappointment in television, but I have to say that Lost is my kind of entertainment!

The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.<br /><br />The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.<br /><br />The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).<br /><br />Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.<br /><br />This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it.

I'm afraid this one is pretty dreadful, despite several good performances and generally competent acting-for-the-camera direction. It's a first and last attempt by writer-director Soo Lyu. "Rub and Tug" (2002) is one of the unfortunate by-products of Canada's program to promote home-grown film-making. While the program encourages worthwhile efforts like "New Waterford Girl" it opens the door for untalented novices like Lyu who did not have to aggressively pitch this project but was green-lighted without an adequate examination of her script or her credentials. <br /><br />You don't mind the low budget because the shabby production design, bad lighting, poor audio, and dreary docu-style shot selection is consistent with the subject matter; the workers in Canadian massage parlors. But the dialogue and the plotting doesn't give the actors anything to work with, the editor much to assemble, or a viewer any mental challenge other than suspension of disbelief. When your story is this simplistic the last thing you need is a muddled storytelling technique; even though nothing happens, the movie is hard to follow and point-of-view impossible to pin down. <br /><br />Don McKellar's performance as Conrad is several notches below his similar characterization in "Exotica". Lindy Booth's Lea is her standard quirky airhead; as always she is likable but here she is little else. Kira Clavell's Cindy is a pleasant surprise, a kind of Asian Shelley Duval. The only other role of any consequence, Tara Spencer-Nairn's street-wise Betty, more than cancels out her excellent performance in "New Waterford Girl". Her shallow performance in "Rub and Tug" should curtail any tendency to seek out other films in which she has appeared; unless you need further confirmation of "Waterford" director Alan Moyle's skill in working with young actors. <br /><br />You quickly conclude that Lyu's reptilian brain cannot grasp concepts like plot complexity, so the need to insert a lazy and lame "deus ex machina" device toward the end is hardly a surprise. Still it could be worse, the listless story has so little internal logic anyway that the unlikely ending is not as painful as would normally be the case. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I am normally skeptical about watching films or mini-series based on novels because the screenplay is always different from the novel. Fortunately, I was wrong! The screenplay was very close to the novel (I guess it helps that the author was an executive producer and writer, huh?)<br /><br />The cast is outstanding. I can't describe how much I enjoyed seeing such a wide range of actors (from Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee to Robert Ri'chard and Bianca Lawson).<br /><br />The location setting... I was expecting to see the homes and cottages I imagined in my mind: what I saw on screen was slightly different. However, it wasn't enough to make me dislike the mini-series.<br /><br />I recommend this for anyone who has read the novel: you will not be disappointed if you have. 8 out of 10 stars!<br /><br />

THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners.

Another Woo's masterpiece!<br /><br />This is a best wuxie film i'm ever seen! Woo - RULEZ forever (except some Hollywood moments...). John Woo - greater director of the century.<br /><br />Maybe hi is not more intellectual than lot of Big Directors... But he is lyrical and spiritual idol of all free-mind people! <br /><br />His movies like the great poetry! Woo is a Movie Sheakspeare! Woo is a Movie Biron! Woo is a Mozart of Bloodshet!!!!<br /><br />IMHO violent in Woo films is not a directors bloodlust, but a instrument of art. Themes of Woo movies is more humanistic that more of the new films.

OK this movie was made for one reason and one reason only TO MAKE MONEY!!The producers obviously didn't care about killing a classic horror movie. I knew this movie would suck as soon as it was going to be a pg-13 how many pg-13 slashers movies have turned out to be good? Thats like asking how many women have been on the moon? The answer is NONE!! Prom night 1980 was of cource no masterpiece but it certainly deserves to be recognised as a movie that stays true to its genre and deosnt try to be anything more than that.<br /><br />My problem with Prom night 2008 is the way that it handles the killer and i have 3 major problems with him.....................<br /><br />1)The way he escapes, he was locked up in a mental institute and he escapes through a air conditioning vent!! WHAT THE HELL? why would they have an air conditioning vent in the patients room? Do they want him to be comfortable during his stay or something? 2)His intentions are somewhat uncertain the killer want all of the main victims family and friends dead so he can have her all to his self, he says he loves her but the next minute he trys to kill her, so does he want to kill her, love her or just plain rape her?? 3) The killer is too good, how did he develop all of his skills? He used to be a teacher, so in this one scene where he kills the main victims boyfriend while hes basically on top of her asleep and she doesn't notice, it all silly 2 stars out of 10 terrible,silly,stupid attempt at a horror movie

This may very well be the worst movie I'll see if I live to be 100. I think a group of first-graders could have come up with better plot lines as a class project than this. I'm dumber for having watched it, and God have mercy on the souls who were paid to produce this film.<br /><br />And after I finally turned it off, I actually had the urge to vomit.<br /><br />No one had a clue about photography when made this. No one had a clue about acting. No one had a clue about just about anything.<br /><br />I can't believe F/X shows this crap on occasion. The only time I had seen it was on one of the Starz! channels - not even the main one. And it was on at about 3 a.m. at that.

In my case I liked this movie because when I saw it I found more than I expected. I mean, this is one of the few animated movies that made me think about its themes even long after I finished. It talks about death, vengeance and hell in such a way that it gets to you like a punch in your face, even reaching to suffer with the dream sequence in the mid-point of the film. That's what makes this movie so good: the ability, unique in Don Bluth (director), to play with the people's feelings and make them love or hate a character in no time. That, and the fact that it has so many good characters like Charlie and Ann-Marie, that in the sad but happy ending you have to say "I have something in my eye" to hide the others that you cried. All I've said are just only some of the good points of this movie. As for the rest, you have to see them for yourself in a film extremely honest. Don Bluth, thank you.

I was watching this movie at one of my usual time, which is real real late at night. Usually if a movie doesn't interest me, I start falling asleep and have to raid the fridge to stay awake.<br /><br />At first I thought that's what I had to do since this movie's pacing started off slow, along with the fact that its shots tended to linger with the character for a long time. But after a bit, I start getting more into the movie, as more is revealed about the main character through his story telling. By the end, you feel like you've known him your whole life. The movie kept my interest so much that I didn't even know the sun was about to rise.<br /><br />Not much of Lynch's bizzare style, but there is enough of quirky characters to make the film amusing.

I saw this movie when I was little - It was called "Glacier Fox". I was totally traumatized by it! It follows a cute little fox family around. The beginning was great and I remember becoming very attached to the little foxes. I also remember my mother carrying me out of the theater while I was in hysterics. I won't tell you what happened, but let's just say it doesn't end well for all of the foxes. I was used to Disney type nature films where the animals don't REALLY die. Oh man. This movie made me cry for hours. It was a good movie...I think - I was really little and truth be told -all I remember is being happy for the foxes and then seeing one of them die. Rent it if you can, but don't show your kids!

If Jean Renoir's first film "Whirlpool of Fate" first takes us into the world of the countryside, the rivers, the lives of the peasantry that he will continue to explore, it seems only fitting that his second film deals for the most part with the wealthy and the privileged, the upper classes and those who are trying to claw their way upwards. Put the characters from the first two films together and you have the seeds of his great "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game." This is beautifully filmed, with the restless camera making full use of the amazingly huge apartments and backstage areas that dominate the film's interiors, and the acting though frequently overwrought offers some great moments as well, particularly from Werner Krauss' Muffat. But the glamorous and sultry Ms. Hessling, who at first appears as if she might give Louise Brooks a run for her money in vampishness, never goes beyond a one note, selfish harlot portrayal. Perhaps this is in part a problem with the script, which does seem to mostly go for high points and outraged emotions; not having read the novel I'm not really clear on whether the choices were well-made or not.<br /><br />Still, the differences between Nana's suitors are well-drawn, and I particularly liked the relationship between Muffat and Jean Angelo's Vandeuvres -- the tragic understandings that each seems to have of his ultimate fate and their sympathy with each other, particularly in the scene at the bottom of the enormous staircase where Vandeuvres warns Muffat, and we wonder if violence will erupt -- this and other gleanings of the ridiculousness of the idle rich help give the film the depth it has.<br /><br />Far from his greatest achievement, and for me probably just shy overall of "Whirlpool of Fate", this is still well worth seeing for Renoir fans or those interested in silent cinema generally.

I thought that for a first episode of a first series it did really well. It was really fun and i thought the actors was brilliant. I think it is a crime for anyone to say that is was bad because it looked the right time. i find it really annoying when people say that it wasn't historically correct because it is supposed to be a Saturday night entertainment show not a boring history documentary so i think the costumes and settings were just right. A brilliant start and i am going to love what will come next!! I have spoken to many people at my school and they love the show! we all think that it is brilliant entertainment and it has great stories to go with it.

This is the only movie I've seen Prince in but it don't matter. And I thought he was only great at singing boy was I wrong. This is probably his best performance. The music is great. Thats why it won the Oscar in 1984 for best music to a movie (or something like that). Now he has an Oscar and Grammies under his belt. Although the cursing gets in the way with the film (just make sure no little kids or in the room). There isn't to much to say without revealing the plot. You should really go out and get this movie your collection isn't complete unless you got this movie in it. What else could I possibly say except for go and get this movie now!

You should not take what I am about to say lightly. I've seen many, many films and have reviewed a great deal of them, in print. So when I tell you that this film has the single funniest scene I have ever seen in a movie, you might want to listen to me. There's a lot of diversity of opinion as to what makes this INCREDIBLY stupid movie as funny as it is. And to those who just didn't get, well, I can't blame them, too much. The scene I speak of, comes at about the 30 minute mark and involves a dead convict shackled to John Candy. Up until that point, I had found the film dumb, confusing and it was beginning to lose me. When this scene came up, I laughed so hard, I peed my pants. No movie has ever done that to me before. When the project began, "Going Berserk" was supposed to be the SCTV movie. I remember it being announced. As time went on, the cast was whittled down To John Candy, Joe Flaherty & Eugene Levy. There also must have been a regime change at Universal, while it was being shot, because upon being released, it was shown in nearly ZERO theaters. When watching this a second time, I listened to the theme song (which actually flaunts how incomprehensible the plot is, in the lyrics), relaxed my logic nerve and figured out what was going on. Aside from the aforementioned routine, "Going Berserk" has many other hilarious scenes to recommend it. This is almost a 3 Stooges flick, except it's much funnier. Director David Steinberg has razor sharp timing, and he must have been laughing all through this. As for Candy, who's basically in charge here, he has NEVER been funnier. With all the plot devices and explanatory scenes thrown out the window, he absolutely runs wild. Flaherty and Levy follow him effortlessly. There is a plot, but it's a plot like "Animal House" had a plot, and yeah, the script is uneven, and a little slow to start. Once you know this, however, you can well appreciate the full SCTV style craziness that transpires. It IS stupid, but it's stupid on purpose, and you need to remember that when you see it. DO see it, and discover for yourself, if it has the funniest scene of all time in it.

I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.<br /><br />The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.<br /><br />ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.<br /><br />Another footnote...<br /><br />I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island. <br /><br />I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined.

I really enjoyed this drama from Sidney Lumet. The best word I could come up to describe it with is insane. It throws the viewer around for an hour and fifty minutes and doesn't let you breathe until the credits start to roll at the very end. Trust me, this movie will keep you guessing the entire way through.<br /><br />The story is very well crafted and almost brilliant. It's almost like a more complicated Tarantino type story. The acting is all amazing from all of the leads and even the small parts, excellent cast. I also loved the cinematography, it gave it the real feeling as if it were an independent film. It was all great.<br /><br />This movie is excited, exhausting and heartbreaking. It's almost hard to watch but you'll be glad that you did.

Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.<br /><br />There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.<br /><br />The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.<br /><br />I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company.

The 1st season was amazing, the whole idea of them adjusting to the island, while mysteries were being explored (And seen) was just phenomenal; filled with suspense, tons of cliffhangers, and an amazing plot. I mean, I love the whole idea of just seeing them get used to the island. And then first seeing the smoke monster in the first episode really caught my attention. From then on, I was hooked The second season was right on par with the 1st season, only a little better. I absolutely loved the idea of the hatches and the DHARMA Initiative. The whole plot and sequences of season 2 were mysterious, creepy, and exciting. I loved all the suspense surround others on the island, but the DHARMA story really made season 2 amazing.<br /><br />Season 3 wasn't quite as good as 1 and 2 ... but nonetheless, great. I loved seeing the back-stories of the others, seeing their camp, and seeing the mysteries further explored. ("Tricia Tanak Is Dead" is one of my favorite episodes). This season, while not as good, was still breathtaking and fun, but most of all exciting! Now, the 4th season. I had hopes for this season, and the 1st couple of episodes we're good, but then it REALLY started to get boring and monotonous. I mean, I REALLY despise the new "rescuers" such as Miles and Daniel. The plot got old after the first couple episodes ... and MOST OF ALL .... Season 4 was stripped away of something which made LOST a perfect series: The mystery, suspense, comedy mixed in (Charlie gone) and overall excitement. Also, some of my favorite characters have left.

It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.<br /><br />In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.

I agree totally with the last commenter this could be the worst movie ever made .I too had to fast forward through most of this movie. Michael Madsen must have done this movie as a favor to someone.The picture quality is grainy all the way through .And what little plot there is,is just plain stupid .I give this movie a 1 out of 10 if I could give it a lower score I would .Don't waste your time on this movie or you'll regret it.

After seeing this film at the SF Independent Film Festival, I couldn't wait to hear about how to get a copy. Jim McKay gave a talk (Q&A) about the film afterward which presented his ironic situation: how to get distribution for a film which portrays minorities (women, non-whites) working on resolving controversial issues (teen pregnancy, teen motherhood, racial identity, single-mother households), and how to write a faithful script on all of these topics being a mid-thirties white male. The multi-racial, multi-gendered audience of mostly-adults raved about the film's fantastic storyline, detailed characters, and fantastic portrayal of "real teen life." Most of the teens, however, had left the building--leading me to think this is a film best seen by adults with kids, as a starting point for discussion rather than, as many adults there felt, "a film teens should see because it's about them." Hence, distribution questions--how do we get our hands on it? The Internet (retail) would be a great path--this is a film that will be buried, like "Pups" or other radical modern teen films--and McKay seemed responsive. As for his credits as a writer/director, McKay was _extremeley_ sensitive and detailed in his work--allying himself to the Crown Heights neighborhood in which the film is set, working with actors to portray characters in their own vision of what they think should be--with the results being disarmingly realistic.

This movie doesn't have an awful lot to do with it's predecessor "Robot Jox". This must be also the reason why its most common name is "Robot Wars" and not the alternate name "Robot Jox 2: Robot Wars".<br /><br />"Robot Jox" was basically a fun movie to watch because it had a nice premise of giant robots battling each other in the near future. This concept has been abandoned for this movie and instead it features a totally dull story that besides isn't very original or cleverly written. A shame it tried to be so much different from its predecessor really, for else this perhaps could had been a more fun movie to watch.<br /><br />Just like "Robot Jox" this is a B-movie but with as a big difference that it's just not a very good one. Perhaps this also has to with the fact that "Robot Jox" got made during the '80's, when B-movies still had a certain bit of charm and class over it, even though the movie got released in 1990. This really can't be said about this movie. It's just lame, badly made, poor looking and not exciting enough. It also has an ending which leaves you thinking 'This is it? That's all?'.<br /><br />What the movie its story is lacking is good clear main plot-line really. Perhaps a good main villain would had been a good idea and some other stuff such as an actual point to the story, some action, or likable main characters.<br /><br />Seriously what were they thinking when they picked the actors for this movie. All of them are simply not likable in their roles and especially Don Michael Paul is annoying as the main character, who behaves as if he's God's gift to woman and Mr. Perfect who can compete with anyone. Weren't they even simply able to get the actors from the first movie?<br /><br />For such a futuristic movie, with a concept of having large battle droids in it, this movie surely is lacking with its action. Had they put some more and bigger action into the movie, the movie would at least had been a more entertaining one to watch. Instead now we have a movie that fails to impress in basically every way imaginable.<br /><br />You can better watch a "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" episode, for some more action and likability.<br /><br />3/10

This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.

This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.<br /><br />There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.

At the height of the 'Celebrity Big Brother' racism row in 2007 ( involving Shilpa Shetty and the late Jade Goody ), I condemned on an internet forum those 'C.B.B.' fans who praised the show, after years of bashing 'racist' '70's sitcoms such as 'Curry & Chips' & 'Love Thy Neighbour'. I thought they were being hypocritical, and said so. 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' was then thrown into the argument, with some pointing out it had starred an English actor blacked-up. Well, yes, but Michael Bates had lived in India as a boy, and spoke Urdu fluently. The show's detractors overlook the reality he brought to his performance as bearer 'Rangi Ram'. The noted Indian character actor, Renu Setna, said in a 1995 documentary 'Perry & Croft: The Sitcoms' that he was upset when he heard Bates had landed the role, but added: "No Indian actor could have played that role as well as Bates.". Indeed.<br /><br />'Mum' was Perry and Croft's companion show to 'Dad's Army'; also set in wartime, the sedate English town of Walmington-On-Sea had been replaced by the hot, steamy jungles of India, in particularly a place called Deolali, where an army concert party puts on shows for the troops, among them Bombadier Solomons ( George Layton, his first sitcom role since 'Doctor In Charge' ), camp Gunner 'Gloria' Beaumont ( Melvyn Hayes ), diminutive Gunner 'Lofty' Sugden, 'Lah de-dah' Gunner Graham ( John Clegg ), and Gunner Parkins ( the late Christopher Mitchell ). Presiding over this gang of misfits was the bellicose Sergeant-Major Williams ( the brilliant Windsor Davies ), who regarded them all as 'poofs'. His frustration at not being able to lead his men up the jungle to engage the enemy in combat made him bitter and bullying ( though he was nice to Parkins, whom he thought was his illegitimate son! ). Then there was ever-so English Colonel Reynolds ( Donald Hewlett ) and dimwitted Captain Ashwood ( Michael Knowles ). Rangi was like a wise old sage, beginning each show by talking to the camera and closing them by quoting obscure Hindu proverbs. He loved being bearer so much he came to regard himself as practically British. His friends were the tea-making Char Wallah ( the late Dino Shafeek, who went on to 'Mind Your Language' ) and the rope pulling Punka Wallah ( Babar Bhatti ). So real Indians featured in the show - another point its detractors ignore. Shafeek also provided what was described on the credits as 'vocal interruptions' ( similar to the '40's songs used as incidental music on 'Dad's Army' ). Each edition closed with him warbling 'Land Of Hope & Glory' only to be silenced by a 'Shut Up!' from Williams. The excellent opening theme was penned by Jimmy Perry and Derek Taverner.<br /><br />Though never quite equalling 'Dad's Army' in the public's affections, 'Mum' nevertheless was popular enough to run for a total of eight seasons. In 1975, Davies and Estelle topped the charts with a cover version of that old chestnut 'Whispering Grass'. They then recorded an entire album of old chestnuts, entitled ( what else? ) 'Sing Lofty!'.<br /><br />The show hit crisis point three years later when Bates died of cancer. Rather than recast the role of 'Rangi', the writers just let him be quietly forgotten. When George Layton left, the character of 'Gloria' took his place as 'Bombadier', providing another source of comedy.<br /><br />The last edition in 1981 saw the soldiers leave India by boat for Blighty, the Char Wallah watching them go with great sadness ( as did viewers ).<br /><br />Repeats have been few and far between ( mainly on U.K. Gold ) all because of its so-called 'dodgy' reputation. This is strange. For one thing, the show was not specifically about racism. If a white man blacked-up is so wrong, why does David Lean's 1984 film 'A Passage to India' still get shown on television? ( it featured Alec Guinness as an Indian, and won two Oscars! ). It was derived from Jimmy Perry's own experiences. Some characters were based on real people ( the Sergeant-Major really did refer to his men as 'poofs' ). I take the view that if you are going to put history on television, get it right. Sanitizing the past, no matter how unsavoury it might seem to modern audiences, is fundamentally dishonest. 'Mum' was both funny and truthful, and viewers saw this. Thank heavens for D.V.D.'s I say. Time to stop this review. As Williams would say: "I'll have no gossiping in this jungle!"

I saw this kung fu movie when I was a kid, and I thought it was so cool! Now I am 26 years old, and my friend has it on DVD!!!<br /><br />We got a case of brew, and watched this classic! It lost NONE of it's original kung fu coolness! If you are a fan of kung fu/karate movies, this is a must see... the DVD is available. I believe this movie is also called "Pick Your Poison".<br /><br />Watch it soon!

I grew up during the time that the music in this movie was popular. What a wonderful time for music and dancing! My only complaint was that I was a little too young to go to the USO and nightclubs. Guess it sounds like I'm living in the past, (I do have wonderful memories)so what's wrong with that?!!? World War 2 was a terrible time, except where music was concerned. Glenn Miller's death was a terrible sadness to us. This movie will be a favorite of mine. Clio Laine was excellent; what a voice! I don't know how I ever missed this movie. My main reason for this commentary is to alert the modern generation to an alternative to Rap and New Age music, which is offensive to me. Please watch this movie and give it a chance!

A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.<br /><br />Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.<br /><br />End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid.

I have to vote this 10 out of 10 in the rare chance that she happens to see this review, takes pity on me, whisks me to Hollywood and involves me in her freaky/funny world. But in all seriousness, it was good. First episode is obviously finding it's feet, but it's got that Silverman weirdness running all the way through it. It's not a laugh out loud sort of comedy, but that's good thing, too much has a laughter-track to it, and this wouldn't be right with cues when to laugh, it's to the audience to hear their inner jester laughing at the absurdness of it all. I can easily see this as being the bizarro Drew Carey show with it's weird characters and incredibly strong central character. Well worth a watch, look forward to the following episodes. A VERY good chance from the usual comedy out there. <br /><br />ps, Sarah? Call me....

This program is a lot of fun and the title song is so catchy I can't get it out of my head. I find as I get older I am drawn to the wrinklies who get things done, and these four are excellent in their endeavors. Some of what they do is outrageous but brilliant considering that now days with our PC world we'd never be able to do it in real life. I always learn something from the shows. But if you like mystery, drama, comedy, and a little forensic work you'll love this show. It reminds me of Quincy, ME in one way and Barney Miller in another the way they work and inter-react with each other. They screw up a lot but they get the job done, and that's what counts.

After viewing several episodes of this series, I have come to the conclusion that television producers are completely devoid of any form of originality. Here is an old science fiction standby, ingeniously wrapped in the form of a truly original concept - and still they can only -almost - make it work.<br /><br />The dialog is good! The male actors are reasonably proficient at their professions. Most of the characters are well drawn, with special kudos to the hero and his more than likeable side-kick. And most of the episode plots come across as palatable. So what could be wrong? How about the, the female characters and the cosmeticly perfect actresses who are chosen to portray them. <br /><br />The producers insist on portraying the female characters in this - almost good - series, in a manner that makes the end product appear to be a misplaced cheerleader. Why, I ask, why?<br /><br />The episodes all fall flat whenever the female guest star or recurring character comes on screen. These actresses are all totally unbelievable in their roles, and you don't actually have to see them to know they are incapable of their acting assignments. A blind person could tell. Just listen to them talk. They deliver their dialog with all the drama and effect of a 16 year old at the high school prom. Who would believe these women are Phd scientist, senators, corporate executives and medical doctors?<br /><br />In a nut shell, if the producers have their choice of a Stockard Channing or a Morgan Fairchild, guess who they'll choose - every time? And of course, the series suffers for it. Too bad!

To Be Honost With you i think everything was so good in this movie there should be no reason why it didn't go into theaters,The Deaths in the movie are awesome the fx are awesome when used,There are a few dull moments when the story's following the little girl but all in all this was a very good movie that i hope someday get's the props it should.The very first part of the movie is prob why it came straight to video with them killing a little boy but after that the story is based on a little girl and her mother who came to visit the moms boyfriend who moved out to try to become a writer,The property he buy's turns out to be where the Witch(Tooth Fairy)lives and anyone who live in her house or goes on her property will be in great danger don't wanna give anything really away just a little info if you've wanted to see this movie then do so it's worth the price of the rental

This is one of the unusual cases in which a movie and the novel on which it is based are both great. Maybe this is because Gorris' takes Nabokov's initial ideas and gives them a different interpretation. The final consequence is a point of view over Luzhin which dignifies him more than the Nabokov's one.<br /><br />The only thing in the movie which I don't like is the influence of Valentinov's on Luzhin's destiny. I can't imagine Nabokov creating a person like Valentinov and giving him so great influence on novel's argument.

I am currently on vacation in Israel for summer, and so was able to see this incredible film. A bit of a warning before I begin writing: I speak fluent Hebrew, and so the Hebrew parts were no problem; however, about a quarter (a bit less) of the film is in Arabic, and I was unable to understand a bit of this subtitled bit. This did not detract from my understanding of the film, but did cause me to miss a few jokes which evoked some strong laughs in the theater.<br /><br />After a year of American Cinema which many hailed as one of the greatest years for homosexual cinema and relationships, it takes something truly special to stand head and shoulders above the rest; yet, "The Bubble" surpasses all others with its blend of excellent acting, witty dialogue, and relevant political climate.<br /><br />The film opens on a checkpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian border; For the first few moments, we are unsure about the type of movie we have walked in on. Yet, this is an important element of this film's strength. The political situation, and the extreme tension in the air is constantly in the background. Most importantly, Tel Aviv serves as a character of its own in this film. It is constantly referenced. Street names and restaurant names are constantly exchanged. The skyline and city development is critiqued quite harshly, and ultimately the city evolves along with the film The film focuses on the love between Noam (Ohad Knoller) and a Palestinian immigrant, Ashraf(Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), with the societies of Tel Aviv and Palestine serving as a constant foil. We always know that their relationship is forbidden, and this creates a sense of urgency rarely present in cinema. The love is incredibly strong, and stands as the centerpiece of the film. The secondary relationships and friendships are equally strong: flamboyant restaurant owner Yelli's ( Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) relationship with the ultra-butch and grating golani solider, Golan (Zohar Liba), is particularly a source of amusement. The love scenes which abound in this film are all exquisite, fine crafted works of art, and the cinematography is astounding: In the first love scene of the film, the camera pans down as a male character gives oral sex to Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and dissolves into a shot of Noam and Ashraf. This shot any many others lead the viewer to realize that all of these relationships are expressions of the very same form of love.<br /><br />To give away more of the storyline would be a tragedy, but know that there is a lot of political tension and tragedy which touches onto the current world political climate, so I will instead focus on the witty dialogue. Even when watching this movie in my second language, I could not stop laughing throughout. Lines of particular amusement include the question of whether gay suicide bombers receive virgin women or men in heaven, and an analogy of Sampson from the bible as the worlds first suicide bomber. This dialogue shows a particular sense of purity and reality which is rarely seen in Cinema. The music used in the film is also particularly powerful. Music is only used in times when characters legitimately could or should be listening to it, and in one scene the music weakens when a character removes one earphone and stops when he removes the other. Little elements like this truly elevate the film.<br /><br />I could not give greater recommendation to a film; this is a superb work of cinema which is catharthic as well as extremely well crafted.

When I first read Hamlet, I couldn't help but think of the ending of OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE, where Bette Midler puts down the play because of how indecisive he is, and says, "Give me Romeo any day." Five acts of a man trying to decide whether or not to kill his uncle or not? Seemed like overkill to me. But upon further reading, I grew to really appreciate the play. I've seen the Olivier and Gibson movie versions(and part of the Nicol Williamson version), and all of them take their model from Olivier; the melancholy Dane. Olivier at least did it without being self-indulgent about it, but Gibson and, from what I saw, Williamson, looked like they went to the "Look, Ma, I'm acting! I'm acting!" school.<br /><br />Now here comes Kenneth Branagh's version, which is breathtaking from start to finish. It finished #2 on my top ten of 1996(behind THE ENGLISH PATIENT, and ahead of LONE STAR, JERRY MAGUIRE, FARGO, SECRETS & LIES, EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU, FLIRTING WITH DISASTER, BIG NIGHT, and LOOKING FOR RICHARD), and it's the best Hamlet, and maybe the best Shakespeare, put to film. Obviously, Branagh's talents as a filmmaker, for making the full-length version, in 70mm print, and not losing our interest for four hours, is great, but what seems to get overlooked in discussions about this film is his performance in the title role. This was my favorite performance of the year by far. Branagh avoids the melodrama which actors seem to get trapped in by playing Hamlet as a normal, regular human being, and makes us understand his actions and feelings each step of the way. And unlike Olivier, who depended mostly on his voice, Branagh uses his entire body to demonstrate the range of emotions that Hamlet goes through, but since he plays him as normal, none of it seems like scenery-chewing.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is top-notch as well. I didn't even mind Jack Lemmon, though I agree he was the weakest member of the cast. The most surprising turn came from Charlton Heston; I've always found him stiff as a board, but he's quite commanding as the Player King. The other big surprise was Billy Crystal; I thought I'd find him all wrong as the 1st Gravedigger, but he was his usual funny self while being in character. All in all, a glorious film!

... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.<br /><br />To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!<br /><br />Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.<br /><br />How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10.

At first i thought that it was just about Eddie Murphy talking to some stupid animals. I was right. Some people called this movie Eddie Murphy's comeback! Who are these people? Jesus if this is the best he can come up with he can just stay away. What was the story again? I was so annoyed by all the lame jokes i forgot. I should have walked out on this one.

This is an excellent film and one should not be put off by its strangeness. There is genuine skill in manufacture of this work. It manages to be intrigiung, funny and frightening at various times. Work with it for the first few minutes and you won't be disappointed

It might not be the best movie of 2006 but it was a just a movie to excite and to think about.The Sentinel is a good political thriller movie which seems similar to or even borrows some elements from other political thriller movies such as In the Line of Fire and The Manchurian Candidate. The basic plot of this movie is similar to other movies like this: A plot to kill the President of the United States. Michael Douglas stars as Secret Service Agent Pete Garrison who spearheads the operation only to find out later that he has been framed.Kiefer Sutherland co-stars as a sort of rival by the name of David Breckinridge and Eva Longoria as Jill Marin who is a rookie agent going under the guidance of Agent Breckinridge and Academy Award winner Kim Basinger as First Lady Sarah Ballentine. One improvement for this movie could have been more action as it is by some sources considered just as much an Action film as is a Thriller film but a good thing about this movie is instead of just an assassination plot to kill the US President,it also concerns a mole(traitor) in the Secret Service who is leading the President in the wrong direction.

When I found the movie in the schedule for Christmas, its title did not sound familiar to me since I have not read the novel and had not heard anything about the film. Yet, having read the content, I decided to spend my Christmas evening on watching the movie. The effect surprised me totally: I do not remember when I last saw a film in which every single moment involved me. A VOW TO CHERISH is, without any doubt, one of the movies that now constitutes a real surprise I have received from cinema. Here are some arguments of mine why I consider this film a highly underrated piece of good cinema. <br /><br />First, the entire content is particularly educational. It has something to offer to the modern audience - pure right faith and some answers for the universal questions. Is there a need for Christ in our times? Does Love still matter? What for is there faith? What is the logics of burden and suffering in life? Is there really Someone by my side I can always trust? The movie provides the answers through the content since all that happens to the characters may as well happen to any of us.<br /><br />Second, the movie is exceptionally humane. The main characters experience inner struggles and cope with extremely hard decisions. Is it better for Kyle David Denman) and Teri (Megan Paul) to start their own lives and forget about the family or retain the values they were taught at home? Is it better for John (Ken Howard) to leave Ellen (Barbara Babcock), his sick wife, and start a new happy life with Julia (Donna Bullock), a woman he falls in love with? In fact, Ellen no longer recognizes him... Yet, he decides to vow HIS WIFE eternal fidelity. Had John's rebellious brother, Phil (D. David Morin), better go on his easy life although it does not bring him satisfaction or once start to think seriously of his life. Phil's prayer to God in the park is a psychological masterwork of universal aspect of humanity. These words could be as well said by everybody no matter of where, when or how they live.<br /><br />Third, the movie is a great portrayal of family, not very popular nowadays: there are problems, yet, there is always something more powerful that gets these people together. This "something" is love and trust. I know that it may seem a bit idealistic. Not all families can rely on fidelity and it may not be as simple as that. Nevertheless, it is a very educational aspect and a realistic one.<br /><br />Fourth, the entire film focuses on people's mutual help. If we want to live happy lives in our society, we must understand one thing: we have to help one another. Alexander (Ossie Davis) is an example of such attitude. At the beginning of the movie, we see him talk to John about praying. Later, he helps his brother. Alexander is a kinda "angel" that is sent to John and his family. Isn't it possible that we may become angels to one another?<br /><br />Fifth, the artistic features are also worth attention. PERFORMANCES: Barbara Babcock gives an authentic performance as Ellen and although she has a difficult role, she does a perfect job. Consider, for instance, the moment she appears at school and badly wants to teach again. Ken Howard is also memorable as the faithful husband. PICTURE: The most memorable for me was the scene of John and Ellen in the park walking on the fallen leaves (autumn) while the sunshine (love) spreads everywhere. I interpreted as a sort of symbol: even if there is sorrow, this can always be illuminated by light and joy...<br /><br />A VOW TO CHERISH is a wonderful movie that realistically showed to me what it means to love, what fidelity is as well it once again proved to me how beautiful it is to live and believe. At the end, I would like to quote the profound words from the movie I found very touching and hope you will also do <br /><br />Kyle to his uncle Phil: Yes, he (John Brighton) lives according to the Bible. But nobody forces you to do so. Yet, according to what rules do you live?

My family goes back to New Orleans late 1600's early 1700's and in watching the movie I knew it was a history my grand-parents never talked about, but we knew it existed. I have cousins obviously black aka African Americans and others who can "pass" as white and chose not to. It's a hard history to watch when you realize that it's your family they're talking about and that Cane River is all a part of that history. It makes me want to cry and it makes me want to kick the 'arse' of my great grandfathers who owned those plantations and wonder in awe of how my great grandmothers of African heritage lived under that oppressive and yet aristocratic existence...And at the same time had I not come out of that history, I probably wouldn't be the successful business woman I am today living successfully in a fairly integrated world. The acting was both excellent and fair depending upon the actor, but it is a movie that NEEDED to be made. Anne Rice is incredible and I ask myself, why is she 'symbolically' writing about my family and I'm not. I recommend this movie to everyone. Leza

I have watched this film twice now and think its quite good for the limited equipment used to create this film. (filmed in 1947) Dr. Heyerdahl explains his theory about the migration of south American Pre-Colubian Indians to the Polynesia's islands by way raft fell of large balsa trees. This documentary follows Dr. Heyerdahl and crew as they select balsa trees in Equidor and float with them down river to the pacific for assembly in Peru. They launch off on a 101 day sea adventure testing the strength of their primitive raft surviving only by means available to natives of that era. See for yourself, a real adventure!

This is an excellent film and one should not be put off by its strangeness. There is genuine skill in manufacture of this work. It manages to be intrigiung, funny and frightening at various times. Work with it for the first few minutes and you won't be disappointed

After enjoying this show for years, I use to dream of being able to see them all again and share them with my grandchildren. I am so happy to pay a small amount for the memories that I have found recorded on DVD. Florida was a caring mother with a loving hard working husband, one spoiled beautiful daughter and two sons as different as day and night. Michael, the baby son is a freedom walker and JJ is a clown. I know many Afro-Americans disliked this show, but I know many can relate and should have accepted it as it was. My heart was sad when I learned that Ester Rolle had passed. Tyler Perry is now the leading writer actor of today and I support his work, but not as much since he made such cruel mocking of Rolle in one of his plays. No one should have to hear ugly things about physical appearance. The show started getting less interesting when Daddy James died. It picked up a bit when Florida remarried, but slumped when she took an absence from the show. In all, the show was great and again I am pleased to own copies of part of my past. I do try to keep up with the work of the former stars of Good Times, and I must say, they are one group who has not been wiped up and down with rumors. I think children of today will enjoy this show and I have no problem sitting and watching with children. Congrats to the writer, crew, and stars for years of renewed memories of a time that I can once again enjoy without having to skip scenes.<br /><br />OK so I watch the shows over and over. Lately I have noticed thing that has made me rethink the series, but not dislike them. I think Florida was a bit harsh when it came to money that the children made. Not that the children did not need supervision, but it was done in a way that makes Florida's mothering different. The scenes where Florida had to speak about how other people were not very good looking bothers me now. When James was alive, the show made a big thing out of James wanting his own Fix-it shop, but never lived to see his family out of the projects, but Florida marries someone who owns a fix-it shop. A bit of a slap in the face to an actor who should have ended his time on Good Times showing that he accomplished all he strove for. Lastly, As I watch the shows, I see the series going in to overtime and being renamed "JJ". To be truthful, after James left everything mostly centered around JJ. Not a bad thing, just a noticeable thing. I would not trade my DVD's for any amount of money, but time, maturity and experience began to guide your eyes after a while.

Along with Darkwing Duck this is unfairly cancelled. Disney has been in decline since Tarzan and we need a show like this to get Disney back on track. Ed Gilbert and Jim Cummings were perfect for the voices of Louis and Baloo (sounds familiar?) The theme theme tune is also catchy. Out of all the villains, which are all great on their own merits, Tony Jay stands out as Shere Kahn. Louis and Baloo actually sound very similar to the voice overs in the Jungle Book, which isn't a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact, it's quite inspirational! The animation was spot on, and the script had plenty of wit that has been severely lacking in animations for years. PLEASE BRING THIS SHOW BACK! 9/10. Bethany Cox

I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.<br /><br />That said...<br /><br />This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because "oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs." In this case, apparently so.<br /><br />Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.<br /><br />http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html

"It wasn't me! It was, er, my twin brother Rupert!" Bobby says to Dugan when confronted about being over at Sally's place. I have used this line dozens of times over the years (no one has yet to believe it, though).<br /><br />This movie is one of the all-time best for sheer fun and nonbelieveability. Steven Oliver was perfect for the part of Dugan, so much so that he was in 1978's "Malibu Beach" as the same character (not nearly as much screen time, though).<br /><br />"Nobody calls Dugan a turd!" is another line for the ages. This classic film was definitely worth the price of admission.

Was this a comedy or was it a drama? I begin this review by asking this question because the film that I just witnessed, Hollywood Shuffle, was neither funny or rather dramatic. While it tried so hard to make a point, because of this lack of definition (comedy or drama), the clever themes and pointed remarks were lost. While I am a strong believer that there is too much racial profiling happening in Hollywood, even today, I do not believe that Townsend's directorial debut did much to stop it. Instead, I feel it only added more fuel to the fire. Townsend's comic timing in this film was disastrous due to the fact that the elements he was supposed to be making fun of, he was instead promoting and vice versa. The parts that were supposed to be serious were somehow destroyed by the poor lack of funny comedy. Townsend had a decent concept with this film, but sadly the execution is what ultimately hurt this film. If you watch the preview before the film (which I constantly do), you will immediately get the wrong impression of what you are going to see. The preview gives the impression of a very intelligent, comic film that prides itself on the intelligence of the viewers, but the actually film could not be further from the truth.<br /><br />The main problem with Hollywood Shuffle is not story itself (because it is lacking in elaboration); it is Townsend's direction. He had a wonderful concept with this film. Exploit the Hollywood that exploits our race. Decent idea, but why couldn't he execute it very well? The first reason is that his ideas are too random and sporadic. The structure of this film was like watching a heart attack on a monitor at the hospital, we are literally everywhere without any warning or map. It was obvious that Townsend had quite a bit to say, but only a short amount of time to do it in. So, instead of defining his characters, developing his themes, and actually creating a smart film, he just throws it all together and prays that it works. Sadly, it doesn't. Instead of a smart comedy, we have a hodgepodge of so many ideas, comedic skits, and underused actors that this film goes from decent to nearly unwatchable. What hurts Townsend the most are his brief, attempt to be funny, interruptions throughout the film. From battling a villain known as Jerry Curl to parodying Siskel & Ebert, Townsend's attempt to poke fun while speak a message about the film industry falters. This is because these small intermittent skits actually distract from the central focus of the film and actually destroy internally. While Townsend seems to be trying to make a joke about life in Hollywood, he actually is simply connecting to every stereotype and cliché in the book. What could have been beautiful satire transforms into simply generic humor that never quite stands apart from the rest.<br /><br />So, if you find yourself not laughing at the humor of this story, perhaps there is some comfort in knowing that some of the Wayans brothers are around to help spice up this dull story. WRONG! The Wayans are in this film, but Townsend demonstrates that he has the ability to even bring the worst out even in this entertaining family. Definitely in their pre-In Living Color moments, we see that comedy was something that all needed to constantly improve upon. Perhaps it was Townsend's direction, or just maybe this atrocious story, but these typically funny comedians were obviously underused and ignored when it came to critics of this film. I just thought that with the talent pool that Townsend had to pull from that Hollywood Shuffle would have been funny, bright, and a true stab at this obvious Hollywood dilemma. Sadly, it was none of the above.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this was a workable film. There were some moments (while they were few and way far between) that had a smile on my face, the final product just didn't settle well with me. Townsend can be funny, but in this film it just felt like he was playing against himself, instead of through his personal experiences and troubles. I realize that he was probably speaking the truth, but it never came through as that. Instead, we are threaded through a weak story, which supports itself with idiotic flash clips that may have worked for a sitcom, but surely didn't work for this film. Even for those that comment that this was his directorial debut and that he was learning from this film, I would have to disagree. If you are starting fresh, either have a tight script or defined themes. Townsend had neither of these, and combined with the inability to control his actors, he just failed in a ball of flames.<br /><br />Overall, this was rather disappointing to watch. It reminded me of a grade school Spelling Bee where it is finally your child's time to spell. The word is tough, but as the first two to three letters come out, you think that it is going to work perfectly, but then there is that random "P" and silent "R" that forces your excitement to come tumbling down. That is how I felt with Hollywood Shuffle. At first, I saw the potential, I saw the theme and the motive behind the picture, but through fuzzy and inexperienced technique and after the first couple of scenes, I experienced that deep fall feeling. Townsend sank his own ship on this one, and I don't think Hollywood Shuffle will ever re-submerge as a pivotal moment of Hollywood cinema.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****

this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s.

I have to mention two failures for you to understand that this movie brilliantly succeeded where they failed: "A Scanner Darkly" and "Immortel Ad Vitam". If you were excited by the concepts of these two movies and felt woefully disappointed (like me), you will probably enjoy Renaissance. It immerses you into the world of a future Paris. It is not quite dystopian. They did the animation so well that I thought it was rotoscoped, but from what I can tell, it was not, it was merely motion capture. The facial expressions are amazing! Not since TRON have I seen a fantasy world so well displayed in an animation/live hybrid. The Black and White medium is used to slowly direct your attention to the subject of the scene; my favorite effect was what they did with headlight beams, watch for it. The director plays with your attention and confusion but you are satisfied eventually by finding the thread that he wants you to find. The overall effect is a harsh and gritty urban world filled with small surprises.<br /><br />The plot is secondary, but it isn't terrible. It is noir-ish. There is a backstory for most of the major characters giving them some depth. There is weather. There are "sets" so you can feel like you are in different places in Paris. There is some action, and even a car chase. I am going to have to see this one again to get everything. I also recommend a very large screen to view it as the "sets" are detailed and the credits are small.

The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in "Women in Love." The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.<br /><br />What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.<br /><br />A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way.

This first part of the BRD Trilogy has more passion and plot density than Lola, but less of the magic of Veronica Voss. The political musings have point to them: we see the shortages after the war, how the blackmarketers were able to control so much of the day-to-day life (delicious moment when Fassbinder, playing a grifter, tries to sell a complete set of Kleist to Schygulla, who remarks that burning books don't provide much warmth: she really wants firewood).<br /><br />There's some clumsiness in the first hour. The scene in Maria's room with the black soldier, interrupted by Hermann's appearance should go quicker. The train scene when Maria meets Karl Oswald falls flat when she insults the GI--I cringed, it was so bad. But as the story develops and the years go by, I was drawn more and more into this glossy, cold world.

As I write this review in 2008, we are mired in a remake culture. Movie studios seem determined to ruin as many classic films as they can with thoroughly pointless updates including 'King Kong, 'The Wicker Man' and practically every film that ever starred Michael Caine. This lazy remake mentality is not a new phenomenon, however, as 'Dough for the Do-Do' proves. An entirely pointless colorized version of Bob Clampett's surreal masterpiece 'Porky in Wackyland', 'Dough for the Do-Do' sucks the life out of the original by splashing colour all over Clampett's original footage and adding some lame new footage overseen by Friz Freleng. Freleng was an entirely unsuitable director to be tampering with Clampett's source material, although in truth no director could hope to come close to Clampett's inspired insanity. Inevitably, then, 'Dough for the Do-Do' is nothing more than the raping of a classic with an appalling new title attached. For cartoon fans like myself, its equivalent to a colorization of 'Casablanca'.

Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.<br /><br />There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).

This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.

The first and only time I saw the woman in black was I think the only time to my knowledge it appeared on TV back in 1989. It was Christmas eve and my father and i were watching it in the living room shortly before we all went to a midnight service in the village church. I was quite young at the time but i'm not sure who was more terrified walking through the church yard to the entrance of the church that night me or my father!.<br /><br />There are many factors about this film that make it so creepy but i think 0ne of them is the fact that there's not much in the way of a sound track that plays in the background of nearly every Hollywood movie, so every creak, thump and bang is more amplified in your head as there's no distraction. Another factor that makes it different from other ghost stories there's no jump factor involved like things bouncing out the closet so it makes it not necessarily what you see but what you hear and what you think is going on. This is a clever medium as nothing scares you more than your own mind running riot thinking whats around the corner or behind the door!<br /><br />A superb ghost story, I've never seen anything that can match it and with all the dross thats repeated over and over on TV i cant believe the BBC has deleted it after (to my knowledge) only one showing!

Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.

Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.<br /><br />Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song "Kitne Ajeeb" leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society!

I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.<br /><br />Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.<br /><br />Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...<br /><br />(9/10)

I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one.

Admittedly, Parsifal is not an opera that can appeal to everyone, although it is a favourite of mine, Knappertsbusch, 1951, in particular. Syberberg's entire approach is so static. Whenever the music suddenly begins to swell ... Syberberg keeps the cast moving at the same pace. The takes on Amfortas and Klingsor are endless. Whatever happened to film editing? The result is physically exhausting to watch. The viewer is never spiritually transported. Your impulse is to rush home and play a recording again to confirm that Wagner got it right, Syberberg got it wrong. And that set decoration with those "clever" reminders of Wagner's anti-Semitism -- will there ever be a viewer of this film with no prior knowledge of Wagner?

Bo Derek might have had a career had she not let her late husband, John, take over as her director. It's a real shame, no really, with the right direction and the right part (see "10"), Bo was okay. She wouldn't win any awards even at her best, but she is no worse than many an actress who has made it big in the past 15 years or so based on looks alone. But therein lay the problem, John was determined to ride the wave that Bo created with her appearance in 10, that of Bo being the "perfect 10," "the hottest woman in America," "the sex symbol of the 1980s." Problem is, in John's hands, this wave crashed with a resounding thud in only a few year's time. Maybe he knew her limitations as an actress, perhaps that is why he fashioned movies for her that concentrated on her body, not her acting skills. But it got old real quick. It didn't help matters any that the films of John and Bo Derek are (let's be honest) really, really bad. And bad sums up their take on Edgar Rice Burrough's literary icon, the Lord of the Jungle, Tarzan of the Apes.<br /><br />You know what's worst? This film is boring! Make me laugh, make me cry, just don't bore me. Not even Bo's stunning looks and figure can rouse any interest, and that is what the film is of course built around. Richard Harris (God bless his soul, he and Bo were previously in Orca btw) hams it up and makes his scenes at least a little interesting and Miles O'Keefe makes a physically impressive Tarzan. Maybe he got the last laugh, after being hit with a ton of venom from the critics over this film, Miles went on to a solid career as a B movie icon, in films that were not great art, but a million times more fun than this one. But other than that, it's Bo's body,and you can only see it so many times before you long for something else to go with it. Tarzan the Ape Man has nothing else. John Derek was a truly dynamic actor, he was not a director. He should have stayed with his strength. This film unfolds at a mind numbingly slow pace and nothing really happens in the action scenes. Burrough's Tarzan was all about excitement and wish fulfillment (who wouldn't want to be as agile, strong and good looking as Lord Greystoke?) and fun! You get none of that here. Watch it, and you will have wasted 107 minutes of your life. On second thought, you may come away with a valuable lesson, how not to handle someone's movie career. <br /><br />Bo Derek is all right in my book though. She stood by John until his dying day, has a true love of animals and nature and even looks back with a giggle at her time in the spotlight. She has also proven that she is not the dumb blonde many want her to make her out to be. If she could survive Tarzan and Bolero, she can survive anything. So come back Bo, all is forgiven.<br /><br />And as an aside, is the Steve Strong who plays the bad guy the same Steve Strong who a brief pro wrestling career?

Okay, so I have come a long way from Houston by now, but whenever I see this movie, I am taken back to a little cowgirl's dream to one day ride the bull at Gilley's. (It burned down before I was of drinking age.)<br /><br />If you grew up in in East Texas, then you know this movie is an accurate depiction of contemporary life at that time. If you didn't then trust me and watch the movie. Either you will join the many who love it (and at the same time strangely repulsed), or at the very least, you can make fun of the red-necks. (There is plenty material for poking fun.) This movie doesn't try to be P.C. (what was that in the 80's) or hide the white trash element and it is honest to the time and place.<br /><br />Gotta be a 10 for me!

Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.

I'm an admirer of Hal Hartley's films, especially 1997's "Henry Fool." "Fay Grim" is a sequel to that film, and has a similar style and sense of humor. The plot, however, is completely different. Fay Grim (played brilliantly by the iconic Parker Posey) tries to track down her missing husband's notebooks, and finds herself amid conspiracies and espionage. The supporting cast (most of the folks from the first film as well as Jeff Goldblum, Saffron Burrows, and a much-welcomed return from 90s indie-darling Elina Lowensohn) is excellent and the film has lots of surprises. The director claims this is part of a "Star Wars"-like trilogy, serving as the "Empire Strikes Back" of the series If this is true, I can't wait to see the third installment! I just hope I don't have to wait 10 more years for it.

This was a very entertaining movie and I really enjoyed it, I don't normally rent movies like these (ie. indie flicks) however, I was attracted to the film because it had an incredible cast which included Jamie Kennedy, whom I have loved since the Scream trilogy. The movie director took a risk (and it is a risky risk) in telling the lives of many (and I mean MANY) different people and having the intertwine at various intervals. Taking that risk was a good idea because it's end result is an exceedingly good film. <br /><br />The film has a few MAIN characters; Dwight (Jamie Kennedy) - a disgruntled fortune cookie writer whose relationship with his girlfriend is on the rocks because of an argument. Wallace Gregory (John Carroll Lynch) - an airplane loader/technician who has a love for all living things (except, perhaps meter maids) and who despite his good heart has an increasing amount of bad luck. Cyr (Brian Cox) - the owner of a Chinese restaurant/donut shop who is a germaphobe and because of is his fear of germs places his assistant/cook Sung -(Alexis Cruz) under pressure to keep up with his phobia. Ernie - (Christopher Bauer) is married to Olive - (Christina Kirk) who he is convinced is trying to; stop him have fun, look ridiculous, go insane, and not live a normal life. They begin to have petty and almost crazy arguments and Olive seriously begins to have doubts about Ernie. Gordon - (Grant Heslov) is a man whose life isn't going very well, as bad things begin to add up in his life he decides to take it in hand. Mitchel - (Jon Huertas) is convinced that Gwen - (Alexandra Westcourt) is the girl of his dreams and that they are destined for each other, though she is more skeptical. He attempts to woo her every chance he gets and he certainly makes attempts! Johnston - (Michael Hitchcock) has just been fired from his job and has doubts about his role as provider, he takes another job that he just isn't suited for. His wife Annelle - (Arabella Field) is comforting through out his job loss experience until she learns that Johnston wasn't quite the loving husband she thought he was.<br /><br />All in all I definitely suggest this movie!<br /><br />-Erica

The Brain (or head) that Wouldn't Die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. It is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self-parody. And the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead, Ginny Leith - a detached head kept alive by machines, I-Vs and clamps - seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. Shades of the under-rated Boxing Helena.<br /><br />The genderisms are plentiful, and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. The dialog is hyperbolic, over-dramatic and unbelievable, and the acting is merely OK (but not consistent). Why have I given this film a 4? Because some thought clearly went into it. I am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make, but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today's audiences expect).<br /><br />Another unique and interesting aspect of the Brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film, and none of the characters are particularly likable.<br /><br />All considered, this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s American pop sexuality, from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. Her lover is threatening to sew a fresh, high quality, body onto her and force her to continue living with him. She is understandably non-plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. Oh, there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok.<br /><br />Recommended for B sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. O/w not recommended.

I grew up in Brazil and I used to visit and marvel at the beautiful coast where the movie was filmed. The area is called "Parati" and is part of the "Green Coast" of the Rio de Janeiro state. It is some 150 miles from the Rio de Janeiro city.<br /><br />This movie brings back to life the world of 16th century Brazil, where Europeans were barely starting to explore the coastline, which was still in pristine state and sparsely populated by various native tribes. French and Portuguese fought each other for territory and for the upper hand on the Brazil wood trade, all the while negotiating with the natives, who also fought each other for whatever reasons.<br /><br />One French misfit ("a mercenary") is left to die by his own compatriots but manages to escape and is kept prisoner by an all-naked native tribe. While he is a "slave" of the chief, according to the customs of the tribe, he is allowed to live in relative comfort for months until the time is right for him to be killed and eaten in a ritual of revenge.<br /><br />What I love about this film is that it recreates in loving detail the natives' villages and their way-of-life (they walked naked and were cannibals) and asks us to recognize and accept the life in those times as it was: in a gorgeous garden-of-eden, life was messy, violent, full of pathetic superstition and bizarre customs. The Europeans arrive and bring their own problems, including more violence with better weapons and greed. There is no romanticized "noble savages" or "heroic explorers" here, it is just people trying to survive in a tough world.<br /><br />The movie is neither unduly sympathetic nor dismissive of the natives. From what I know of the subject, the depiction is fairly accurate which adds an air of uniqueness to the project: how many movies have you seen regarding the lives of Brazilian natives and their early affairs with Europeans?

Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.<br /><br />First we have the characters.<br /><br />Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.<br /><br />Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.<br /><br />Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.<br /><br />Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.<br /><br />Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.<br /><br />There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?<br /><br />Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.

Well.......in contrast to other comments previously written I have to say that the only good thing about this film is the fact that one guy in it looked a bit like Jason Donavon which reminded me of my youth. I have no idea how it won any awards, and although I'm sure a great deal of effort went into making it it was all fruitless as the final outcome is one which screams of early 90's foreign soap operas. The plot was non-existent, the cinematography was hopeless and the acting was on par with an a-level performance. It was unfortunately long and the sub-plots were incredibly unrealistic....for example....if your best friend slept with your ex-boyfriend of 6 years after only 2 weeks of being broken up you would not all remain the best of friends. It was all fantasy. That's all! Oh yeah, and the weird 90's house/soft core indie was mind numbing!

Guns blasting, buildings exploding, cars crashing, and that's just the first ten minutes. <br /><br />This action-packed film involving a rogue ex-CIA mercenary who can't seem to die no matter how many times he's shot (hence the title) is pretty decent. <br /><br />Tough and toothy Gary Busey, usually cast as a villain in these kinda flicks, has his usual crazy charm but is a bit more subdued: after all he's carrying the entire show. Which doesn't mean there isn't a lot of terrific supporting roles including William Smith, Luke Askew, Mills Watson, R.G. Armstrong, Henry Silva, Lincoln Kirkpatrick, Thalmus Rasulala, and several other "forgotten" character-actors. <br /><br />There's enough smaller action sequences to hold up the entire story: Busey has to free a group of "kidnapped" American military elites and return a high-tech "supertank" (a normal tank with a cheesy add-on pasted to the top) back to the States. <br /><br />But does America deserve this killing machine any more than the bad guys? This question is asked, of course, like in any film centering on the CIA... but without getting preachy.

I understand the jokes quite well, they just aren't good. The show is horrible. I understand it, and that's another horrible thing about it. The only cool character there EVER was on the show was that one hobo in that one episode, but then I see the other episode including that episode and the show is horrible. It's not funny, NOT funny! I don't want people to say "Only smart people get it" because if they're so smart why do they judge people they don't even know and say that they're not smart or intellectual enough to understand it? It's like saying "The sky is red" but never looking outside. But anyways, this is absolutely the worst show I have ever seen in my life, the jokes are terrible, I mean, you can understand them, they're just horrible, her controversy is very lame, her fart jokes and other jokes on bodily fluids are really dumb and usually consist of really bad acting. I'm not sure what these "smart" people see in this show, but judging others when they don't even know anything about any of us isn't exactly a smart comment.

i just finished watching Dressed to Kill,which is written and directed by Brian De Palma.the DVD had both the"R" rated version and the unrated version.i chose the unrated version.since i have yet to view the "R" rated version,i can't be completely sure of the difference.there is however a very graphic graphic female nudity including a scene of explicit expression of self gratification in this version.i guess you could call this scene soft core porn.if this sort of thing may offend you,i would suggest you view the "R" rated version.but i digress.Any comment from here on refers to the unrated version.this is a murder mystery/ psychological horror/suspense movie.there is very little violence and blood.there is however one death sequence of note.the act of the killing itself is fairly graphic.however the blood it self does not look real.it is reminiscent of how a 70's slasher film would look.i believe this is done deliberately to offset the violence of the act itself,to give the scene a low budget feel.most of the violence,or rather possibility of such,is implied.the film is very well paced.as far as i can tell every scene had a purpose,which i find very rare when compared to many of today's films. anyway,i also thought the acting was good,especially Angie Dickinson.and Micheal Cane turns in a quietly understated performance in his role,which works brilliantly in this case.the movie also has one great twist in it,in my mind,although some people might find it predictable.the only complaint(and it's really more of an observation)i have is that i thought the character played by Nancy Allen could have been fleshed out more,especially considering she has a fair amount of screen time.but i think she does a good job with what she is given.and this doesn't really take away from the quality of the film.the film also has a strong moral to it,which is even more relevant today.but the movie doesn't hit you over the head with it.i also really liked the musical score,composed by Pino Dinaggioi felt it was very similar to the music in the original Psycho.to me,this music really elevated the movie.i thought this movie was brilliant.for me,Dressed to Kill(1980)is 10/10

Oh man is this movie bad. It flows horribly. The story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself, and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this, doesn't love himself. He tries getting out of the contract and horrible, painfully unfunny gags ensue. Jim Nabors seems as if he's sleepwalking, not acting. You'll miss such Burt sidekicks as Dom Deluise and Jerry Reed while watching this stinker. Loni Anderson's hair is downright scary, proving that tons of hairspray didn't go out in the sixties. Or maybe that was a wig. Speaking of, Burt's wig wasn't bad in this film. His worst "wig day" was in "Smokey and the Bandit 2". Anyhow, this movie is the worst Reynolds car movie, ever, ever, right up there with "Cannonball Run 2". The original "Smokey" and "Cannonball" (and "Hooper" which, thankfully, had no sequel) are great, funny films. This one isn't. Even Ned Beatty, who is a great actor, stinks. You'll long for a Jackie Gleason type villain who is fun to hate. And mind you, this isn't one of those fun movies to bag on. It's lousy, pure and simple. Even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring, and worst of all, unfunny. And least I forget, "Stroker Ace" was one of the first heavy nails to seal Burt's coffin before his somewhat-revival years later in "Boogie Nights", another film that, like "Deliverance" years earlier, shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so.

In Don Siegel's 1971 masterpiece "Dirty Harry", Clint Eastwood epitomized the super-tough, super-cool unorthodox, no-nonsense cinema-cop with his role of the eponymous Inspector 'Dirty' Harry Callahan. Two sequels followed, the first of which, "Magnum Force", tamed down on the delightfully politically incorrect attitude of the first one that had outraged many critics but enthused audiences. The second sequel, "The Enforcer" was grittier again, and was promoted as "the dirtiest Harry of them all". This title, however, truly belongs to the fourth film in the series, Clint Eastwood's own "Sudden Impact", which is doubtlessly the grittiest, nastiest, most violent and downright dirtiest of all Harry films, and, in my humble opinion, the second-best after the masterpiece original.<br /><br />***Warning! SPOILERS ahead!*** In a small town near San Francisco, a mysterious sexy lady (Sondra Locke) lures men into being alone with her. What these men don't know is that mysterious beauty is their former rape victim, longing for bloody revenge. As fate wants it, San Francisco's toughest cop, Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan, who has been suspended once again for angering his superiors, spends his leisure time in this exact little town... "Sudden Impact" is the dirtiest Callahan film in several aspects. The film is extremely gritty and graphically violent. Harry Callahan himself is dirtier than ever. Not afraid to make use of his 44. Magnum in order to stop trouble, Harry treats 'punks' as they are to be treated and even allows a person to get away with several murders because the revenge-murders are justified in his opinion. Clint Eastwood is, as always, brilliant in the role of Harry Callahan. Eastwood epitomized coolness and bad-assery as the "Man With No Name" in Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy, and he did so again in the Dirty Harry films. "Sudden Impact" gives us the dirtiest Harry we have ever seen. Eastwood's real-life girlfriend Sondra Locke fits very well in the role of the vengeful beauty. The great Pat Hingle, who had already worked with Eastwood in Ted Post's tough-minded Western "Hang 'Em High" in 1986 plays the police chief of the small town. The film furthermore includes a wide range of truly despicable scumbag characters, including a pathetic criminal played by Kevin Major Howard (best known for his role in Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket") and a woman named Ray Perkins (Audrie J. Neenan), doubtlessly one of the most disgusting and despicable female characters ever in cinema. Albert Popwell, who played the bank robber in the famous "Do You Feel Lucky?" scene in "Dirty Harry" and the black militant leader in "The Enforcer" is also part of this one again, this time as Harry's colleague and buddy. Overall "Sudden Impact" is the grittiest, dirtiest and probably the most violent of all "Dirty Harry" films, (though "The Dead Pool" isn't exactly tame either), and my second-favorite after the brilliant 1971 original. An absolute must-see for Callahan fans, and highly recommended to all lovers of police thrillers and cinematic bad-assery. My rating: 8.5/10

This film is the most cult movie on metal there is. Premise: A kid gets a hold of the final recording of his favorite artist Sammy Curr who recently dies in a hotel fire. He plays it backwards and summons him back from the dead to get revenge in the name of heavy metal on those b**tardly jocks who torment him. Any fan of true metal will enjoy this movie, and if you are a metal head being tormented by jocks, play a Sammy Curr album backwards.........no wait he is fictitious, well get a hold of this movie and watch it with your fist in the air, your head banging, and the volume at 11!

Silly, hilarious, tragic, sad, inevitable.<br /><br />A group of down-and-outs team up with a "seasoned" crook to elevate themselves out of their poverty. Great idea...if you ignore the screwup factor.<br /><br />Nice to see George Clooney doing something genuinely funny for a change. The casting is perfect and the acting standards very high. Although it could be said that the motley crew subject isn't new, I think this movie handles it in an interesting and unique way. Sufficiently so that it stands out from what has gone before.<br /><br />Very well done guys.

This movie is wonderful. It always has been always will be. I'm mean really what is better then a house maid falling in love. Walt really out did him self here. And the music! A dream is a wish your heart makes is beautiful! What else can you say besides terrific! I can't wait until the special edition comes out it will be so awesome! I can't wait to hear all of the deleted songs! This movie is done so beautiful and smart! It is lovely. What about the cute mice too! I know i keep saying the same things over and over and over again but hey this is a great movie! Woods was terrific in this beautiful beautiful BEAUTIFUL movie

Jeff Wincott is not only a Hunk, he can kick butt! This movie has some of the best Martial arts moves I've seen in a very long time. Ok, so maybe Bridgette Nielson isn't the first person I'd hire to play a ruthless politician, she did a GREAT job nontheless! And let's not forget that Wincott has a partner in this movie played by Martial arts expert/stuntwoman Karen Sheperd. So she's not Cynthia Rothrock, Who CARES?! She's just as good, if not BETTER! (just check out her fight scene at the end of the movie, one word: OUCH!!). My suggestion would be to buy this movie as soon as possible, because if you haven't seen it, you're really missing out on some great martial arts action.

Having the opportunity to watch some of the filming in the Slavic Village-Broadway area I couldn't wait to see it's final copy.<br /><br />Viewing this film at the Cleveland Premier last Friday, I haven't laughed out loud at a comedy in a long time! It is great slapstick. The Russo Brothers did a fine job directing. The entire cast performs their best comedic acting... No slow or dry segments... George Clooney is one of my favorite actors and he's great as the crippled safe breaker in this flick. I was most imprest by William H. Macy as crook "Riley" and Michael Jeter's as "Toto" they keep you in "stitches". I believe they have the funniest roles in the entire movie.

The Broadway musical, "A Chorus Line" is arguably the best musical in theatre. It's about the experiences of people who live for dance; the joys they experience, and the sacrifices they make. Each dancer is auditioning for parts in a Broadway chorus line, yet what comes out of each of them are stories of how their lives led them find dance as a respite. <br /><br />The film version, though, captures none of the passion or beauty of the stage show, and is arguably the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical, as it is lifeless and devoid of any affection for dance, whatsoever. <br /><br />The biggest mistake was made in giving the director's job to Sir Richard Attenborough, whose direction offered just the right touch and pacing for "Gandhi." Why would anyone in his or her right mind ask an epic director to direct a musical that takes place in a fairly constricted place?<br /><br />Which brings us to the next problem. "A Chorus Line" takes place on stage in a theatre with no real sets and limited costume changes. It's the least flashy of Broadway musicals, and its simplicity was its glory. However, that doesn't translate well to film, and no one really thought that it would. For that reason, the movie should have taken us in the lives of these dancers, and should have left the theatre and audition process. The singers could have offered their songs in other environments and even have offered flashbacks to their first ballet, jazz or tap class. Heck, they could have danced down Broadway in their lively imaginations. Yet, not one shred of imagination went into the making of this film, as Attenborough's complete indifference for dance and the show itself is evident in his lackadaisical direction.<br /><br />Many scenes are downright awkward as the dancers tell their story to the director (Michael Douglas) whether he wants to hear them or not. Douglas' character is capricious about choosing to whom he extends a sympathetic ear, and to whom he has no patience. <br /><br />While the filmmakers pretended to be true to the nature of the play, some heretical changes were made. The very beautiful "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love"--a smashing stage number which took the dancers back to their adolescence--was removed and replaced with the dreadful, "Surprise," a song so bad that it was nominated for an Oscar. Adding insult to injury, "Surprise" simply retold the same story as "Hello, Love" but without the wit or pathos.<br /><br />There is no reason to see this film unless you want a lesson in what NOT to do when transferring a Broadway show to film. If you want to see a film version of this show, the next closest thing is Bob Fosse's brilliant "All That Jazz." While Fosse's daughter is in "A Chorus Line," HE is the Fosse who should have been involved, as director. He would have known what to do with this material, which deserved far greater respect than this sad effort.

Father and son communicate very little. IN fact they speak different languages. BUt when the son drives his father 3000 miles for his pilgrimage's to Mecca, the conversations finally take place. they are difficult and growth is necessary on both parts.<br /><br />This movie takes us into the hearts of these two travelers, and it is indeed a grand voyage for the audience as well as the two principals. The imagery throughout is impressive, especially the final scenes in Mecca. It underlines for me once again how much different the world can be, but also at the same time, how similar. The same was true for the father and son in this film.<br /><br />See this movie. Tell your friends to see it. You'll be glad you did.

This last Dutch speaking film of Verhooven made me laugh good. As a film buff looking for all the small details and cross references etc in any movie I can assure anyone interested in film art that this piece amuses all the senses. I haven't read Gerard Reves book, on which the film is based, but I still believe we get a candid picture of a somewhat self-conceited poet/writer who gets his (in a way - no spoiling here). An anti-hero surrounded by characters that have their ambiguous intentions, as has he. All this in a superbly packaged cinematography, Paul Verhopven manages to turn the otherwise rather cute "gesellich(?)" Dutch locations into a suspenseful film-noir setting, impressive work!

I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.

Back in the day of the big studio system, the darndest casting decisions were made. Good old all American James Stewart appearing as a Hungarian in The Shop Around the Corner. Had I been casting the film, the part of Kralik would have been perfect for Charles Boyer. His accent mixed in with all the other European accents would have been nothing. Stewart had some of the same problem in the Mortal Storm also with Margaret Sullavan.<br /><br />Margaret Sullavan was his most frequent leading lady on the screen, he did four films with her. But is only this one where neither of them dies. Sullavan and her husband Leland Heyward knew Stewart back in the day when he was a struggling player in New York. In fact Sullavan's husband was Stewart's good friend Henry Fonda back then.<br /><br />I think only Clark Gable was able to carry off being an American in a cast of non-Americans in Mutiny on the Bounty. Stewart in The Mortal Storm was German, but all the other players were American as well so nothing stood out. <br /><br />But if you can accept Stewart, than you'll be seeing a fine film from Ernest Lubitsch. The plot is pretty simple, a man and woman working in a department store in Budapest don't get along in person. But it seems that they are carrying on a correspondence with some anonymous admirers which turn out to be each other. Also employer Frank Morgan suspects Stewart wrongly of kanoodling with his wife. <br /><br />Though the leads are fine and Frank Morgan departs from his usual befuddled self, the two players who come off best are Felix Bressart and Joseph Schildkraut. Bressart has my favorite moments in the film when he takes off after Morgan starts asking people for opinions. He makes himself very scarce.<br /><br />And Joseph Schildkraut, who is always good, is just great as the officious little worm who is constantly kissing up to Frank Morgan. You really hate people like that, I've known too many like Schildkraut in real life who are at office politics 24 hours a day. Sad that it pays off a good deal of the time.

Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters.

I don't think most people give this movie as much credit as it deserves. I love low budget horror movies and this takes the cake, especially for originality. Yes the Scarecrow is a Kung-Fu fighting frightner, but why not? No one else is willing to go that far. I really haven't had this much fun watching a movie since Candyman. So the town picks on this one kid calling him scarecrow, even his mom doesn't care about him. Then he gets killed and the spirit is infused with in the Scarecrow, who then goes on a Killing spree. His demise is relatively easy to assume once the movie gets going. The dedications at the end go straight to a bunch of horror directors, but with most dedication towards Dario Argento really struck me as cool, these folks who wanna make movies of a newer genre. Over the movie has a lot of Arnold rip offs, with one liners you'll definitely laugh at like stick around and he kills the sheriff with a stick. I would say, grab a pizza some friends an laugh your A$$ off with this movie. I love it for its originality, most fun.

Having seen both "Fear of a Black Hat" and "This is Spinal Tap", I can honestly state that while similar, both movies are truly must see. There will be many times in "Fear" that will have you in hysterics. It is no wonder why both movies have such a huge cult following. "Fear" will soon be available on DVD. Rent it if you must, but the only way to fully enjoy this movie is to have it for yourself.

My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie. <br /><br />yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad... <br /><br />Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.<br /><br />*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!

This is one of the first independent movies I've ever seen. For such a very low budget, it was done well; as an insomniac myself, I can sympathize with the main character, although my sleeping problems have never been as intense or as disturbing. <br /><br />Well directed, well acted, of a subject that I haven't seen much in theaters, lighting and set both perfect for the movie setting. There are few noticeable goofs, but they may be intended; you'll see after you watch the movie. The movie is very personal, and worth watching twice. No movie is flawless, but a Hollywood version couldn't do the story better. all in all, 8/10.

I was pleasantly surprised by the film. Let's face it; the premise doesn't sound particularly appealing when having to hand over money for a the night's flick, but it had an easygoing nature that wins one over. There were no moments that I found uproarious, and I doubt any that I'll remember the next day, but this doesn't fail as a nice diversion. What I found funny was watching it here in Peking with my Chinese girlfriend who never understands anything I like. I told her there was a plot- three guys have to bring back some weed to London. Hardly satisfying for her. There is no mugging going on here for the camera which I'd been expecting after reading a number of the comments. I do take exception however to comparisons with Withnail and I; not in the same league, and I doubt was it intended to. www.imperialflags.blogspot.com

I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven".