Datasets:

FranckArmand

/

imdb_5k

like 0

Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.

Lord Alan Cunningham(Antonio De Teffè)is a nutjob{seen early on trying to escape an insane asylum}, with this castle slowly succumbing to ruin, likes to kill various hookers who resemble his deceased wife Evelyn, a woman who betrayed him for another man, with those red locks. This nutcase is quite wealthy and his bachelor status can be quite alluring. He, however, is overrun by his obsession with his late wife's memory(specifically her adultery..he saw her naked with the lover). While the memory of Evelyn is almost devouring his whole existence, Alan tries his best to find true love and believes he has with Gladys(Marina Malfatti, who spends most of the film naked..that's probably her lone attribute since she isn't a very good actress), who agrees to marry him after a very short courtship which should probably throw up flags right away{there's a key moment of dialogue where she knows exactly to the very amount what he is worth}.<br /><br />The only real person Alan can confide in is his doctor from the hospital, Dr. Richard Timberlane(Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). There are other key characters in this film that revolve around Alan. Alan's cousin, George(Rod Murdock), seems to be quite a good friend who often supplies him victims..I mean dates, while holding onto hope of getting his lord's estate some day. Albert(Roberto Maldera), Evelyn's brother, is a witness to Alan's slaughter and, instead of turning him into the police, squeezes him for cash. Aunt Agatha(Joan C Davis), wheelchair bound, lives at the castle estate and is often seen snooping around behind cracked doors. We later find that she is having a love affair with Albert.<br /><br />All that is described above services the rest of the story which shows what appears to be the ghost of Evelyn haunting Alan, someone is killing off members of the cast family that revolve around Alan, and the body of Evelyn is indeed missing.<br /><br />The ultimate question is who is committing the crimes after Alan and Gladys are married, where is Evelyn's body, and will Alan go over the edge? I have to be honest and say I just didn't really care much for this film. It's badly uneven and the pacing is all over the place. It looks great on the new DVD and the "rising from the grave sequence" is cool, but what really hurts the film in my mind is that the entire cast is unlikable. You really have a hard time caring for Alan because he is a psychotic who is skating on thin ice in regards to holding his sanity. He can be quite volatile. Who commits the crime really isn't that great a surprise for after several key characters are murdered off, there aren't but a choice few who could be doing it. What happens to Alan doesn't really make your throat gulp because you can make the argument he's just getting what he deserves. Those behind the whole scheme of the film in regards to Alan, as I pointed out before, aren't that shocking because if you are just slightly aware of certain circumstances(..or advantages they'd have)that would benefit them with the collapse of Alan's sanity, then everything just comes off less than stellar. I thought the editing was choppy and unexciting, but the acting from the entire cast is really below par. Some stylistics help and there is a sniff of Gothic atmosphere in the graveyard sequences to help it some.

At first, three words: READ THE BOOK! Really guys - this demonstrates the difficulties of genuine rendition of esoteric matters. I loved the book and was utterly disappointed of the film. It was ludicrous, with half a heart and the story bad explained. The novel - in the first place! - wasn't meant to focus on an adventure! That's only the surroundings. In the film, the focus reverses to just that and the message has taken a back seat! Additional, the visual effects to show the energy of all living things and the elucidation of the events at the end were parsimonious! They screwed it up! ... I'll never watch it again!

First off, I must admit that both films I've seen by this director I saw without titles and so may have missed the points. My Czech isn't bad but, having sat through two of his films, I wish I hadn't even tried to learn. Samotari is too cool. Way too cool. It's about ten different story lines that weave in and out together. That's not so deeply unusual in a town the size of Prague (tiny, really.) The main characters are between 20 and 30. They've got jobs and only one studies. The best character is the young Balkan girl. Her sentiments are echoed by immigrants here every damn day. That's about it. The only great character. Everyone else is making their own lives hell quite on their own. How can I sympathise with such obvious incompetence? Perhaps there are interesting bits with Japanese tourists but do I need another stereotype in film? If you like alright music, see this film. If you want to laugh at others' stupidity, see this film. If you like irony and dry humor, see an original Jarmusch not an imitation. And under NO circumstances see Ondricek's film, Septej (Whisper.) That is unless you enjoy homophobic stereotypes.

So I finally saw the film "My Left Foot" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.<br /><br />The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.<br /><br />There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.<br /><br />So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.

the cover of the box makes this movie look really good, don't be fooled. splatter university came out in 1984 which was the last good year for horror, but this movie sucks. the characters are so annoying. only the teacher is cool. there is like no plot to this movie, who the hell would ever produce this waste of a film?<br /><br />spoilers up ahead<br /><br />the teacher dies in this, and it was a female, we all know that we must have a female surviver, if you're going to break the rules do it in a good horror flick not this waste

pokemon the movie was a terrible film. unlike the first one, this is not a good film at all. the graphics were decent but the story was flat and no real drama was built up in it. in the first one the interaction between the characters were decent. the subtraction of brock and addition of tracey was bad. tracey really doesn't have much to say or do, and unlike brock offers no comic relief. the only good points is you get to see misty actually get jelous over ash, and her early brooding over being called his girlfriend was entertaining. overall this film isn't worth renting and the short movie before didn't do anything for me or my wife. and we do consider ourselves pokemon fans.oh well, maybe the next one will be better.cant ge t much worse

... and I have seen some bad ones.<br /><br />I have nothing good to say about this movie. The acting is poor by Jennifer Tilly - as to be expected. Daryl Hannah does an OK job, but nothing close to being able to save this movie.<br /><br />The biggest flaw in this film is that the plot is so weak - though based on a good premise - that the writer resorted to the "stupid heroine trick" to create a contrived suspense. When all Daryl Hannah would have to do is hide, she runs out in front of her pursuer. The hospital scene is absurd. Without exposing too much of what passes for a plot, I think it would be difficult for a bloody petite woman to carry a pregnant from a hospital without being noticed. Lame. Very lame.<br /><br />Save yourself some time and pick out another flick.

Okay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first "skull scene" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad. <br /><br />Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, "The Projected Man", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.<br /><br />Ooops, sorry. Yes, "The Projected Man". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, "The Projected Man" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for "The Projected Man":<br /><br />ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8.

This stylistically sophisticated visual game presents ‘a story within a story'. The protagonist is scriptwriter Bart Klever who fights persistently with his new text – which is, at the same time, the screenplay of the film we're watching. In the movie Bart plays a scriptwriter writing the script of the film… Bart's struggle with the text becomes a narrative theme, as does the environment of the flat where he works and takes care of his little girl. The intimate environment offers ample opportunity for games of illusion involving space, light, colours and a couple of cats. The outwardly simple world of the room is further complicated by the unstable dimensions of a text continually influenced by the filmmaker's interventions, which appears on a computer monitor and serves as a counterpoint to the similarity mutable environment. The constantly changing viewing angle complicates answers to questions which arise: What is ‘truth' and what ‘illusion' ? Which of the observed worlds is primary and superior to the rest? Can anything serve as a basic orientation point in the narrative space?

"The 700 Club" has to be the single most bigoted television program in the history of television itself. To make matters worse, it's been on the air since 1966, implying that thousands if not millions of people are buying into its hate and lies. Headed by Pat Robertson, the unscrupulous, megalomaniacal founder and leader of the Christian Coalition, "The 700 Club" takes us from misinformation to misunderstanding, broadcasting "news" as they like to think of it and trying to convince its audience that all of the world's problems are to blame on homosexuals, Wiccans, New Age spiritualists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, non-Fundamentalist Christians, Democrats, single mothers, foreigners, feminists, evolutionists, environmentalists, NASA scientists, and anyone else who doesn't share their fanatical religious views. It's actually the best fake news since "The Daily Show" or the "Weekend Update" segment of "Saturday Night Live," or since "FOX News," for that matter. Of course, Pat's always the one who makes each of the decisions, saying whatever comes to mind and not giving a damn who it offends or hurts. In the meantime, he continues his part in the struggle to transform the United States into a militarized police state by having the Religious Wrong stick their noses in everything they can and asking for one donation after another - no less than a measly $100 to become a member, by the way - to fund Pat's African diamond mines and buy oil from companies reprimanded by the government in the past for their abuse of the environment. No, never mind that Pat was good friends with the genocidal dictators of Zaire and Zimbabwe in order to help him acquire such wealth; it's all for the greater glory of God, don't you know? And of course, the hosts of "The 700 Club" are always willing to read letters "written by viewers" as they like to put it, coincidentally each typed in the same format and all on the same color of paper by "viewers" supposedly healed of various afflictions by the said hosts (they claim to have "words of knowledge" come to them) but who NEVER APPEAR on the program to say what happened to them. Honestly, how can anyone take a show seriously when they're using a poor applause recording? It should make people wonder why there's no studio audience.<br /><br />The sad thing that Pat's cronies and viewers don't realize or just don't WANT to realize are the horrible things he's done and said. This is a guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States were the result of God punishing us for our acceptance of homosexuality and feminism. Ironic, considering that Pat has twice publicly referred to the implementation of a nuclear weapon in the State Department; I have little doubt it was his wealth that kept him from getting arrested for such statements. His rants against homosexuals, single mothers, and any number of sexual practices he considers "sinful" are interesting, considering he was known to frequent a number of brothels during the Korean War. As the Bible says, be fruitful and multiply, so congratulations, Pat - thanks to you, there's probably a number of children born to single Korean mothers. Then, of course, there was the time he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (not that he's a saint, but still). Oh, yes, and let's not soon forget the time this "crusader for human life" supported forced abortions in China. Very "Christian" of him, wouldn't you say?<br /><br />And just in case Pat has forgotten, I haven't forgotten his little speech that evangelical Christians today are "being treated exactly as the Jews were in Nazi Germany." Honestly, to compare his "plight" to the horrors of the Holocaust is almost unforgivable. Speaking of which, need I mention about how he blatantly lied that homosexuality ran rampant among the Nazi party in a pathetic attempt to discredit homosexuals? Of course, history shows us that the Nazis acted toward homosexuals the same way they acted toward Jews. Pat Robertson is one of the biggest liars in history. If he was Pinocchio, his nose would encircle the Earth.<br /><br />Unfortunately, more and more people continue to believe him every day. This is your wake-up call, people; "The 700 Club" is one of the most if not the single most vile program in television history. It's evil masquerading as good; it's a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. It's bigoted filth that tries to look clean, pretty, and loving. It's living proof that hateful, dangerous religious views aren't confined to certain groups in the Middle East. Even those who are not of the Christian faith know that it goes against everything Jesus taught, and if Jesus was to appear to this "club," He wouldn't be emulating them. Instead, He'd be chastising them as He did the Pharisees of His time and overturning the money bins of their telethons as He did in front of the synagogue in His time. All I can say is thank God that Pat had no chance of becoming President; if he did, he'd be the harbinger of Armageddon - and not on the side of the good guys.

Hard to categorize the film - perhaps it's an avant garde spy thriller? Mother Night is a very good Vonnegut novel, and most certainly one of his easiest novels to adapt into a feature length film. The film adaptation is very faithful to the original book. The "indie" approach to how this film was produced is probably more effective than having a big Hollywood studio financing it. These days, I doubt an intelligent novel like Mother Night would ever get the green light from the big Hollywood grindhouses. And normally that is too bad, but not in this case. Mother Night has tight direction and a solid cast. Nick Nolte who seems to be getting better roles as he gets older, still has that "everyman" persona that allows him to take on a wide range of different characters. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and great as always. I always thought she deserved better than she got out of the entertainment industry. I guess making your debut as a dead girl (Twin Peaks)with little air time isn't the choicest of roles, even if the TV show becomes a minor phenomenon. Anyway this film is totally enjoyable and you don't have to read the book to understand the movie. In fact, given today's geopolitical realities, the novel's premise may appear dated, and some younger viewers with little knowledge of history will be utterly confused by the events unfolding (I am talking to you, fellow Americans who are students and scoring the lowest in the industrialized world in geography, history, and lord knows what other subjects!).

I can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.

This movie has great stars in their earlier years: Ingor Stevens never looked prettier; Yul Brynner was a very convincing Jean LaFitte, conflicted about his piracy and desiring to keep neutrality with the United States. Charlton Heston did a pretty good job as Andrew Jackson, but some moments were a bit stilted. It's really a good flick for students to learn that part of our history, AND it shows that all happy endings do NOT include the lovers getting together with each other--sometimes the happier ending is that they sail away and find partners of similar background who will understand them better in the long run. I have viewed it every year at least twice for 16 years now; and though it is not the best movie I've ever seen, I love it every time!

'Una Giornata Particolare' is a movie that has a title that sounds so familiar I thought I had seen it more than once. Now that I finally I have seen it, I am very glad. This is one of the better Italian movies I know, with one of the most wonderful performances by Marcello Mastroianni, who stars in other masterpieces such as 'La Dolce Vita' and '8 1/2', both from the great Federico Fellini. Directed by Ettore Scola, this is a movie that takes the time to introduce the characters and slowly develops a story on a special day, the day Adolf Hitler visited Rome.<br /><br />Marcello Mastroianni plays Gabriele, the neighbor of Antonietta (Sophia Loren). She is a member of Mussolini's party, pretty fanatic in her thoughts, and he is a member no more. The reason for that I will not reveal. On the day every person from their building, including her husband and children, is out to see Hitler, they are still in the building. Antonietta's bird escapes and flies to Gabriele's apartment, and this is how the two meet. Right before Antonietta went to Gabriele he thought of killing himself, again for reasons I will not reveal. How the story develops from here I will not reveal, but it is what happens between the two that makes this such a special day, not the fact that Hitler is in Rome.<br /><br />Like I said, Mastroianni has a wonderful performance. You see he is a man who desperately wants someone around him, although at first we don't know why. May be he likes Antonietta, may be he is in love with her, may be there are other reasons. Antonietta feels what we feel. What does this man want from her? She likes the attention anyway. We see how she does her hair to look attractive for the man. Loren plays the scenes very good as well. We understand her questions, although we can't be sure what her intentions are. The moments where we find out both their secrets, if that is what you can call it, is a great moment. How the story develops from there is even more interesting, but I don't want to spoil it for you. This is a movie you should see. Great performances and a beautiful cinematography, and the message it gives us still stands today.

Wow. I read about this movie and it sounded so awful that I had to see it, and my gosh, I can smell it in St Louis. Where do I start? National Lampoons was trying to follow up 5 years later on the success of Animal House, but they completely missed the mark. I'll go chronologically with these short flicks.<br /><br />Short Film #1 <br /><br />Poor Peter Riegert (Boon from Animal House). Apparently, he wasn't working back then, so the boys at National Lampoons probably called and said "hey, we're making a c**ppy movie, wanna be in it?" Peter was like "well, I'm not doing much these days, why not?" He was a great side character in Animal House, but he couldn't carry this sorry short flop for 5 minutes.<br /><br />POSSIBLE SPOILER The premise is funny enough, with Jason Cooper (Riegert) telling his wife to leave him, she needs to find herself. It's too weird that they're actually in a happy marriage. So he chases her off, there she goes, and Cooper is in charge of the kids. This, off course, leads to him burning the house down, losing several of the kids, and sleeping with an assortment of New York bimbos (including an ever so young Diane Lane). Then the wife comes back, wants the kids, and the film ends with a coin flip that'll decide the fate of the children. The idea was actually somewhat clever, but the director stunk. The characters all seem like they're falling asleep, they HAD to be doped up. Sorry Boon, your legacy was tarnished with this flop.<br /><br />Short Film #2 <br /><br />MORE SPOILERS <br /><br />Enter Dominique Corsaire. Pretty girl, recently finished college, not sure what to do with her life. So she becomes a slut, starts sleeping around with some mega rich guys, takes their money when they die, and she doesn't stop until she beds the most powerful man in the world, Fred Willard (Ooops, I mean the president of the United States). Once again, it could have been funny, and though I was happy that Corsaire (Ann Dusenberry in real life) wasn't afraid to bare all, her acting was horrible. What a waste of time.<br /><br />Short Film #3 <br /><br />I can't believe I made it this far. Here's the rookie cop Brent Falcone (Robby Benson) with veteran Stan Nagurski (Richard Widmark). Falcone is young, naive, thinks he can really help people, though he becomes cynical after being shot several thousand times. Nagurski, really, has just given up caring. He watches muggings, assaults, you name it, and never intervenes. He figures the world is lawless and he'll probably get sued if he does anything. Even Christopher Lloyd (at the end of Taxi's run) gets in on the action, getting the police called on him, committing a crime, but having his lawyer there to protect him. God bless America!!<br /><br />Once again, could have been funny, the performances were intentionally campy, but goodness, no energy whatsoever. Henry Jaglom and Bob Giraldi should be ashamed of having their names on this schlock. I think the writing wasn't bad, the ideas were there, but the execution was pulled off as well as the rescue attempt in the Iranian hostage crisis. If I had been a part of this film, I would want my name removed, it's horrible. Then again, that's why I watched it.<br /><br />The only good thing about this garbage is that Dr John did the film score (repeating "Going to the Movies" over and over again) and the film isn't much longer than an hour and a half. Show this one in film classes with the heading "what you should NEVER do in film-making." This script should have been left on the shelf because yep, it's that bad.

*** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! ***<br /><br /> This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, "How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember "Truth or Dare", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does.<br /><br /> You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the "crossover" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen "Glitter"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it. <br /><br /> If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess.<br /><br /> ***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...***<br /><br /> Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the "Hollywood Ending" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell.<br /><br /> *** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***

It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.

Next to "Star Wars" and "The Wizard of Oz," this remains one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. It's a true shame it's not as well-known as the former films (maybe because it sticks to a story based on legends rather than contemporary or sci-fi settings, and that it's British, meaning a smaller market for films) but its wonderful to know that it's deserved that reputation.<br /><br />Like all great family films, one can be a child, an adult, or even a teenager to enjoy this film (I'm currently 18), but one must appreciate classic films first. I absolutely adore this film. It has an extraordinary music score by Miklos Rozsa (perhaps my favorite classic film score) that rivals any John Williams "Star Wars" score, a fast but not flashy pace, beautiful sets, dialog, and use of color (both the sets and cinematography won Oscars), and state-of-the-art Oscar-winning special effects (for the time, and some are still stunning). And, of course, June Duprez's sultry looks as the Princess rivals that of Catherine Zeta-Jones' (she even looks like Jones in a way!).<br /><br />In conclusion, this is one of my all-time favorite movie (next to "The Adventures of Robin Hood") and it truly deserves more attention. It is a true adventure of enchantment throughout, and, along with "Robin Hood," it's my desert island film that I could watch over and over again without getting annoyed.<br /><br />Stars: **** (excellent)

Hello Dave Burning Paradise is a film for anyone who likes Jackie Chan and Indiana Jones. The films main protagonist is most definitely the bastard son of these two strange fathers. As for the other characters well they are familiar transformations of similar action film stereotypes. Where this film is original is in the blending of the traditional Hong Kong movie style with the Hollywood action adventure. Sadly this has not been true of the films he has made in Hollywood.

Stumbling upon this HBO special late one night, I was absolutely taken by this attractive British "executive transvestite." I have never laughed so hard over European History or any of the other completely worthwhile point Eddie Izzard made. I laughed so much that I woke up my mother sleeping at the other end of the house...

I see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).<br /><br />I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...<br /><br />Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the "Nothing to Do With Reality" department.

The movie itself is so pathetic. It portrayed deaf people as cynical toward hearing people. True, some deaf people are wary of dating hearing people, but they are not necessarily angry like of Marlee Matlin's character was throughout the story. Deaf people do not go to the bar and dance the way Matlin did. All in all, the movie itself is more boring than pathetic. It is so boring that I'd like to believe that it is an insomnia-cured movie. If I have a problem sleeping, I can simply pop in Children of a Lesser God and watch. It will put me to sleep.<br /><br />Keep in mind, this is a deaf guy talking.

I'm sorry, but even TJ Hooker's Adrian Zmed couldn't save this sequel. I went through half the movie thinking that this was a spoof of the original. Then came that wild and wacky motorcycle scene (notice that this is the only movie that Patricia Birch directs); and I sadly realized they were trying to be serious. I did get a kick out of the fact that the opposing gang, having lost their "wheels" due to their gambling habits in the original Grease, were forced to use motorcycles in the second movie. Being shamed by that putz character Carrington, I'd hate to see what they would resort to later: maybe Mopeds?<br /><br />I also never bought the hackneyed theme: hunky-Australian-boy-can't-fit-into-Outsiders-dominated-school-ergo-goes-for -tough-guy-with-stupid-biker-helmet-look. It was Disney story gone horribly awry.<br /><br />So, it looks like you CAN ruin a good thing by placing a bubble-gum smacking Michelle Pfeiffer in a musical. The only thing I took away from this movie was an idea of how many points out of ten to give it.

Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere.

Love hurts. That, I think, is the main message Mike Binder's newest film Reign Over Me brings across. Whether that love has caused your relationship to become stagnant, or has brought anger from the one you love cheating for years, or has broken your heart to the point of being unable to open yourself up to the world, love hurts. The great thing about this film, however, is not in its portrayal of these lost souls trying to let their past heartbreaks go, but in the eventual restart of new bonds for the future. No one in this drama is perfect; they are all at some degree trapped emotionally in relationships that they can't free themselves from alone. There is some heavy subject material here and I credit Binder for never making the story turn into a political diatribe, but instead infusing the serious moments with some real nice comedic bits allowing the tale to stay character-based and small in scale compared to the epic event that looms overhead. What could have become a trite vehicle for opinions on how 9-11 effected us all, ends up being a story about two men and a connection they share that is the only thing which can save their lives from a life of depression and regret.<br /><br />This is a new career performance for Adam Sandler. I like to think that my favorite director Paul Thomas Anderson was the first to see the childish, pent-up anger in his stupid comedies as something to use dramatically. The juvenility of a character like Billy Madison allows for laughs and potty humor, but also can be used to show a repressed man, shy and shutout to the world around him—a man with no confidence that needs an event of compassion to break him from his shell. Anderson let Sandler do just that in his masterpiece Punch-Drunk Love and Mike Binder has taken it one step further. Sandler plays former dentist Charlie Fineman whose wife and three kids were killed in one of the planes that took down the World Trade Center on 9-11. That one moment crushed any life that he had and as a result, he became reclusive and started to believe he couldn't remember anything that happened before that day. He really delivers a moving portrait of a man trying to keep up the charade in his head while those around him, those that love him, try and open him up to the reality of what happened and what the future holds. Always on edge and ready to snap at any moment when something is mentioned to spark the memory of his perished family, he goes through life with his iPod and headphones, shutting out everything so as not to be tempted remember.<br /><br />Reign Over Me is not about Charlie Fineman though, it is about dentist and family man Alan Johnson. A man that has trapped himself into a marriage and dental practice that both have stagnated into monotony, Johnson needs as much help in his life as his old college roommate Charlie does. Played perfectly by the always brilliant Don Cheadle, Johnson has lost his backbone to try and change his life. He has no friends and when he sees Charlie, by chance, one day, his life evolves into something he hasn't felt in 15 years. He revels in the chance to go out with an old friend no matter how much he has changed from the death of his family. Cheadle's character wants to revert back to the college days of hanging out and Sandler's doesn't mind because all that was before he met his wife. The two men get what they want and allow themselves to grow close despite the years of solitude that used to rule their lives. Once they begin opening up though, it is inevitable that the subject of the tragedy will creep up and test the façade they have created for themselves.<br /><br />The supporting cast does an amazing job helping keep up appearances for the two leads. Jada Pinkett Smith has never been an actress that impressed me and throughout the film played the tough as nails wife nicely, but it is her final scene on the phone with Cheadle that really showed me something different and true. Liv Tyler is a bit out of her element as a psychiatrist, but the movie calls her on this fact and makes the miscasting, perfect casting. The many small cameos are also effective, even writer/director Mike Binder's role as Sandler's old best friend and accountant, (my only gripe here is why he feels the need to put his name in the opening credits as an actor when it is everywhere, considering it is his film). Last but not least is the beautiful Saffron Burrows. She is a great actress and plays the love- crushed divorcée trying to put her life back together wonderfully. A role that seems comic relief at first, but ends up being an integral aspect for what is to come.<br /><br />Binder has crafted one of the best dramatic character studies I have seen in a long time. The direction is almost flawless, (the blurring between cuts and characters in the fore/ background really annoyed me in the beginning), the acting superb, and the story true to itself, never taking the easy way out or wrapping itself up with a neatly tied bow at the conclusion. Even the music was fantastic and used to enhance, not to lead us emotionally, (why after two great uses of the titular song by The Who did Binder feel the need to use the inferior Eddie Veddar remake for the end, I don't know, but it did unfortunately stick out for me). Reign Over Me is a film about love and how although it can cause the worst pain imaginable, it can also save us from regret and allow us to once again see the world as a place of beauty and hope.

Oh, man, how low serials had fallen as by 1952! This dull thing is precisely the kind of serial that annoyed Annie Wilkes (from Misery). Not only the heroes escape the traps by adding scenes that weren't there in the previous chapter (and that COULDN'T possibly be there - tell me that when the baddies blow up the plain in episode 7 to 8 they wouldn't see the characters jump), but I think this serial has the World's Record of Stock Footage. I mean, most of it is stock footage! And not just from another serials (apparently all the flying sequences come from King of the Rocket Men, and the cool "molten rocks" scenes of episode 2 to 3 is from Adventures of Captain Marvel), but from itself! The whole "trip to the Moon" sequence (which is probably the shortest ever, it's 30 seconds long and the characters never seem to leave Earth's atmosphere) from episode 1 is repeated in episode 8! And episode 10 is ALL scenes from previous episodes! (Ever wondered why MST3K never did episodes 10, 11 and 12? Well, they had to stop after 9 so they didn't have to do the whole thing again!).<br /><br />Don't get me started on the science factor. Prepare to see the sunniest Moon ever! And Moon men that can not breathe on their own world? What were they smoking? <br /><br />And if this is not enough, it's too talky and the stunts (usually the best thing in serials) are few and far. Visually-wise, am I the only one who thinks that Commando Cody's bullet-shaped (or is it lemon-shaped) helmet is totally ridiculous-looking? The Rocketeer's was way cooler, no matter how bad that movie was (and man, was it awful). The tank-like vehicle isn't much better, it looks like a bunch of kids made it for Halloween. The only positive thing I can think of about it is that the actor who plays the hero is homely instead of the usual muscular hunk (hey, everybody has the right to be an hero!), but then he's so unappealing...<br /><br />Not even worth watching for nostalgia's sake. See Captain Marvel instead. 2/10.<br /><br />(BTW, check out the Memorable Quotes section for a real Women's Lib pearl).

Did anyone read the script. This has to be some of the worst writing and directing of the entire year. Three great actors, Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz and Miranda Richardson couldn't pull this one out. About two-thirds it looked like Giamatti eyes were saying, I can't believe I signed the contract. It's not the worst movie I ever saw, but it's on the really really bad Christmas movie list. Not enough lines, but what else can be said? Okay, the movie just doesn't move with Vaughn's con-man dialogue, his character is just a creepy guy that you just can't get past. It was just a lackluster walk through, that no one seemed to be able to get into.

If you've ever wanted to see a film that stresses style over substance, this is for you. To me, Son de Mar is beautiful to SEE, but there's precious little substance, unless mawkish, melodramatic, manipulative love yarns turn you on. This may be one of those famous 'chick flicks' you've heard so much about. <br /><br />We're about half-way through this film before anything really happens: Ulises (Jordi Molla) goes out to sea looking for tuna, and doesn't come back, leaving his wife Martina (Leonor Watling) and son to fend for themselves. Then, in a furious six minutes of screen time, they bury Ulises, Martina gets married again, and her son grows into mid-childhood. This rapid transposition is jarring, to say the least, and very sloppy: after 40 minutes of more or less hanging around, we're suddenly into a full-blown melodrama, all in six minutes. I think this is called wayward narrative pacing.<br /><br />Five years later, Ulises (as in the wandering superhero Ulysses; get it?), returns to his 'Penelope' (Watling) only to find she's married to Sierra (Eduard Fernandez), an inexplicably wealthy guy (what does he DO to earn all that dough?) who inexplicably keeps crocodiles as pets. When Martina, in great anger, questions Ulises about his absence, he tells her that he'll take her to the island of Sumatra someday and she'll understand EVERYTHING.<br /><br />And here's the thing: he DOESN'T take her to the island of Sumatra. The reference just dies somewhere in the script. He DOESN'T really explain where he was and why he ignored his wife and child for five years. He DOESN'T acquit himself as an honourable guy, and the movie DOESN'T fill in the plot holes that are staring at us for at least half of the film. I can only assume that director Bigas Luna wants us to fill in the story lines with the mystical clues (fish, reptiles, the sea) he offers through breathtaking cinematography and evasive dialogue. It just doesn't work. The narrative 'arc' on this film ends up looking more like a wobbly clothesline.<br /><br />I'm sure Jordi Molla is a good actor, but I just couldn't buy his Ulises as any kind of hero (which is what the original Ulysses was supposed to be). With moist sensuality, he spouts a short stanza of identical poetry from Virgil roughly 2,000 times and each and every time it excites Martina to explosive orgasm. This guy should be rented out to reinvigorate stale marriages. I'm sure Virgil would be impressed. He didn't get laid that often, as I understand it. <br /><br />This poetic 'device' figures prominently in the film, and I had no choice but to assume it was a gender reversal of Ulysses' famous 'siren song' (i.e. beautiful maidens singing seductively to far-off sailors, who were doomed if they answered the, well, siren call). If this is what Bigas Luna is up to, you can see the problem -- he's offering convoluted symbolism in a snatch-and-grab attempt at High Art. Once again, it just doesn't work, at least in my eyes.<br /><br />Watling is a beautiful and magnetic young actor, but she gives us a character here who doesn't seem to have much intellectual or even romantic depth. It's beyond me how she could desperately fall in love with a guy who sports a for-rent sign on his face (as in vacant), oily 1960s-style hair that looks more like seaweed, and one of those trendy 21st-century 'beards' (you know, four days' growth, no more, no less). He's SUPPOSED to be a dreamy kind of guy (I think), but those eyes of his suggest he might be suffering more from overexposure to a preposterous script. <br /><br />But, don't despair, this film is great to look at. Just don't try to connect the dots on the red herrings or think too much about what you're hearing in the way of dialogue. You can do a lost of fast-forwarding on this film (particularly in the first 40 minutes) and you really won't miss much.

Rudyard Kipling once wrote that God gave to all people the ability to love the whole world, but given that a human heart is very small in size, every human has that special place that he loves more than any other. It seems to me that this may have been the motto of some of the most eminent directors of today when they set out to profess the eternal love for that special place and depict situations in the lives of its denizens and visitors. The result is a wonderful collection of short films, Paris je t'aime, in which our guides, Van Sant, Coixet, Cuaron, Payne and others take us on a breathtaking stroll through Parisian arrondissements, human feelings, yearnings and expectations.<br /><br />Always some other quarter, always some utterly moving story about ordinary people in search for love, be it in a parking lot, art studio, tube station. And Paris je t'aime is about vast array of loves- love for one's partner, child, parent, for those who meant the world to us but are no longer around, love that needs rekindling, serendipitous love for that stranger as your eyes meet, or love that just is not meant to be...today, but tomorrow- who knows?<br /><br />Nevertheless, this film is not solely about love, but life itself, joy, pain, loneliness, confusion, everyday ups and downs. And its most important quality is the fact that it is not soppy at all, but rather warm and full of hope.<br /><br />I give this film a 9 because the final section of it suggests how some of the stories might further develop, but not all of them and that is the thing that I find missing, and by "further development" I do not mean some specific reference to the characters' future. As far as everything else is concerned I can only say- captivating. Makes you want to leave everything behind you, flee to Paris and live those little romances yourself.

The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the "monster" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film.

The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.<br /><br />With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.<br /><br />As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.

Iam a Big fan of Mr Ram Gopal Varma but i could not believe that he made this movie. i was really disappointed.<br /><br />Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag doesn't come anywhere close to the real Sholay. It does not leave a lasting impression on a viewer. Ram Gopal Varma fails to create chemistry between the characters . There is no camaraderie between Heero(Ajay Devgan) and Raj(Prashant raj). There are hardly any scenes with more than two people in the frame together. The sequence outside the courtroom with Amitabh Bachchan and Mohanlal face off is remarkable. Amitabh Bachchan should not have done this movie. Ajay and Sushmita sen was trying their best but no use. Rajpal Yadav's voice modulation - ineffective and rather pointless. Mohanlal did full justice and proved it again that acting is all about facial expression and body language. Rest of the cast was below expectation. The comedy situation which was adapted from the original sholay fall flat in this movie.<br /><br />Ram Gopal Varma could have worked upon the script but because of the controversies surrounded against the movie he messed up and just for the sake of making he made this Aag. But there is no fire.

- A small time hood tricks the local mob boss out of a lot of money. Of course the mob boss wants his money back and doesn't care who he has to kill to get it. The punk enlists his friend and an old mobster to help him save his life.<br /><br />- If this sounds ridiculous, it is. The whole idea that this Izod-wearing, dune buggy-driving punk could hold off one of the most powerful mobs in Rome is just plain silly. His friend may be good with a gun, but he's up against a group of trained killers. The old mobster is little more than comic relief and no real help when it comes to the face off with the mob. There's also a sub-plot about how the friend's father was killed years ago by the mob boss, but there's little made of it and it doesn't help the movie any at all.<br /><br />- The mob boss, Mister Scarface, is played by Jack Palance. I suppose he got the name because he has what looks like a shaving nick on his cheek. Palance is as ineffective as the rest of the cast, doing what he must to get a paycheck.<br /><br />- I've seen some pretty good Italian crime/cop flicks recently, but Mister Scarface isn't one of them. Check out Syndicate Sadists or Revolver instead.

WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS. Do not read if you don't want some points revealed to you before you watch the film.<br /><br />With a cast like this, you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. Did they see the script and say, `Hey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was such a hit that this one can't fail.' Unfortunately, it does. Did they even think to check on the director's credentials? I mean, would YOU do a movie with the director of a movie called `Satan's Cheerleaders?' Greydon Clark, who would later go on to direct the infamous `Final Justice,' made this. It makes you wonder how the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could hammer `Final Justice' and completely miss out on `The Return.'<br /><br />The film is set in a small town in New Mexico. A little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam.er.a spaceship appears and hovers over them. In probably the worst special effect sequence of the film, the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. It looked like Clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it, so right away you are treated with cheese. Anyhow, the ship leaves and the adults don't believe the children. Elsewhere, we see Vincent Schiavelli, whom I find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `Ghost' for proof, as they are outstanding), who is playing a prospector, or as I called him, the Miner 1949er. He steps out of the cave he is in, and he and his dog are inked by the ship. Twenty-five years go by, and the girl has grown up to be Cybill Shepherd, who works with her father, Raymond Burr, in studying unusual weather phenomena. Or something like that. Shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little New Mexico town, and she travels there to research it. Once she gets there, the local ranchers harass her, and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on, and deputy Jan-Michael Vincent comes to her rescue. From this point on, the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other, especially after Vincent wards off the locals and informs Shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty-five years earlier. While this boring mess is happening, Vincent Schiavelli, with his killer dog at his side, is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. You know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick-or-treaters at Halloween, the kind that you shake to make them glow? Schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. It's the second-worst effect in the movie. Every time Schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick, the scene's atmosphere suddenly turns dark, like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. It ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is.<br /><br />And what does all this lead up to? It's hard to tell when the final, confusing scene arrives. See, Burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that Shepherd found as some kind of `calling card,' but none of it makes sense. Why do Shepherd and Vincent age and Schiavelli does not? Schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants Shepherd dead, but even that doesn't make much sense when you really think about it. I mean, why doesn't he kill Jan-Michael Vincent? After all, he had twenty-five years to do it. And the aliens won't need him if Shepherd is dead anyhow, so why try to kill her? Speaking of the aliens, it is never clear what they really wanted out of Shepherd and Vincent. What is their goal? Why do they wait so long to intervene? How could they be so sure Shepherd would come back? Not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `The Return' any more pleasant. You would still have bad lines, really bad acting, particularly by Shepherd, cheesy effects, and poor direction. Luckily, the stars escaped from this movie. Cybill Shepherd soon went on to star in `Moonlighting' with Bruce Willis. Jan-Michael Vincent went on to be featured in dozens of B-movies, often in over-the-top parts. Raymond Burr made a pile of Perry Mason television movies right up until his death. Vincent Schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. Martin Landau, who played a kooky law enforcement officer, quickly made the terrific `Alone in the Dark' and the awful `The Being' before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. You can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `The Return.' Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.

Back in the forties, when movies touched on matters not yet admissible in "polite" society, they resorted to codes which supposedly floated over the heads of most of the audience while alerting those in the know to just what was up. Probably no film of the decade was so freighted with innuendo as the oddly obscure Desert Fury, set in a small gambling oasis called Chuckawalla somewhere in the California desert. Proprietress of the Purple Sage saloon and casino is the astonishing Mary Astor, in slacks and sporting a cigarette holder; into town drives her handful-of-a-daughter, Lizabeth Scott, looking, in Technicolor, like 20-million bucks. But listen to the dialogue between them, which suggests an older Lesbian and her young, restless companion (one can only wonder if A.I. Bezzerides' original script made this relationship explicit). Even more blatant are John Hodiak as a gangster and Wendell Corey as his insanely jealous torpedo. Add Burt Lancaster as the town sheriff, stir, and sit back. Both Lancaster and (surprisingly) Hodiak fall for Scott. It seems, however, that Hodiak not only has a past with Astor, but had a wife who died under suspicious circumstances. The desert sun heats these ingredients up to a hard boil, with face-slappings aplenty and empurpled exchanges. Don't pass up this hothouse melodrama, chock full of creepily exotic blooms, if it comes your way; it's a remarkable movie.

It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.<br /><br />There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.<br /><br />It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure?

This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.<br /><br />From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.<br /><br />"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.<br /><br />I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.

Well here comes another,well,romantic comedy...but unlike all others movies of this genre,this is by far the best I have seen in a long while..<br /><br />I'll admit,at first I wanted to watch this movie because of Megan Fox,and a little because of Simon Pegg...<br /><br />First of all,if you have watched a decent amount of movies,you will know that Sidney and Alison would be together at the and of the movie,one way or another...but from the beginning to the end of the movie you won't know how...<br /><br />Okay,now this movie is just made for Simon Pegg.I can't see any other actor in the role of Sidney,and I'm sure this would be a very weaker movie if not for Pegg's great performance.<br /><br />There is a number of great gags and jokes in this movie that kept me laughing really hard,courtesy of Simon Pegg's character Sidney...but I think everyone in this movie is good.For example,Kirsten Dunst is really solid in this movie( I usually don't think of her as any more than an average actress,but she was really good in this one ),then there's Jeff Bridges,there's Gillian Anderson,and of course Megan Fox who plays spoiled bitchy star Sophie Maes...great role for her...<br /><br />All in all,while I usually don't agree with ratings her on IMDb,this time I would completely agree with them...<br /><br />Go and see this movie,it is really light-hearted and positive,and I recommend it deeply... My rating 7 out of 10...well 7.5 actually...

I happen to run into this movie one night so I decided to watch it! I was very pleased with the movie... I thought it was a wonderful plot. It's a great feeling knowing a deceased one has come back and you get that second chance to say what you want to say! And this wife stayed devoted for 23 years!!! I thought it was a great movie!!

I notice the DVD version seems to have missing scenes or lines between the posting of the FRF and the launch. <br /><br />They are to prove they can win the right to sit in the FRF other than the green team.<br /><br />Another scene is like during their failure at the simulation, Kevin gets Joaquin to clam down.<br /><br />I think the VHS edition other than the ABC one might have all the missing stuff.<br /><br />Otherwise I like to know which DVD release has the missing stuff.<br /><br />The DVD I have watched feels edited for television.

I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help.

Stupid and just plain weird movie about some kid who becomes traumatized when he finds out Santa isn't real (???). He grows up and becomes an adult (Brandon Maggart) who makes lists of people who are naughty or nice. One Christmas he snaps and sets out to kill the naughty people--dressed as Santa of course.<br /><br />Boring and just plain bad killer Santa movie. If you're looking for gore, it's not here. Only a few of the murders are shown and they're not that gory with VERY fake effects. Most of the movie just contains Brandon Maggart talking to himself and slowly going crazy. The script is trite, the acting is terrible and it leads to an ending which had me staring slack-jawed at the TV. Seriously, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating! Really REALLY poor ending.<br /><br />If you want a scary Christmas flick rent "Black Christmas" (the original 70s version---NOT the terrible remake). Avoid this one at all costs.

I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10

Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4.

I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight

I watched this with my whole family as a 9 year old in 1964 on our black and white TV. I remember my father remarking that "this is how it could have happened - Adam and Eve." I vividly remember the scene when Adam finds Eve, her eyes were blackened. I asked my father why were her eyes blackened and he told because she was tired and hungry. Having not seen this episode in 45 years, I still remember it vividly - the TV transmissions back and forth with the home planet, scenes of bombs shaking the headquarters, with the final scene of the two walking off, Adam carrying his pack and Eve following. It may not have been a theatrical work of art, but it certainly left an impression on me all these years.

My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it! <br /><br />

I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.<br /><br />I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.<br /><br />What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.

Los Angeles TV news reporter Jennifer (the beautiful Barbara Bach of "The Spy Who Loved Me" fame) and her two assistants Karen (the appealingly spunky Karen Lamm) and Vicki (the pretty Lois Young, who not only gets killed first, but also bares her yummy bod in a tasty gratuitous nude bath scene) go to Solvang, California to cover an annual Danish festival. Since all the local hotels are booked solid, the three lovely ladies are forced to seek room and board at a swanky, but foreboding remote mansion owned by freaky Ernest Keller (deliciously played to geeky perfection by the late, great Sydney Lassick) and his meek sister Virginia (a solid Lelia Goldoni). Unfortunately, Keller has one very nasty and lethal dark family secret residing in his dank basement: a portly, pathetic, diapered, incest-spawned man-child Mongoloid named Junior (an alternately touching and terrifying portrayal by Stephen Furst; Flounder in "Animal House"), who naturally gets loose and wreaks some murderous havoc. Capably directed by Danny Steinmann, with uniformly fine acting from a sturdy cast, a compellingly perverse plot, excellent make-up by Craig Reardon, a nicely creepy atmosphere, a wonderfully wild climax, a slow, but steady pace, likable well-drawn characters, and a surprisingly heart-breaking final freeze frame (the incest subplot packs an unexpectedly strong and poignant punch), this unjustly overlooked early 80's psycho sleeper is well worth checking out.

The movie is more about Pony than Grey Owl. It's also about aboriginals, Canada, the English, Grey Owl's aunts and the North Bay Nugget. Excellent story.<br /><br />This is an excellent movie, more like a book, that raises interesting questions about cultural identity and values. The key scene is Grey Owl admitting his imposture to Pony and her reaction.<br /><br />A few observations on the user ratings. Note that the user ratings are bi-polar clustering at 5 and 7; it's not for everyone, but has a strong following. This movie is underrated and overlooked but will be noticed for years to come. Also, few women have watched the movie but they rate it more highly than men. Has it been marketed properly?<br /><br />

After CITIZEN KANE in 1941, Hollywood executives turned their cob-webbed backs on the great Orson Welles. With the exception of KANE, Welles lost all creative control on MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, and many other films to come. Welles was an innovative and creative genius, the most unconventional of filmmakers when Hollywood was in need of a few more. THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is yet another example of the misunderstood view of Welles' films at the time, a movie that seems a bit choppy and non-fluent. It has a conventional 1940's premise told in a most unconventional way, and I am sure some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. It is now legend that Columbia mogul Harry Cohn stood up during its initial screening and asked what it was about. In hindsight, many old grumps that ran the studios back then had not one clue as to the cinematic techniques and master story-telling of Orson Welles and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI is only nearly great because of their intrusion.<br /><br />Beside being arguably the greatest director of all-time, Welles was also quite a performer as an actor. At 25, we all know what he did as "Charles Foster Kane", perhaps the most famous character in film history. Here, he inhabits a rare character of dim wit and not much intelligence, something unfamiliar to those familiar with Welles other great work. Instead of a slick, wise tongue, he speaks with a rough, Irish twang. Rita Hayworth (his unhappily married wife at the time) plays an unhappily married wife of a lawyer who puts Welles in a spell and is able to draw him into a job that will take him to the limits of deception and disillusionment. He is a large lug who may have even murdered a man, but the real mystery lies in the relationship between Hayworth (with stunning blonde hair) and crippled hubby Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein from CITIZEN KANE). A creepy partner of Sloane's is along for the sail around the country to set off a number of peculiar events that has Welles' "Michael O'Hara" head spinning. Welles narrates the picture as O'Hara, but things are still unclear throughout. See for yourself and realize that it takes at least 2 viewings to fully know exactly what's up.<br /><br />An uncharacteristically strange courtroom sequence centers around "O'Hara", with Sloane defending him. It is an oddly comedic scene with some quirky courtroom methods, including Sloane cross-examining himself. I didn't really laugh here because the film stalls at this point after a first portion that never gets to take off anyway. Up to this point, the cinematography is great, some scenes are shot with craft and skill (aquarium love scene), but there is no distinct line drawing the elements and us, the audience, in. Reportedly, the court scene was re-shot against Welles' requests (10 closeups of Hayworth were ordered) and a makeshift song sung by the starlet was thrown in at Cohn's insistence. A gaudy score infuriated Welles, who once again, was left out of the editing process. Thank Welles himself for saving the film entirely with a tour-de-force ending that will always be treasured. The so-called "Hall of Mirrors" scene brings buffs back time and time again, rightfully so.<br /><br />It must be seen to be believed and it does a good job of wrapping up some confusing ideas presented. The crash of the mirrors represents "O'Hara's" disillusionment and the "crazy house" itself is a masterpiece of art and set decoration. It seems more like a state of mind than an actual place and is indeed "crazy", twisted and turned like a Dali painting. This is a great ending to a flawed picture that if left alone would probably have made the AFI's Top 100. Then again, 3 or 4 more of Orson Welles films may have made all collective "best of" lists if he had been left alone to create his own magic.<br /><br />NOTE: Look for the Mercury Players that are so prominent in Welles pictures. They pop up all over. RATING: 8 of 10

I first saw a track from this DVD at a hifi show Nov 2006 in London ( i was not really into cream until now!!).It was through a high end Arcam system,it sounded great with dts.I had to get this DVD and i'll tell you this is by far the most exciting music DVD i have ever watched.The performance of Cream at their age was just mind blowing and sound quality is the best i have heard on a music DVD.It does not matter what type of music you like,this one will definitely grow on you.It's the sheer brilliance of their performance that will make you watch it again and again.Even new musicians don't cut the mustard these days, as these old rockers do.

A lot of people are saying that Al Pacino over acted but I mean common obviously for a movie role like this -- a cuban drug lord you need a bit of over acting in this role with that cuban accent. This movie overall was a really good movie I myself rated a 10/10 I would highly recommend people to watch this movie.

First let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this "documentary." The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.<br /><br />The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.<br /><br />The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) "virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]" I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with "isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff." The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say "oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?" It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.

I saw this film without to know what about were... I'm a fan of Branagh, even more his Shakespeare' films, and, in the beginning, I saw it only for this... and I finished with tears in my eyes, because the great, great serenity, values, affect and brave philosophy about Life of Helena's girl. Recommended to people who are bored with TV programming (in Spain, at least).

The premise is ridiculous, the characters unbelievable, the dialogue trite, and the ending absurd. <br /><br />Believe me, I'm a fan of Kevin Kline, but watching him do a Pepe Le Pew accent for 2 hours as a supposed Frenchman is not nearly as amusing as it sounds.<br /><br />For her part, Meg Ryan is once again as perky and adorable as a (take your pick): kewpie doll, baby, puppy, kitten, whatever you happen to think is the cutest creature on earth. She also bears not the slightest resemblance to a real human being.<br /><br />This movie strikes me as an opportunity seized by buddies Lawrence Kasdan and Kline to vacation in Paris and the south of France while being well-paid for it. So I can't really blame them.

CQ is incredibly slow, and I'm a David Mamet fan. The movie follows around a young filmmaker who is making a very Barbarella-esque film. After that the movie started to lose me. Deep and profound? Not really. The movie "Dragonfly" being made in CQ has the problem of having no ending. This greatly parallels CQ, which also lacks an ending (in my opinion).<br /><br />I was lucky enough to catch this movie at the SxSW film festival. I had fairly high expectations having just watched Y Tu Mama Tambien and several other great movies. I was also looking forward to Jason Schwartzman's performance. But it was not an easy film to get into. If you're not into 60's sci-fi or slow movies that go no where, skip it.<br /><br />CQ feels like a student film. If you want a recent sci-fi-esque indie film rent Donnie Darko, it won't put you to sleep.

I was about 11 years old i found out i live 0.48 miles from the uncle house. the uncle house is on Westway Dr, deer park, TX. they have added homes since the movie was made. i don't know the house number but you can go look it up. i am now 21 and i enjoy watching this movie. the bar on Spencer is no longer their. Pasadena ISD wants to build a school their. I drove by the house last week the house still looks great. My dad and uncle would go to the street where the house is and watch the actors come in and out of the house trying to make the movie. where john cross over the railroad cracks they have made 225 higher. when i hear about john loesing his son i start thinking about when he made urban cowboy he was 26 or 25 at the time.

In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.<br /><br />Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.<br /><br />I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.<br /><br />Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life!

Due to reading bad reviews and being told by friends that they couldn't believe how bad it was, I didn't go and see this film at the cinema. After watching it on DVD, I have to say I regret that now. I'm not saying it is brilliant, but I would venture to say that it is a good movie. I enjoyed it.<br /><br />People have skulls thicker than Ned's helmet if they go to see a movie like this and expect it to be a documentary. If you read up the actual history behind most movies based on historical figures, there is usually a huge difference between the fact and the fictional portrayal. I don't think Ganghis Kahn has ever once been portrayed even remotely close to historical fact. What kind of man Ned Kelly actually was is a matter of debate, and quite passionate it seems. In spite of the efforts of governments and some historians, Ned Kelly has become a legend. Legends are stories, and stories say as much about those who tell and listen to them as they do about the actual figure himself. Ned Kelly has become such a popular identity because he does represent that aspect of Australian culture that doesn't trust or accept authority. A society in which there is no dissent or challenge to authority is crazier and more dangerous than any bushranger.<br /><br />So not expecting this to be an accurate recreation of the historical Kelly gang, I actually found it a surprisingly unencumbered and refreshing movie. It was sentimental and romantic, but thankfully not anywhere as cheesy as it could have been; for my fellow Australians, watch 'The Lighthorseman' and you will see what I mean (it is a pity the way that story was treated so poorly). Perhaps the love affair business could have been forsaken for a bit more detail in other areas, such as the shooting of the troopers. Ironically, I actually enjoyed the movie because of that, because it would be those details that most of the focus on Ned's story would dwell. And they are the details of the story that are best discovered by reading the different viewpoints given by the various historians.<br /><br />This movie was always going to have a hard time, having make a compromise of appealing to a global movie market (to pay the pills) and the legend as it means to Australians; perhaps a little of Ned's spirit is in this movie, because I think it rebelled against people's expectations, and unfortunately missed both targets. Fortunately it made for an enjoyable quirk of a film. For me it was an unexpected kind of movie about Ned, and that is why I liked it. Orlando Bloom's performance did a lot for the movie too - he really added something. I think he would have enjoyed being the monster instead of the pretty elf, for a change.<br /><br />When you consider some other movies that are far worse than this one, your opinion of this movie should be reconsidered. Send me this on DVD for christmas rather than Croc Dundee or The Man From Snowy River anytime.

First of all there is Gujarati Theatre then there is Bollywood. Both have their strengths and fan following. Director Vipul Shah should look elsewhere instead of Gujarati Theatre when making a Bollywood production. First he made Aankhen (adapted from a Gujarati play) - which had a unique plot, but could not hold as a Hindi film. Now he's adapted another Gujarati play and named it Waqt - a race against time. In sum, the emotions are alien. The plot development is not for Hindi films. For example, the role play between father and son is best left to Gujarati Theatre - don't bring it in a Hindi film. Even the comedy track is best left for the Gujarati stage. All performances are average - nothing to shout about - barring Shefali Chhaya Shah who is fantastic.

Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.

Andie MacDowell's facial expressions are great again in this movie. When you enter 40 and have been single for a while (or all your life) you may feel you are wasting away. The movie is a sweet reminder that love can be found just anywhere if your antennae is acutely active. I liked the quick sexual encounter, which must be out of character for a normally reserved school teacher (MacDowell). Her ex-student is cute enough, still carrying a crush on his teacher for so long. <br /><br />There are some parts that I thought rather unrealistic or unpractical, though. For example, at a scene where the other women's jealousy override and a scene was set up to make Andie MacDowell dump the young man, would a mature police officer (the other friend of MacDowell) allow her friend to do such a sinister act? Is it so easy for anyone to not stop in front of a car? Of course accidents happen all the time, but I hoped to see the heroine get happily married with the first man she got involved with (that was the hardest part to believe!! For such a beautiful woman to stay single for so long??)... <br /><br />Maybe the movie producers are aware of the fact that many romance between an older woman and a younger man do not last for long. Beside they know that a happy ending would not appeal to the public, especially to jealousy women over 40, who are waiting some miracles to happen. The sad ending with a glimpse of hope for the sad woman who lost her true love is sweet, but if the man continued to live, would that last? For how long? Nobody knows. Nonetheless, it's a movie to make you want to watch it again sometime later.... a year later maybe.

Purple Rain... what else can i say, the title speaks for itself. But i think all the actors were well picked. The movie had a great story. I loved it! Ever since i watched that movie, i've been stuck in the eighties, and I'm only 13! My favorite part of the movie was when his father died and he was picking up all of his music compositions, and the Apollonia was sitting on the stairwell with his earing in her hand. Critics say that its a drama but i think its more of a romance. Murphy Brown also did a great job in the movie, he actually acted like himself. I'm so glad I've seen this movie. The song Purple Rain, beautifully sung, was so heartfelt. I cried more than once.

This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!. All the characters are great, and the story while bizarre, is fascinating and very interesting, plus Nicole Kidman is simply amazing in this!. It's very hard to describe this movie, because it really is quite bizarre, it's a comedy/romance, one minute then it turns into a thriller the next, however it was still very entertaining all the same, plus Nicole's Russian accent was fantastic, and extremely convincing. Chaplin and Kidman had very good chemistry together, and i loved Vincent Cassel's performance!, plus some of the plot twists really took me by surprise!. The ending was very cute, and it's unpredictable throughout!, plus this movie is quite underrated as well!. You will feel sorry for Chaplin and the way that he is scammed, and i thought all the characters were really likable, plus the finale is especially good.This is Nicole's movie though, and she carries it with her incredibly sexy performance!. This is a great little film, that's very unique, and creative, with some great plot twists and wonderful performances!, i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Jez Butterworth does a very good job here, with great camera work, solid angles and keeping the film at a fast pace!. The Acting is wonderful!. Nicole Kidman, is stunningly gorgeous!, and is amazing as always, she is incredibly sexy, very likable, had one of the coolest accents, added a lot of presence, had very good chemistry with Ben Chaplin, and had a very mysterious character!, she was amazing. (Kidman Rules!!!!). Ben Chaplin is great here, he is extremely likable, had a cool character, had very good chemistry with Kidman, the only thing i didn't like was him taking out his anger out on Kidman, even though what she did was wrong, and i loved how he got revenge in the end!. Vincent Cassel is fantastic as the main villain, yes he was OTT, but he was very intense and quite creepy at times, this role was perfect for him. Mathieu Kassovitz is OK here, but didn't have much to do. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5

boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is. <br /><br />The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.<br /><br />Maybe next time knox.<br /><br />Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.

Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie.

In it's time, this movie had controversy written all over it (like most of Verhoeven's projects).<br /><br />Containing very graphic depictions death-scenes; A parachute that doesn't open *smack* guys body on the floor. A guy being eaten by a Lion *chomp* teeth in the throat. And a guy being run over by a speedboat *zoom* bloody corpse going down.<br /><br />But besides gore, this flick also contains some brilliant (and stunningly beautiful) scenes, filmed in the gray fisher's town that is Vlissingen;<br /><br />Thousands of rosebuds flying over the screen, in a somewhat irrelevant part of the movie, a beautiful (holy) woman putting flowers in a milk-can, surrounded by slabs of blood-dripping meat and a steamy love scene between two male characters, in a graveyard.<br /><br />The story is concluded in a frantic, but fulfilling 10 minutes, that don't disappoint, and will leave you sighing a breath of relief.<br /><br />Of course with the pros come the cons, Some special-effects are too over-the-top, and are obviously done to see how far Verhoeven could push the gore-factor (e.g. the several eyeballs hanging out of their sockets). Also, while the two lead actors, (Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk), do an excellent job of breathing life into their characters, the character of Herman (portrayed by the rather un-charming Thom Hoffman) just feels enormously underdeveloped, making him hard to care for, even after his tragic death.<br /><br />I've done my best to give you a slight idea of what to expect of this amazing movie, and as you can see, it's not easily summed up in words. So do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie somewhere, watch it ! And enjoy the unique style and substance of this masterpiece.

The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.

"The Man In The Moon" is a pretty good movie. It is very touching at times and is very well done in all respects. I wouldn't say the film was terribly original, but what is these days?<br /><br />The cast members all did a great job with their respective roles. I really enjoyed seeing Reese Witherspoon at such a young age, and does quite a good job. Jason London does a fine job as well. And the only other person I recognized was Sam Waterston, who did a fantastic job with his role. I really liked Sam's character (Matthew Trant) a lot. At times he seemed to be the kind of father you dread, but in the end you really like his character. The rest of the cast was very good as well.<br /><br />If you're into touching movies about growing up and dealing with what life throws at you, then you ought to watch this film. I'd suggest reading the plot synopsis and if that sounds like something you'd be interested in, then go for it. Anyhow, hope you enjoy the film, thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris

This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that

This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the "no selling out" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a "Keep Britain White" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as "campy" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C-

I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it!

"It's all up to you, Ed?" "Now you get to play the game." The day my father left my mother, he took me to see this film with his new girlfriend, on opening day at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. I was but fourteen years old. I wasn't even entirely sure what I was seeing, but I will never forgot it, especially the scene with Ned Beatty.<br /><br />Watching it today, thirty-six years later, it still gives me quivers.<br /><br />My father was a huge Burt Reynolds fan, hence the reason for standing in line for almost an hour in to watch what was supposed to be an 'action movie.' I had seen two films at the Dome prior to this: "Grand Prix" and "The Song of Norway." Well this wasn't exactly Mario Andretti or The Brady Bunch. After leaving the theater, I was shell-shocked.<br /><br />But even at that tender age, I appreciated the artistry...and after seeing again today, am I surprised I was still standing after witnessing this highly disturbing, yet extremely well-crafted film.<br /><br />Suffice it to say it was a traumatic experience for a fourteen year-old that had yet to kiss his first girlfriend. I don't blame my father for taking me, but it was a bit much for a child to witness.<br /><br />As an adult, I still find it quite disturbing, yet I am still very impressed with the quality of the film-making.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds as an absolute wonder, as are all the principles...from Billy Redden as the inbred guitar wonder, to Ronny Cox as the terrified insurance salesman...everyone does an admirable job. The sound quality is second to none, from the chirping birds to the ticking clocks. The photography, cinematography...all the technical aspects of this remarkable film are first rate.<br /><br />The moral questions raised, from murdering the sexual assaulters to the aftermath of dealing with killing a human being, remain as profound today as they did when this groundbreaking film was released. And the classic sequences of attempting to survive in the wilderness after dealing with such unforeseen brutality are life-altering. These four men, city men, suddenly confronted with a situation with never imagined, raise the bar from action to horror.<br /><br />It's a classic to be sure. And the phrase "you have a pretty mouth" has been quoted endlessly, from Saturday Night Live to off-the-cuff comments around water-cooler at work, this movie is without a doubt a huge part of our societal pop culture...as much as "Make my day" or "I'll be back" ever were.<br /><br />So what would YOU do if you found your friends being sexually assaulted at gunpoint by mountain men far away from your life in the city, cozy bed, wife and kids? And if you took the measures Burt Reynolds did (and I would have done the same) would you bury the body beneath the soon-to-be-lake, or stand trial and take your chances? The bottom line is: Deliverance delivers. You can take that to the bank. If this movie doesn't get under your skin, then you are not human.<br /><br />Even if you have seen this before, rent it again and ask yourself the above question.<br /><br />My favorite part of the film remains the same: Ed failing to kill the deer...then changing. Life and it's unpredictable circumstance can change a man. And I suppose that's what this film is all about Jon Voight, in particular, as Ed, gives the best performance here. And he remains one of the more gifted actors in Hollywood history, from Midnight Cowboy to his highly underrated performance as Franklin D. Roosevelt in Pearl Harbor, his acting lifts the movie to another level. Climbing the rocks at dusk, terrified and determined to make it right It needs to be seen to be believed. I guarantee your heart rate will elevated to a new level.<br /><br />Briskly paced, tense, taut and tightly drawn as a as a banjo string, this is a morality play that asks questions that remain today. Times have changes, but our choices as human beings have not.<br /><br />Ten out of ten stars.

If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful). <br /><br />The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.<br /><br />This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath. <br /><br />I loved every minute of it.

The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.<br /><br />I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.<br /><br />The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep.

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

Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

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

In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!<br /><br />0 out of 10

As a big fan of David Mamet's films and plays, especially his first film House of Games that also starred Joe Mantegna, I was expecting great things from this film. Instead, I found myself annoyed by the film's superficiality and lack of credibility. Racial slurs are thrown about without any feeling or meaning behind them, in the hopes of setting up a racial tension that for me never materialized. Identity is totally reevaluated and men become "heroes" for no apparent reason. Because of his oaths taken as a cop, the lead character adamantly refuses to perform one relatively small action that would harm no one and could possibly save lives, and yet performs another action which is very violent and VERY illegal, but then still refuses the minor action. In addition, a highly unbelievable subplot involving a man who has killed his family is introduced just for the sake of a plot point that was all but advertised with skywriting, and the cop's reaction to that occurrence stretch credulity way beyond all reasonable limits. Needless to say, after expecting another exciting thriller from David Mamet, I was extremely disappointed to say the least. 3 out of 10.

Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.<br /><br />Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!

I watched 'Speak Easily' one night and thought it was o.k., but missing something. Maybe Buster Keaton strangely speaking threw me off, or the labored line delivery of a leading lady. The next day I kept thinking about the movie, though. I couldn't get Durante's song out of my head, I kept trying to better remember Thelma Todd's first scene, I considered that maybe Keaton did do some funny falls and physical comedy. The next night I watched a scene with Thelma Todd as a conniving chorus girl trying to impress Buster and Jimmy with her sex appeal. A very funny scene, the actors excellent, their faces, their eyes, their silly expressions. So I watched another scene, their show is opening on Broadway. Buster in his blissful innocence botches every act. Again, I was laughing out loud, appreciating Keaton's clowning and tumbling. So the next night I watched the whole movie again, and this time I see it for the first time: It's Stupendous! It's Sensational! It's Sublime! Three great comedians! Todd dances! Durante sings! Keaton speaks! Sure it ain't poifect...but there's a lot of laughs in this picture.

Saw this movie twice at community screenings and really loved it. I work in the Jane Finch community and feel the film really captured some of the essence and flavour of the community - grit, determination, exuberance, creativity, in your faceness with a dose of desperation. The writing, dialogue and acting is solid and I really found myself drawn into the story of the young woman Raya as she struggles to pursue her goals and not lose herself in the process. Great dance sequences and it is not only the bodies that move smoothly and with electricity but the camera moves with great fluidity and intelligence as well. All the characters are multi dimensional - none wholly good or bad and the women characters are admirably strong. This is a film that has a strong beating heart and celebrates the irrepressible spirit of youth, hip hop and communities like Jane Finch.

updated January 1st, 2006<br /><br />Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.<br /><br />Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.<br /><br />Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.<br /><br />Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).<br /><br />Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schöne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.<br /><br />Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).<br /><br />The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)<br /><br />Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera.

"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long..." - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!

I can agree with other comments that there wasn't an enormous amount of history discussed in the movie but it wasn't a documentary! It was meant to entertain and I think it did a very good job at it.<br /><br />I agree with the black family. The scenes with them seemed out of place. Like all of a sudden it would be thrown in but I did catch on to the story and the connection between the families later on and found it pretty good.<br /><br />Despite it wasn't a re-enactment of the 60s it did bring into the light very big and important landmark periods of the decade. I found it very entertaining and worth my while to watch.

I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.

The movie is boring, the characters and scenarios are unrealistic, unbelievable, the action is hilarious. This movie is a big mess. It almost seems like when the action music kicks in, the most impressive stunt is running. Either voice is dubbed over with Mr. McGregor or steven sang too much and it changed his voice. There is way too much dialog in this movie, and extremely bad acting on everyones behalf. The movie is great sleep therapy. The fighting is laughable. The eye shape shift effect on the evil designer drug addict females was decent. The main villain was a joke and his character was poorly developed. The main villain was used to explain the story through interrogation, he would just throw random plots in such as (spoiler) "CTX (his designer drug)is going to be in the water supply" which is never addressed in the conclusion or even mentioned again in the movie. This movie is highly recommended to pass.

this movie just goes to show that you dont need big explosions,muti-billion dollar computer graphics,or highly over paid actors and actresses to make a good movie, All you need is a excellent story line and plot. which the master of all japanese films,Akira Kurosawa pulls off brilliantly. I recommend this film to all that love a epic period piece. and for those that enjoy Kurosawas earlier works. 10/10

This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.<br /><br />The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.<br /><br />All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.<br /><br />These type of films often deserve a cult following:<br /><br />8/10.

This film has a rotting core of flexible morality, and yet a quirky sense of justice. So many of the regular Joes among us would love to "stick it to the MAN". The "MAN" in this case is represented by several different characters. Mr. Keller, who Carla reports to at her office. Later, Paul owes 70 large to Mr. Marchand the club owner. And then there is Paul's Parole Officer. There seems to be so much question about this last character's side story. Reviewers point it out as a weakness in an otherwise well crafted subterranean game of ping-pong between our two protagonists, escalating tit-for-tat until their lives change dramatically. They are beholden to each agent of the "MAN". One or both could be fired, killed, or imprisoned if they don't do as they are told.<br /><br />The film has a sense of relief at the end. Carla finally gets laid. Her boss is forced out for being a jerk. Mr. Club Owner is a pulpy mess in his own bathroom. They get the $money$. And... they need not worry about reporting in to the Parole Officer, because HIS moral weakness leads him to stash his wandering wife in the basement (or whatever the police found to arrest him). It is a critical subconscious trigger to the lock tumbler that wound us up so tight. Never mind that someone else may get Paul's file later to supervise his release; for the moment they are free! They might even get away with it! <br /><br />Woohoo...<br /><br />They STUCK IT TO THE MAN!

i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language".<br /><br />which correctly, IMO, should state ; "Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language".<br /><br />the word "sexuality" should come after a "comma", not an "and" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like "vivid" movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.<br /><br />of course, this is only my opinion.<br /><br />Joseph

Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a "romance" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).<br /><br />The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.<br /><br />It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED. <br /><br />He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so "fake" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.<br /><br />10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face.

I can't tell you all how much I love this movie. I have read reviews that say that this move is "too confusing" or "like swimming in drying concrete". I say that these reviewers have no imagination! For anyone who loves Fantasy Fiction, this movie is for you. If you ever loved playing Dungeons & Dragons... this movie is for you, (especially if you got into the Oriental Adventures) I'm just sorry that I did not get to see this movie on the big screen. (Just more incentive to get my own big screen t.v. :-)

Lisa Baumer (Ida Galli) is the adulteress wife of a big businessman who inherits $1million life insurance when her husband is killed in a plane crash while on a business trip….initially she is suspected of being responsible as her husbands will had recently been changed and so she has an insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton)and an Interpol agent on her tail just to be sure. Baumer travels to Athens, Greece to cash in her inheritance, but insists on having it in cash...a dangerous turn of events. Lynch who's identity is now known to Baumer tries to protect her against a lover of her husband Lara Florakis who nevertheless along with her henchman Sharif tries to kill them both for a share of the money that she deems she is entitled to. And this is where our Masked killer starts his/her brutal killings. Lynch as is customary with our hero is at first suspected by the Greek Police and is warned not to leave Athens by Police Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli a familiar face in Giallo and Spaghettis). Lynch is then aided by the gorgeous Cléo Dupont (Anita Strindberg) a local journalist who helps him investigate the killings.To say any more could ruin the film for anyone who has not seen it, so suffice to say there are enough red herrings and most of them plausible to keep Mystery/Thriller fans happy in this story driven Giallo.The No Shame DVD has a superb transfer with both English and Italian soundtrack. It also has a very catchy score just for good measure by Bruno Nicolai that will stay in your head for a while....all in all a first rate Giallo.

Bacall does well here - especially considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: "To Have and To Have Not" (1944) and "The Big Sleep" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.<br /><br />I really liked the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to great affect - I especially liked the fog scene. The lighting also does a great job of adding to the intrigue and tension.<br /><br />Bacall is just gorgeous. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. But I still really liked this picture. There is great tension and it moves along well enough. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite bold for this period film.<br /><br />Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre stand out as supporting cast. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely villainous and evil in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite disturbing. Lorre also does quite well in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite well in portraying the child Else - especially considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage.

I don't buy kung fu movies for a plot. I buy them for fight scenes. A bad plot can be forgiven for excellent fight scenes, but not the other way around.<br /><br />The story was decent, but moved too slowly for my tastes. There were about 3 or 4 mediocre fight scenes throughout, lasting only a couple of minutes apiece. The last fight was a bit longer, but by that point i was so bored i didn't even pay attention to it.