Datasets:

FranckArmand

/

imdb_5k

like 0

This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.<br /><br />Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.<br /><br />The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.<br /><br />This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage.

There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.

"Dressed to Kill" is surely one of the best horror/thriller movies ever made.It's taut,stylish and extremely suspenseful mixture of sex and violence.The acting is pretty good,the orchestral score by Pino Donaggio is unforgettable and there's plenty of surprises to keep thriller fans intrigued."Dressed to Kill" is a murder mystery that involves a sexually frustrated housewife(Angie Dickinson),her teenage son(Keith Gordon),her psychoanalyst(Michael Caine),and a high price call girl(Nancy Allen).The murderer in the film is a transsexual named Bobbi who is also one of Caine's patients.The film is full of breathtaking moments:the infamous elevator murder scene is extremely stylish and pretty gory as well.Highly recommended.

This movie is AWFUL! I don't even know where to begin, I'm speechless I can't even describe how awful this is. The blood is flourescent first of all, and the acting is AWFUL! The only good part was the biker chick that saves the day. This movie was rediculous, I don't see how it could even get a vote of 1 its so bad. It looks like it was made by highschool students.

The short that starts this film is the true footage of a guy named Gary, apparently it was taken randomly in the parking lot of a television station where Gary works in the town of Beaver. Gary is a little "different"; he is an impersonator and drives an old Chevy named Farrah (after Fawcett). Lo and behold the filmmaker gets a letter from Gary some time later inviting him to return to Beaver to get some footage of the local talent contest he has put together, including Gary's staggering performace as Olivia Newton Dawn. Oh, my. The two shorts that follow are Gary's story, the same one you just witnessed only the first is portrayed by Sean Penn and the second by Crispin Glover titled "The Orkly Kid." If you are in the mood for making fun of someone this is definitely the film to watch. I was doubled over with laughter through most of it, especially Crispins performance which could definitely stand on it's own. When it was over, I had to rewind the film to once again watch the real Gary and all his shining idiocy. Although Olivia was the focus, I would have liked to have seen one of the "fictitious" shorts take a jab at Gary's Barry Manilow impersonation, whic h was equally ridiculous.

Why this is called "Mistresses" is a puzzle, because it's about four women, three of whom aren't mistresses… Except, wait. Ah, I see. It's a salacious title and we all have to merchandise I suppose. The series itself? Delicious. Most of the characters are hell bent on cutting metaphorical chunks off themselves. Great fun. Reminds me of LWT's 1976 miniseries "Bouquet of Barbed Wire", where every character and their dads wielded the machete.<br /><br />Siobhan (Orla Brady) is the only actual mistress and she's getting herself in proper trouble. Husband is infertile. So no chance of a baby there then. But at work, there's Dominic, played by uber-sexy Adam Rayner, who looks so good that there's no surprise when heavy lust breaks out. Dominic, it turns out, has no fertility problems. I expect his sperms do swashbuckling - probably each carries a little sword - and now Siobhan is inevitably pregnant that way instead. What Siobhan should do is to shut up good and tight, and go with - it's a miracle. What she actually does of course is say to her friends "I have to tell my husband". No you don't. Really, you don't. Stop. Stop!<br /><br />Katie (Sarah Parish) was a mistress once, for we learn that she'd had an affair with a married man before the series started. Unwisely, she's now taken up with his son. The father died of cancer and Katie, who is a doctor, helped him on his journey. So, she's an euthanasiarist, has had affairs with two of her patients and is sleeping with the son of the father in carelessly ignoring the incestuous undertones. It's not going to end well for Katie.<br /><br />Jessica is an experimental lesbian. She arranges events and she's busy doing a lesbian marriage as the series gets underway. She quickly gets into steamy eye exchanges with one of the brides Alex, played by Anna Torv, and the script hurries along to a lesbonk with great haste. However, it can't think of a good way of putting the two women in bed together, so it invents a very lame "You're not having a hen night?! Well I can't let you get away with that. I'll organise one and the guests shall be .. Me!", which achieves the result but isn't exactly Winterson. I thought script writers were supposed to earn their living. Lazy. Torv's interpretation of her character is good. Alex treats Jessica as possibly unsavoury and Alex's body language always points backwards when she's moving forward. Mind, once she's over the wall, in she happily goes, and unsurprisingly, for Shelley Conn is so mouth-watering that so would a good percentage of the human race given the chance.<br /><br />Which brings us to Trudi, who's a widow. Of course there should be plain people in a community but, if you're going to have a plain character, then you have to invent something to admire in them. It's quite possible to be a lump and engaging. However, Small's Trudi looks like one of those characters that Casting put prominently in a medieval crowd scene after the director said "That's ridiculous, not every single character would be pretty". More tellingly, you can't find anything to admire in her. Nothing. She's a turnip in a bowl of apples. Appallingly, she does "sexy" from time to time. I won't forget her appearance in bright red corset with stockings tucked into her crotch for a long time, and for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />So, good, delinquent fun all round. There's easily enough material here for a second series and I hope that they do one. I trust they learn one lesson though. The characters never take off their underclothes in bed! Having spent abandoned hours of unbridled lust, afterwards they surface still wearing their bras, or keep the sheets tight wound round their naughty bits. After several episodes, no nipples yet and you can go beg for a cock. What's this? Early 21st century puritanism? So production team, are you listening? Your characters will solve some of their mental problems if they Do abandon as well as Talk it. At least they'll have more fun in the fun scenes, poor things. In a series dominated by either being in the bedroom, or wanted to be in the bedroom, or having just been in the bedroom, it's a bit silly, and jars a lot, that the characters bonk in their underwear.<br /><br />Overall. I was going to score 6 (top end medium), but the series does one trick that's rare enough. When each episode ends, you always want more, and you look forward to the next one with anticipation. So I score 7.

Words fail me.<br /><br />And that isn't common.<br /><br />Done properly this could have been great, funny spoof B-movie sci-fi, but sadly, it was not to be. Rarely in the field of drama have so many competent actors struggled so vainly with such a dogs-breakfast of a script. I can only endorse the previous reviewer's comments - go clean the bathroom. In fact do ANYTHING except watch this film.<br /><br />Positives: Lucy Beeman's nose. Negatives: Everything else.<br /><br />Most apposite line: "This isn't going anywhere".<br /><br />If only every plastic surgeon could meet with such a fate.

"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings. <br /><br />**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush

I remember stumbling upon this special while channel-surfing in 1965. I had never heard of Barbra before. When the show was over, I thought "This is probably the best thing on TV I will ever see in my life." 42 years later, that has held true. There is still nothing so amazing, so honestly astonishing as the talent that was displayed here. You can talk about all the super-stars you want to, this is the most superlative of them all!<br /><br />You name it, she can do it. Comedy, pathos, sultry seduction, ballads, Barbra is truly a story-teller. Her ability to pull off anything she attempts is legendary. But this special was made in the beginning, and helped to create the legend that she quickly became. In spite of rising so far in such a short time, she has fulfilled the promise, revealing more of her talents as she went along. But they are all here from the very beginning. You will not be disappointed in viewing this.

In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.

Heh, if I tell you to compare The Dark Knight with some 18-years-old comics-adapted movie rated 5.9, will you call me crazy? That's just to catch your attention. Everyday I meet people complaining there are no good movies, who seem to only know the recent blockbusters. It's never a bad thing to search and explore old movies, especially those with good artistic values. Dick Tracy is one of those can't be easily outdated, in terms of technology.<br /><br />The negative reviews mainly complained about DT's "messed up" story. But it appears to me that the storyline is quite clear, and I had no problem following it. I didn't see the comic books, yet I am not a huge US comic fan, but I appreciate the top-notch film-making and performances. Maybe the expectations of most people were too high about the story it would tell. But, if you see a movie casting Madonna and Warren Beatty together, what would you expect. I had some scratches on my head, and can't help but wonder, did we really see the same movie? The title role, although not as competent as it sounds, still was able to pull him up and charm the audiences. Madonna was more express-less than "breathless" in her seductive role, but added a lot of fun to the story. Al Pacino was funny and prodigy to himself. Apparently he's bold enough to go sarcastic on his previously successful roles. We can see a hybrid of Scarface, Michael Corleone, Adolf Hitler and Robert De Niro punching our stomaches to make us laugh. And many thanks to make-ups.<br /><br />To me it's not bad at all. The surreal feeling really got me.

I agree with the previous comment, what a disappointment. Rented it thinking it was going to be a good movie since Mira and Olivier where in it. I was surprised by their performance, expected more since they're good actors.<br /><br />Thought it was a slow beginning but it got worse. I even laughed at some bad stunts!! when is supposed to be a mystery movie. You can even guess who is the killer beforehand!!! <br /><br />For real what happened?? <br /><br />Sorry to say but don't even bother you'll waste time and money.<br /><br />Boring!!!

Well, what can I say having just watched this fantastic film, when my nerves are still jangling! Jacques Audiard the director must be making quite a name for himself in France, and rightly so. Vince Cassel is no Tom Cruise and Emmanuelle Devos is no Penelope Cruz either, but these two are fantastic actors, and this is a taut and compelling thriller which starts off slowly with some clever character building and then starts to put tension on tension to a wonderful climax. Others have written about the plot, so I will not say more than everyone in this film plays their role to perfection, the director, the actors, right down to the cameraman, and everything seems so real, no stupid gun play, the fighting when it happens is so credible, the expressions, the emotions, it is almost as you are there as a spectator. Do yourself a favour, get the DVD, a bottle of wine, turn the lights low, take the phone off the hook and immerse yourself in this Hitchcockian thriller :)

What starts out as a very predictable and somewhat drab affair is in the end quite hilarious and entertaining. "Right to Die" is not very suspenseful but it more than makes up for that with some outlandish set pieces and over the top gore.<br /><br />Spoilers here: <br /><br />Top credits also go to the dead-on performance from Martin Donovan as one of the most despicable characters ever to grace the screen. Playing the character in a great "aloof" fashion, you nearly feel bad for the guy in the end when his grand plan ultimately fails. Corbin Bernsen also chews up the scenery playing a not-so-good-guy who gets his just desserts.<br /><br />End of Spoiler.<br /><br />As a revenge-from-the-dead flick, "Right to Die" benefits heavily from it's performers and is more than an OK way to spend less than an hour.

Unbelievable!<br /><br />this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. <br /><br />and the 2 of merely for trying

The Great Caruso displays the unique talents of Mario Lanza. He shows great acting capacity and is in top form as a lyrical singer, paired with Dorothy Kirsten, soprano of the Metropolitan Opera. Indeed, I dare to say that he performs some songs better than Caruso (check A'Vuchella from Tosti and La Danza from Rossini). The MGM art and music departments also did a good job. This movie could be perfect, were it not for the awkward presence of Ann Blyth; we see that she is trying her best, dressed in the fifties style in scenes just before 1920 - unforgivable. Lanza deserved a better leading lady, and Blyth should stick to less demanding productions. Also notice that Ms. Kirsten sings most of the opera duets of the film with Lanza, giving the wrong notion that Caruso had a kind of permanent leading soprano.

This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad.

Yes, people are racist. People are even racist in college. That's a good point, and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. What sets Higher Learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham-fisted and predictable way possible, oh yeah it's in college too.<br /><br />This film deals with this problem of racism the way Frankenstein deals with most problems, it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. Most of the characters are cartoonish, one-dimensional, caricatures (lesbian feminist, angry black man), that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. Instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. The angry black men feel cheated, feminists hate men, etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads "Dead Men Don't Rape." See what I mean?) I don't want to give anything away, but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they'll probably behave exactly how you expect them to. The changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. The big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo-Nazis will act like violent neo-Nazis. I'll guess you'll just have to watch to find out what happens.<br /><br />Another problem I have with this movie is that it's supposed to be "gritty" and "hard-hitting," but they make Nazis the bad guys. I agree Nazis are evil, but that's my point. Everybody thinks Nazis are bad; we're not breaking any new ground here. Nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930's. The film doesn't challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. It just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy, after-school-special like, manner. Being anti-rape, anti-racist, and anti-Nazi isn't exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue.<br /><br />Higher Learning is predictable, cartoonish, and in a word stupid. Avoid at all costs.

I'm rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. But I can't understand how this one got made. Who made it? How could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film? Did they do a weekend course at some film school, get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap David Badiel's family one by one until he agreed to be in it? Or was he by any chance a longtime family friend/distant relation doing this out of sheer, misplaced kindness? I don't care, don't want to know. Even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it, mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. Meanwhile the DOP must have been the gaffer from Neighbours, there seemed to be absolutely no sound design, the script, the direction and editing were all abysmal, and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that I can't be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film.

The critics are dumb. This movie is funny and smart. I loved this movie a lot. Why does everyone hate this movie so much. I wish people would love this movie more than they don't. Ben Stiller and Jack Black are true comedians and they put through a lot of work to make this movie. I don't see you people out there making movies like them. So people should just watch it and not comment it. I like this movie. It is OK through it all. There are parts were it get's dumb but at least they made it. Jerry Stiller would love this because this movie has the acting just like the show King Of Queens. But this is better than that. I can't believe this was rated so low.

Bob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.

Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.<br /><br />From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.<br /><br />Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.<br /><br />The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.<br /><br />After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...<br /><br />Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.<br /><br />I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.<br /><br />For shame, BBC...for shame...

This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.

What do I say about such an absolutely beautiful film? I saw this at the Atlanta, Georgia Dragoncon considering that this is my main town. I am very much a sci-fi aficionado and enjoy action type films. I happened to be up all night and was about ready to call it a day when I noticed this film playing in the morning. This is not a sci-fi nor action film of any sort. Let me just start out by saying that I am not a fan of Witchblade nor of Eric Etebari, having watched a few episodes(his performance in that seemed stale and robotic). But he managed to really win me over in this performance. I mean really win me over. Having seen Cellular, I did not think there was much in the way of acting for this guy. But his performance as Kasadya was simply amazing. He was exceedingly convincing as the evil demon. But there was so much in depth detail to this character it absolutely amazed me. I later looked it up online and found that Eric won the Best Actor award which is well deserved considering its the best of his career and gained my respect. Now I keep reading about the fx of this and production of this project and let me just say that I did not pay attention to them (sorry Brian). They were very nicely done but I was even more impressed with the story - which I think was even more his goal(Seeing films like Godzilla with huge effects just really turned me off). I could not sleep after this film thinking it over and over again in my head. The situation of an abusive family is never an easy one. I showed the trailer to my friend online and she almost cried because it affected her so having lived with abuse. This is one film that I think about constantly and would highly recommend.

I remember this movie when i was 13 (seems a lot of reviews are saying the same thing AGE 13!) with a group of school buddies. We all wanted to see Billy Crystal in his first movie, and fell for the typical commercial ads telling us this was a great comedy. We suffered through about 45 minutes of it, and all agreed to leave the theater. It was grotesque & tasteless, and a far cry from the ability Billy Crystal had to make us laugh, we were not laughing. I stumbled upon this review by accident, and decided to register just to tell the rest of the world what a rot-gut waste of film this was, now if you rent this, you deserve what you get, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!

We could still use Black Adder even today. Imagine Rowan Atkinson resuming the role of assistant to the prime minister played by the wonderful Hugh Laurie. Hugh is sensational as the dimwit Prince George and Edmund as his brilliant assistant. I love the episode which Kenneth Connor guest stars as a British thespian. Every time, Edmund says Macbeth. The two thespians do a silly little act to ward off evil spirits. It's the funniest things that you will see. Of course, none of this brilliance and comedic genius could be without Ben Elton and Richard Curtis who are also behind the films like Love Actually, The Thin Blue Line, Four Weddings and A Funeral. Black Adder is funny and almost too good for television. Humor can be smart, sexy, and funny all at one. I was hoping last night on Saturday Night Live that Hugh Laurie would pay homage to his background in British humor. If the gang at SNL did some research, they would know what a treasure it was to have Hugh Laurie grace their stage.

Although The Notorious Bettie Page is well acted and shot, is is, at best, a Cliffs Notes version of Bettie's biography. The film mainly centers on her work with Irving and Paula Klaw, the brother and sister team who produced the bulk of her most famous photos. It does not detail her life after posing, aside from her religious rebirth. It cites "The Real Bettie Page", by Richard Foster as a source, but it ignores Bettie's later years of mental illness and incarceration in a mental hospital. The narrow focus of the biography can be debated, but the majority of Bettie's fans and the "civilians" would probably be more interested in her modeling career, which is what they get.<br /><br />The film is well acted, with Gretchen Mol faithfully reproducing the look of Bettie, as well as conveying the sweetness that her photos exuded. The character is played as rather naive, a probable byproduct of interviews given by Bettie in recent years. It is more likely that Bettie was aware of the nature of her photos but rationalized it as acting and costumes.<br /><br />The supporting cast is also outstanding, with Chris Bauer and Lili Taylor playing Irving and Paula Klaw, and David Strathairn as Estes Kefauver. The film errs with the character of John Willie, played by Jared Harris. John Willie never met Bettie Page and was not involved in photo shoots with the Klaws. Harris plays Willie a bit like Peter O'Toole, in his more debauched state.<br /><br />Despite the quality of acting, the film is a bit of a disappointment in terms of depth. The story is rather cursory and we never feel that we truly get to know Bettie. Much like her photos, it's just an image. It does tend to exaggerate Bettie's notoriety. Her photos were mainly seen in and around New York, in a very narrow market of underground and cultish publications. Her real fame came after her photos were reprinted in the late 70's and 80's, and the Cult of Betty Page (as her name was usually spelled) grew. Bettie's greatest exposure (pardon the pun) was in Playboy, appearing in the January 1955 issue (the Christmas photo, which is staged in reverse in the film).<br /><br />The film is well done, if rather shallow. It is able to sustain interest until the end and showcases many fine performances. It hits the high points of Bettie's life, but ignores many details which would have given it far greater depth. The ending is rather a let down. It feels rather abrupt. Still, the movie is definitely worth viewing by anyone interested in Bettie, or even the time period. The soundtrack is great, really pulling the viewer into the 1950's. If nothing else, the film stands as a showcase for America's burgeoning sexuality and the clash with its Puritan past. It's also a peek at an icon for both men and women.

Larry Burrows has the distinct feeling he's missing out on something. Ever since he missed a crucial baseball shot at school that cost the championship, he's been convinced his life would have turned out better had he made that shot. Then one night his car breaks down again. Walking into the nearest bar to wait for the tow truck, Larry happens upon barman Mike, who unbeknown to Larry is about to change his life for ever.......<br /><br />The alternate life premise in cinema is hardly a new thing, stretching back to the likes of It's A Wonderful Life and showing no signs of abating with the quite recent Sandler vehicle that was Click. It's a genre that has produced very mixed results. Back in 1990 was this James Belushi led production, rarely mentioned when the said topic arises, it appears that it has largely been forgotten. Which is a shame since it oozes charm and is not short in the humour department. We know that we are being led to its ultimate message come the end, but it's a fun and enjoyable path to be led down. The film also serves notice to what a fine comedy actor James Belushi was. I mean if his style of smart quipping and larking exasperation isn't your thing,? then chances are you would avoid this film anyway. But for those engaged by the likes of Red Heat, K-9 and Taking Care of Business, well Mr. Destiny is right up your street. Along for the ride are Linda Hamilton, Michael Caine, Jon Lovitz, Hart Bochner, Jay O. Sanders, Rene Russo and Courteney Cox.<br /><br />Mr. Destiny, pure escapist fun with a kicker of a message at its heart. 7/10

This movie is an incredible piece of work. It explores every nook and cranny of the human mind, focusing on the characters relationships with the people around them. Stellar performances all around. This one had me weeping for about half an hour straight. Spend some real time with this one.

Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster.

Crude, some times crass - to me that's the summation of Madhur Bhandarkar's latest work - Page 3. He has no point of view - just shallow, funny digs at stereotypes. What is the movie about?? Is it about reporting a clan of people (so called Page 3 types) who are so busy socializing and progressing their profiles in life - that they have no time for anything else. And you are either in it or out of it. Is it that there is no press at all to report everyday incidents. Madhur Bhandarkar forgets that there is a main newspaper and Page 3 is just a supplement; perhaps an entertainer for checking out who's who and what's what. Don't mix the two. And then there is power play - that would happen in every walk of life. So what have you told at the end of it all - nothing - just a few crude jokes strung together in an otherwise direction less movie.

This is a very entertaining flick, considering the budget and its length. The storyline is hardly ever touched on in the movie world so it also brought a sense of novelty. The acting was great (P'z to Dom) and the cinematography was also very well done. I recommend this movie for anyone who's into thrillers, it will not disappoint you!

When I started to watch this movie on VH-1 I cringed. The MTV movies were all bad so I wasnt expecting much. But this movie was really good. I liked it a lot. And it even had a twist at the end. See this movie because it shows that Made For TV movies that are good exist.

Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.

The Finnish version of Robert Altman's "Short Cuts", set in the small rural town of Äänekoski. The episodes present a kaleidoscope of the eternal events, problems and emotions of human life: joy and love, deception and disillusionment, hopelessness and death. I was particularly impressed by two episodes. The first is the story of the young waitress, who tries to stir up a romance for his co-workers: she radiates an overwhelming joy of love and life. The other episode presents and old man dying in a hospital and his wife trying to help him die with dignity. Particularly striking is the way the old couple have to fight their way against the humiliating practices of the hospital and their loneliness contrasted with the "routines" of the hospital crew (despite the signs of occasional empathy). Compared with Altman's classic, this movie is perhaps less professional, but it is definitely a great piece of art.

This is bar none the most hilarious movie I have ever seen. Beginning with the four delinquents being sent off by their fathers to Wienberg Military Academy, a tone is set that steadily continues all throughout this goofball film, and it does not let up for a second.<br /><br />It's tough trying to describe this film; the humor elements are so spot on and brilliantly concieved that upon a first look it appears as nothing more than a stupid 80's teen lust comedy. But it is oh so much more than that! Fresh from the minds of those folks over at MAD Magazine, Up the Academy serves up a formula and style that I have never since seen duplicated by ANY of the "funniest" offerings to come out of Hollywood in years past. Basically the film is so full of infantile cornball material that you might guess that the writers were a couple of 14 year olds themselves. See this movie if you love to act "immature." A classic. *****

One of director Miike Takashi's very best. It's so good it's difficult to put into words. At nearly fifteen years older than the target audience it thrilled me from beginning to end.<br /><br />It recalls similar children's films from the 1980s in the sense that (unlike today) those films weren't afraid to scare - there's a lot of nasty detail here that I initially found jarring but soon realised it's nothing different to what I grew up on. The film is a compilation of '80s kid's films conventions. You name it, it's there: a young boy hero thrust from his own unhappy/dysfunctional world into another, inhabited by mythical and mystical goblins; a quest to save both worlds from an evil force; a beautiful heroine he has a crush on; a sadistic henchwoman (Go-Go Yubari from Kill Bill Vol. 1); a lead villain who draws his evil power from something everyone in the world can relate to. But all these genre conventions are given a fresh spin and added depth.<br /><br />One of the IMDb reviews begins "Where was this film when I was a kid?" and it's a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. Even while watching it I lamented the fact that I hadn't grown up on it; that it wasn't a part of my childhood like Labyrinth, Masters Of The Universe and, to a much lesser extent, The Neverending Story. Those films, and others like The Goonies are recalled but never copied - Miike relentlessly offering us a new take on things.<br /><br />Poor CGI is a staple of many of his films, sometimes due to budgetary limitations but just as frequently an artistic choice - a desire to present things in an outlandish way. Here the CGI is mostly average, solely due to budgetary limitations, but nevertheless he does a fantastic job of putting on a spectacle. The CG effects combine with traditional puppets, animatronics and truly extraordinary make-up to create a world filled with rich characters (and characterisation) that frequently borders on the visionary.<br /><br />This ranks as one of the greatest children's films ever made. Not for younger or more sensitive kids though.<br /><br />Just jaw-droppingly wonderful. See it for yourselves and if you think your kids can handle/appreciate it then show it to them. Let them grow up on The Great Yokai War as some small compensation for the fact you couldn't.

The characters are unlikeable and the script is awful. It's a waste of the talents of Deneuve and Auteuil.

Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie.

My first clue about how bad this was going to be was when the video case said it was from the people who brought us Blair Witch Project which was a masterpiece in comparison to this piece of garbage. The acting was on the caliber of a 6th grade production of Oklahoma and the plot, such as there was, is predictable, boring and inane. 85% of the script is four letter words and innumerable variations on them. Mother F seems to be the "writer's" favorite because it is used constantly. It must have taken all of 10 minutes to write this script in some dive at last call. Thank God I rented it and could jump through most of it on fast forward. Don't waste your time or money with this.

The movie only enter the cinema in Indonesia this year (2007), two years after it's official release, and after many illegal DVD's had found its way to the public. Apparently the popularity of the illegal DVD's lead to the release into the theaters, with still public coming to watch.<br /><br />The movie is a great epic, bringing Japanese culture into your house in an exiting way. In a sometimes humorist way, the story is told about a theater writer who writes a story for his theater, since the regular Kabuki theater plays is something he finds boring.<br /><br />At first, the audience might be a little bit confused about which story we are following, but when the story unfolds, we see that the love between a male human and a female demon leads to a great story for a new Kabuki theater piece.<br /><br />The audience is left in the dark if this is a story that is supposed to really have happened in Japanese traditions and mythology, but that doesn't matter.<br /><br />The way the story is told with a love for theater, expression, vivid colors, humor and tragedy, makes this a great ride on the roller-coaster of Japanese cinema as well as theater.<br /><br />Let yourself go completely when you watch this movie, try to see it in a cinema instead of on your television at home.<br /><br />One critical point though: the soundtrack is sometimes a little bit annoying. Though most of it is great music, there are a few moments in the movie that I think they should have chosen some more dramatic music. But maybe the fact that the story contains moments of humor made the director choose for lighter moments in music as well.

This short was nominated for an Academy Award and I wish it had won! Basically a filmed jam session between some very talented musicians, including Lester Young and Joe Jones, the music is incredible! Hollywood quite often embraced Jazz (particularly animation, believe it or not) but this is a rare look on film at an improvisational jam. This has been added to the Film Preservation list and deservedly so. TCM runs this as filler periodically and runs it every March sometime for its' "31 Days of Oscar" tribute. From downtown at the buzzer, swish, nothing but net and the shot's so smooth, the net barely moved. Most solidly and highly recommended!!!

Thank the Lord for Martin Scorsese, and his love of the movies.<br /><br />This is the perfect introduction into the mind of the most talented American artist working in cinema today, and I couldn't recommend it more. I was enthralled through the whole thing and you will be too. Just relax and let him take you on a ride through his world, you'll love it.

First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.

Zentropa has much in common with The Third Man, another noir-like film set among the rubble of postwar Europe. Like TTM, there is much inventive camera work. There is an innocent American who gets emotionally involved with a woman he doesn't really understand, and whose naivety is all the more striking in contrast with the natives.<br /><br />But I'd have to say that The Third Man has a more well-crafted storyline. Zentropa is a bit disjointed in this respect. Perhaps this is intentional: it is presented as a dream/nightmare, and making it too coherent would spoil the effect. <br /><br />This movie is unrelentingly grim--"noir" in more than one sense; one never sees the sun shine. Grim, but intriguing, and frightening.

By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.

I am a great fan of Martin Amis, on whose book this film is based. Unfortunately the director has been unable to translate the book to the screen. The novel is thoroughly post modern and highly artificial in its wildly overblown characters and the disintegration of traditional plot line and character development. It is an hilarious examination of human greed, excess and emptiness by one of the most moral of contemporary British writers. The director of the film has completely missed the point of the novel. In his hands, the film screams along at breakneck speed, indulging in every known trick shot and 'odd' camera angle possible. It is like Ken Russel on acid, and suffers from that older director's self indulgence cranked up to a hundred. Not even the (brief) glimpse of gorgeous actor Christian Solimeno's penis was enough to save this wretched film for me. Abysmal!

I must admit, out of the EROS MOVIE COLLECTION, this has to be the one that I love the most as well as one other that I have also reviewed. The story is something that really keeps you watching. A lot of the EROS films have a plot that looks like a hammer broke it in pieces before production when you watch it. All centering around sex, and who can get with how many different people come the end of the film. And oh dear god, never watch one of these films when someone pulls out a gun. It does not work that it is almost laughable, but you do not want to waste the energy to do so.<br /><br />"Losing Control" is exactly as its name comes on. The protagonist, the leading character (the wonderfully talented and beautiful Kira Reed). The control is the control a person has over their senses, their body and feelings. And one man changes everything for her, makes her a different woman almost. But the mirror is shattered at the same time. This makes for a great film that I wish I had come up with first!!<br /><br />10/10

I recently saw I.Q. and even though I'm not a romantic comedy type of gal, I think that it was just a nice and sweet movie to watch. So many movies in my opinion lack honesty. You know that feeling when you're watching a movie and you just feel robbed because it's taking something from the story and it was like the director just threw it together like it was trash? The story between the scientists is a sweet and funny one. How they stuck together and they tried to help Tim Robbins character become smart. I liked the love story between Tim and Meg because it was simple and brought up a good point when it comes to love, "nothing is what it seems". I would recommend this for a Sunday morning.<br /><br />7/10

This has got to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. I remember watching it years ago when it initially came out on video and for some strange reason I thought I enjoyed it. So, like an idiot, I ran out to purchase the DVD once it was released...what a tragic mistake! I won't even bother to go into the plot because it is so transparent that you can see right through it anyhow. I am a fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis so I am accustomed to cheesy gore effects and bad acting but these people take this to a whole different level. It is almost as if they are intentionally trying to make the worst movie humanly possible...if that was their goal, they suceeded. If they intended to make a film that was supposed to scare you or make you believe in any way, shape, or form that it is real then they failed...MISERABLY! Avoid this movie...read the plot synopsis and you've seen it!

6/10 Acting, not great but some good acting.<br /><br />4/10 Director, makes some stupid decisions for this film.<br /><br />2/10 Writer, story makes no sense at all and has huge amount of flaws.<br /><br />4/10 Overall score for this movie.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film, it's not worth it. I gave 4 for this movie and it may be too much. Characters are so over exaggerated than they can ever be in real life and some pretty unexplainable stuff happens "storywise", not in good way. Because of the style this film has been filmed you get bored after 30 minutes (too many special effects: slow motions and camera shakes and fast forwards). It's always good that movie uses music to make the story go smooth but there's too many tracks in this one. In the first hour there is almost 50/50 dialogs and musics

There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.

I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.<br /><br />This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.<br /><br />Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.<br /><br />"Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.<br /><br />

Fritz Lang's German medieval saga continues in Die Nibelungen: Kriemhilds Rache (1924).Kriemhild (Margarete Schoen) wants to avenge her murdered husband, Siegfried.Her brother is too weak to bring the murdered, Hagen, to justice.Kriemhild marries Etzel, the King of the Huns (Rudolf Klein-Rogge).She gives birth to a child, and invites her brothers for a party.Etzel and the other Huns should kil Hagen, but he is protected by his brothers.We see a huge battle of life and death begins, and she sets the whole place on fire.Eventually Hagen is dead, and so is Kriemhild.These movies deal with great themes, such as revenge and undying love.Sure we have later seen some better movies made of those topics, but this was one of the early ones.

Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.<br /><br />To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."<br /><br />In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.<br /><br />Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.<br /><br />Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.<br /><br />A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.<br /><br />Geoff

Very slow-paced, but intricately structured and ultimately very touching. A nice, very true-to-life look at a small Florida beach town in the dead of winter -- I've been there, and this is absolutely accurate.<br /><br />It's also the debut feature of actress Ashley Judd, and she makes a big impression here. It's hard to believe this film is 12 years old -- I remember seeing it in theaters, and I recently rented "Ruby" again. Except for the 80's looking clothes, it has held up very nicely. Ashely is so radiant and touching here, that it's hard to think of her subsequent career without wincing. Boy, talk about failing to fulfill your early promise! Anyone seeing Ashley here in "Ruby In Paradise" would assume this elegant, natural beauty went on to all kinds of interesting art films and serious acting -- instead she has become the "go to" girl for dumb action films and slasher movies! Very disappointing, but at least we have this lovely performance preserved to showcase her early promise.<br /><br />As some other commenter's say, this is not for everyone as it's very slow paced. This is not an action film, nor is it really a romance. The director (Victor Nunez, "Ulees Gold", another excellent character study) treats this ordinary young woman's life with deep respect, allowing her story to build slowly and with a lot of detail. In that way, I think this is one of the most moving and respectful coming-of-age stories about young women that I can recall -- it's not about Ruby's sexual awakening or "how she lost her virginity", but about her life choices and her growing maturity.<br /><br />A lovely film, if you take the time to watch it...I think it would be a really excellent film to show teens and young girls (or boys for that matter) and give them a chance to think about and discuss it.<br /><br />Particular kudos to director Nunez, who also wrote the script, which is so realistic and nicely detailed that I assumed all through the movie that it was based on a female-written novel or memoir, but in fact it's Mr. Nunez's original work. Rated 8 out of 10.

I agree with "Jerry." It's a very underrated space movie (of course, how many good low-budget ones AREN'T underrated?) If I remember correctly, the solution to the mystery was a sort of variation (but not "rip-off") of 2001, because the computer controlling the spaceship had actually been a man, who had somehow been turned into a computer. And like HAL, they tried to disconnect his "mind", but not the mechanical parts of him, and as with HAL, it led to disaster. There is at least one funny moment. When the Christopher Cary character, who can't find any food, finds the abandoned pet bird, there's a kind of ominous moment, but then the obvious thing doesn't happen after all.

I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10

A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.<br /><br />""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**<br /><br />Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting. <br /><br />This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.<br /><br />When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief.

Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.<br /><br />A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.<br /><br />I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.<br /><br />This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.<br /><br />Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.

Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and "broken arrow" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's "imitation of life" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in "imitation of life")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere.

A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.<br /><br />This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.<br /><br />It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing. <br /><br />Meyer's next film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead.

This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! <br /><br />What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.<br /><br />The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.

I had seen this film way back in the 80's and had nearly forgotten it when I noticed it was on tv again and watched it. I remembered having liked this little sleeper when I first saw it, and I liked it even better on second viewing.<br /><br />All of the actors, especially Robert Duvall, Glenn Close, Wilfred Brimley, Frederic Forrest, and Jason Presson (as the twelve-year-old boy who feels responsible for the accidental shooting death of his older brother), are superb. The film has a very genuine feel to it--an understated, quiet, deeply moving story of a family aching with grief. The dialogue is sparse but telling, and the nonverbal acting is outstanding. Sort of like a simpler, rural version of Ordinary People sans psychiatrist but equally impressive family dynamics.<br /><br />The Stone Boy is well worth the time and emotional energy involved in watching it.

For the first three seasons, Sabrina was a gem hidden away on TGIF (and later, early school-day afternoon reruns). Each episode had a maniac, zany energy and rapid-fire pacing that overcame the occasional awkward joke. Melissa Joan Hart exuded a keen talent for physical comedy, particularly in her facial expressions. Her two aunts, playing the "straight men," or as straight as two witches could be, had great comic timing and general chemistry with Hart. Salem, as a talking cat, was free to dabble in whatever mad scheme he was interested in, and one could laugh and take it all in stride because he was, after all, a talking cat. Sabrina's friends rounded out the social experience at school, in which also housed the typical "evil cheerleader" and "totalitarian principal." Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the show was the ability to merge pop culture (e.g., bands of the era, Jerry Springer), archetypal human condition/morality (e.g., the importance of friendship, the spirit of Christmas), and the literal representation of such related metaphors in the Magical Realm. Unfortunately, like so many other shows throughout the age of television, the show hit its peak during the first three years, which coincided with Sabrina attending high school. Starting in season four, the move to college marked what would become a precipitous decline in the general quality of the show, particularly when the writers chose to introduce Josh as Harvey's rival, and concocting thin excuses for Aunts Hilda and Zelda to remain on-screen as key players. The final season, where Sabrina works at a pop culture magazine, was unequivocally disappointing. Still, in the end, Sabrina (particularly the high school years) remains a unique entry as a hybrid situational comedy with magical elements that elevates it above the tiresome fare that is produced in this genre every year.

I don't know why I'm taking the time to review this waste-of-time movie. If you stick with it long enough in hopes of a satisfying conclusion – good, bad, or surprising – don't. It finally fizzles out after stiff, formulaic, predictable dialogue and acting. Indoor scenes are so harshly lit you think if the camera were zoomed out one millimeter further you'd see the klieg lights. Costumes, hair-do's, and sets are starched, pressed, and immaculate. Are we supposed to imagine common people really lived like that in early 20th-century Arizona? Other reviews' comparisons to Sam Peckinpah are an insult to Peckinpah: at least that director wove his violence into the context of chaos and mayhem. HARD MEN's gore is gratuitous exploding squibs from wooden impersonations of bad guys with manicured fingernails. Huh?!? I can believe Heston thought he might have been making something of worth with this film. (He does get to clutch his gun in his cold fingers.) But Coburn? I'll never guess why he signed up for this travesty. Want to see a movie about the end of the West as we knew it, the end of Westerns as we knew them? Watch THE SHOOTIST or UNFORGIVEN again. THE LAST HARD MEN is a mockery of an obituary to the Western.

Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.

In many ways DIRTY WORK is a predictable L&H short on the surface with the boys going to sweep someone`s chimney . Guess what happens next ? That`s right slapstick at its most sucessful ensues .<br /><br />But there`s one or two things that seem untypical . Ollie for example is very unlikable , he`s arrogant , he`s rude , and not only to Stan look at the way he addresses the servant with " HEY YOU " and takes a childish huff very easily with his catchphrase being " I have nothing to say " . In short Ollie plays a bully in a very unlikable way and I much prefer to see him to play the arrogant coward where he`s always at his funniest<br /><br />DIRTY WORK also lacks the reportary regulars of the other L&H shorts like Finlayson , Long , Busch and Housman which means when we switch to the mad scientist plotline there`s a slightly creepy atmosphere that jars with the rest of the movie <br /><br />Having said that this is still a good short mainly down to Stan . Also watch out for a scene featuring a fish . Many jokes/plots from L&H feature fish and this is another one

lets start off by saying that "JAWANI DIWANI" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said "I missed the joyride". lol. <br /><br />The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.<br /><br />MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA. <br /><br />Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.<br /><br />the movie is horrible. The songs "SINI NE SINI NE" is fantastic the remix version is even better. "DIL DIWANA" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE.

My favorite quote from Crow was, when the car was going off the cliff, "The movie is so bad, even the car wants to get out of it!"<br /><br />This had to be the funniest movie I have ever seen. It was seriously out there to scare you, which makes it even funnier! If it weren't for Mystery Science Theater I wouldn't be here today! :-P

Marlene Gorris has established herself as one of the world's great directors. This sensitive, visually beautiful film is based on a story by Vladimir Nabokov and captures well that writer's dark irony. John Turturro gives what I consider to be his finest performance (I am usually not a fan of his); and Emily Watson is brilliant as well. Well worth seeing.

In his otherwise excellent book, Lincoln in American Memory, the historian Merrill Peterson calls Young Mr.Lincoln a "boring, dreadful, film". This amazingly wrongheaded analysis simply proves that great historians are rarely fine film critics. I am working on a doctoral dissertation on Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. As part of my preparation for writing the dissertation, I made a careful analysis of this film, and of Tag Gallaghers brilliant interpretation of it in his seminal book on Ford. Young Mr. Lincoln comes out that culminating year of the first phase of Ford's cinematic authorship, 1939.In that greatest of Hollywood years, Ford directed three superb, still not fully appreciated films: Drums Along the Mohawk, Stagecoach,and Young Mr.Lincoln. It might seem odd to say that Stagecoach is not fully appreciated, all but the most purblind of critics must perceive that it is one of of the greatest Westerns, and perhaps even one of the hundred greatest films of all time. However, what is NOT fully appreciated is that these three films work together as a kind of trilogy-a triptych, in fact. Ford is creating a sort of mythic history of America on screen. Drums Along the Mohawk is the Revolutionary War. Young Mr.Lincoln is pre-Civil War America.Finally, Stagecoach is Post Civil War America. What the three films have in common is that they are an extended meditation on the American Adam and his "errand into the Wilderness". What are the Psychic and social costs of American manifest destiny, as America strives to build a new human city in the wilderness?Lincoln symbolizes Americas journey, as he seeks to reconcile the civilizational inmpulse (law), with the freedom of the wilderness.Young Mr.Lincoln is not history, ( It is full of historical "howlers'-as both Ford and Trotti were well aware), but myth. This is Lincoln, the symbol of justice and mercy, Lincoln, the man of the wilderness, striving to found a civilization within himself, and to become the "remarkable lawgiver' of young America. Young Mr. Lincoln is not history-like James Agee's long forgotten teleplay about Lincoln, and like Sandburgs biography, it is an epic poem...a very beautiful epic poem.

Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch.

EA have shown us that they can make a classic 007 agent and make you feel in the 60's world. The graphics of the game are outstanding and also the voice recording is very professional. I got this game April 2007 (two years after release), and I am still impressed with the gameplay. It's a shame that EA will no longer make 007 games.<br /><br />I give this game 10/10 for the levels it contains, especially the "consulate" level. I would recommend this game to anyone from the age of 13 and over. The only thing I didn't like in the game is the Russian boat level, it was too much pressure. On the whole I like the game A LOT!!

The scintillating Elizabeth Taylor stars in this lesser-known classic as a young girl from London who falls in love with a tea plantation owner from British Ceylon (current day Sri Lanka). Upon arrival she instantly feels out of place and is forced to adapt to the new culture as well as be in constant awareness of the angry elephant herd. William Dieterle, who also directed The Life Of Emile Zola and Portrait Of Jennie , does a masterful job of bringing a somewhat dark, and almost eerie, undertone to this romance and the setting is one of the most beautiful I've seen with the black and white themed mansion and the gorgeous island scenery.

I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.<br /><br />Bluto

I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.<br /><br />It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like "lame plot" and "it's much cruder than the show." Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.<br /><br />And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.<br /><br />While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.<br /><br />And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?<br /><br />Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie!

I wasted 5.75 to see this crappy movie so I just want to know a few things:<br /><br />What was the point of the dog being split in half at the beginning of the movie, the disease had nothing to do with being split in half.<br /><br />What was the point of dragging Karen into the shed, she already totally infected her room, they could have just locked her in there where she would have been safer.<br /><br />Why would the Hermit be running around the forest asking strangers to help him when he could have just asked his relative, the hog lady, to take him to the hospital?<br /><br />Why didn't any of the characters bother to walk into town to get help when things started getting bad, are they all really that lazy?<br /><br />Even if Paul was threatened by the guy w/ the shotgun for peeping on his wife, Paul could have just sent Jeff or Bert back to the house to ask for help. the girl he loves is deteriorating.<br /><br />What was the point of the box?<br /><br />Why did Jeff go back to the cabin after he left when everyone else was getting infected, if he was that big of a jerk to leave in the first place wouldn't he have just gone back home?<br /><br />If the police went to all the trouble of gathering up the kids and burning them on the fire pit, why did they throw Paul halfway into the river, it wasn't even necessary for the plot because the water was already contaminated.<br /><br />Who makes lemonade out of river water, that crap has dirt leaves and bugs in it. Why couldn't the two kids have just use the tap water, it was contaminated too, so the stupid ending would still work.

This movie works because it feels so genuine. The story is simple and realistic, perfectly capturing the joys and anxieties of adolescent love and sexuality that most/all of us experienced during our teen years.<br /><br />The actors are as natural as figures in a documentary but are as convincing and as charismatic as seasoned performers. The dialogue is fresh and honest... and thankfully not filled to the brim with cutesy pop culture references. Also, the cinematography is at once gritty and beautiful, bringing the Lower East Side setting to life in a very tangible way.<br /><br />On an artistic level, I love this movie because it reminds me of great Italian neo-realism films like The Bicycle Thief and La Strada. Movies rarely feel as "real" as this does ... or as Bicycle Thief did. And the only other movie I've seen that treats teen sexuality with the same level of seriousness is Elia Kazan's Splendor in the Grass. Writer/director Peter Sollett deserves tremendous praise. This film is quite an achievement.<br /><br />On a personal level, I am always glad to see a movie that treats members of ethnic America with love and respect. As an Italian-American, I hate the way my own people come off in the cinema (as racist, womanizing, criminal geniuses in irritatingly popular epics), and my aggravation on this count makes me acutely sensitive to other groups and their awful silver screen representations. Hispanics and Asians in particular seem cursed to playing villains in Westerns and action movies. (Good thing Gong Li didn't try to become famous in America!)<br /><br />Of course, thanks largely to the rise of indie pictures, and the influence of Miramax, we are seeing a few more pictures about ethnic characters here and there ... but Raising Victor Vargas is easily one of the best. While I do really like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, it is a refreshing change that Raising Victor Vargas is played straight (with less exaggerated and broadly-drawn characters) while still being very funny in its own right. Finally! Latino characters worthy of note. I have a feeling that this is a film that will be remembered.<br /><br />Of course, now that he has made this wonderful picture about a family from the Dominican Republic, I hope Peter Sollett gets around to making a movie about Italians soon! :) - Marc DiPaolo

People expect no less than brilliant when Steven Spielberg directs a movie, and this movie is no exception. Some movies I love did poorly at the box office but, I'm glad to say, this movie isn't one of them (over nine million dollars, which I don't think was bad for back then). The characters were fun, the animation was clear and not fuzzy, and the music was modern, too, which is unusual for an animated movie. I didn't think Professor Screw Eyes or his "Scary Cirus" was too scary for little kids (the targeted audience for this movie), but I thought what happened to the creepy professor at the end was a little too dark for a kids' movie. Overall, this movie is a fun and enchanting classic that I have loved dearly for years.

Michelle Rodriguez plays Diana, a high school girl with an insolent scowl and 2 x 4 on her shoulder. She's ready to battle anyone, especially her father who is paying for her brother's boxing lessons. Diana decides boxing would be a good way of focusing her anger.<br /><br />I liked the relationship between Diana and Adrian. Santiago Douglas as Adrian is excellent. Watch how their emotions towards each other are shaped by the squared circle.

This is really a great unknown movie.Perfect dialogue without the typical clichés.This movie relied on the actor's talent and it was pulled off.It even had a little bit a comedy in it,but it wasn't overdone.Once in the Life is what a crime drama is supposed to be,not the typical special affects garbage with sex thrown in.I especially loved the interracial aspects of it all.<br /><br />Now onto the actors themselves. Laurence Fishburne was superb at playing a career petty criminal.It's a shame that he's only allowed to show his talent in his own movie. Titus Welliver was fabulous as Fishburne's junky half-brother. Eamonn Walker added flavor to the already perfectly spiced film. Paul Calderon was perfect as a grease monkey/drug lord.I loved his acting since "King of New York". But the best acting in this film came from Gregory Hines and Michael Paul Chan,who were paired perfectly as two of Calderon's henchmen.<br /><br />Once in the Life is for sure a keeper. ****1/2* out of *****.

This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.

There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.<br /><br />Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.<br /><br />Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.<br /><br />Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.

This is one of the worst films I have *ever* seen! It is bad, even at TV Movie level standards. The plot is diabolically flawed, and the known names in this film are wasted on confused, uncertain characters. I don't know how the director managed to keep this excuse of a film together - it is that bad. Billed as a 'Psychological Horror Thriller' - it is certainly Horrific. There is nothing Thrilling about it. And it could do you Psychological damage! The initial opening scenes held such promise - a possible embarkation on whether the soul is just an aspect of the brain, but the utter shambles that followed the car-crash scene is beyond belief. No matter how hard you try, you couldn't care less about the characters. There are so many sprinkled ideas that the film is at best a collage of disconnected phrases from Chinese philosophers, and at worst the film would actually make you go Brain Dead!<br /><br />I have purchased over 300 films on DVD, and this is the FIRST one I'm going to get my money back on. STEER CLEAR.

30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and "Svengoolie," but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like "Plan Nine From Outer Space."

Great, great, great! That is all I can say about that movie, but imdb want at least four lines of text so I'll elaborate. The cast was great (Jerry O'connel is soooo cute!), the music was great (The sixties had the best music ever, imho), the historical material was interesting, and so was the way they made the actors of the '90s seem like they were actually there in the '60s. And most of all - the stories of the main characters brought tears to my eyes, and that is the greatness of any drama. BUT IN ONE WORD: GREAT!

I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue. <br /><br />Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.<br /><br />The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.

In Northeastern of Brazil, the father of the twelve years old illiterate Maria (Fernanda Carvalho) sells his daughter to the middle man of a prostitution organization, Tadeu (Chico Dias), to be employed as a housemaid and have a better life. However, the girl is resold to the farmer Lourenço (Otávio Augusto) that deflowers her, and he gives the abused girl to his teenager son to have his first sexual experience. Then she is sent to a brothel in a gold field in Amazonas and explored his owner, the despicable Saraiva (Antonio Calloni). When Maria escapes to Rio de Janeiro expecting a better life, she is explored by the cáften Vera (Darlene Glória).<br /><br />"Anjos do Sol" exposes the sad and shameful reality of child prostitution in Brazil through the fate of the girl Maria. Last year I saw "Lilja 4-ever" that tells an identical story in the former Soviet Union; therefore this problem does exist in Third World countries. Director and writer Rudi Lagemann presents a great movie exposing the reality but never showing nudity or explicit sexual scenes. It is the debut of the promising Fernanda Carvalho, who has an excellent performance in the role of a scared child fighting for survival. Most of the prostitutes are amateurs, and it is impossible to recognize the famous Darlene Glória so different she is after many plastic surgeries. The bitter and hopeless end of the story is also very realistic. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Anjos do Sol" ("Angels of the Sun")

"Cut" is a film about some film students making a film. It's very much in the "Scream" mold, an ironic, self-referential horror flick which, for me at least, falls down because for all its irony, it's still just a bad horror film, same as the films its referring to.<br /><br />But it was not without its charms. Well, one charm anyway. Molly Ringwald was fantastic as the spoilt, bitchy American actress hating every minute of working with the amateur Australian film crew. She was so convincing that its tempting to believe it wasn't an act, although everyone involved with "Cut" says she was lovely to work with. :-)<br /><br />Seriously, every scene of her pouting, sulking or snapping was great. Everyone else, however, wavered between being OK and being terribly wooden.<br /><br />Anyway, "Cut" has some laughs, a few buckets of gore (some of it surprisingly gruesome), and ultimately is.. just another bad horror film.

Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.

This is an excellent movie. The cast is a great mix of characters and the story is decent. The movie is basically about a well-accomplished doctor stealing the bodies of dead brides and taking them to his home. Once the bodies are at his home, he removes stuff (i hate to use such a general term, but i forget what it was he removed) and puts it into his wife to retain her youth. Then a reporter, Patricia Hunter, investigates the situation and begins to find answers on why the brides were dying. She takes a trip to the doctors house and the interesting things begin to take place. Definitely watch this oldie, but goodie if you can.

Originally conceived as a solo vehicle for Dudley Moore, 'Not Only...But Also' saw his ex-'Beyond The Fringe' collaborator Peter Cook guest on the first show, and so well received was it the controller of B.B.C.-2 insisted that he be on it every week from then on. They were a classic comedy team - Cook was tall, handsome and witty, while Dudley was short, charismatic, and musically gifted. The sketch that brought the house down had them in a pub, wearing flat caps and mufflers, fantasising about movie stars such as Jane Russell and Greta Garbo. It remains one of the most hilarious skits of all time, and even when Cook corpses it still holds together well.<br /><br />Those characters - idiot Pete and even-bigger idiot Dud - found their way into every episode of the show proper, seen in a different setting, such as a zoo or an art gallery. In the latter, they munched sandwiches while discussing works of art. "That Leonardo DaVinci cartoon...I don't see the joke!", says Dud. Pete points out that when it was first unveiled it probably had people in fits. Dud nearly chokes on his repast. "You really are enjoying those sandwiches!", ad libs Cook. The pair bounced their humour off each other in a way that was joyous to behold. The sketches themselves set new standards for comedy, standards that would not be matched until the arrival of 'Monty Python'.<br /><br />As the show's popularity increased, so did the quality of the guest stars. Peter Sellers for instance, and John Lennon, the latter presenting a filmed item based on his poem 'Deaf Ted, Danoota, & Me'. 'One Leg Too Few' - had Dud as 'George Spigott' ( a name later re-used in the film 'Bedazzled' ), a one-legged man, who hops into the office of film producer Cook to audition for the role of 'Tarzan'. Cook tries to let him down as best as he can. "I've nothing against your right leg!", he says. "The trouble is - neither have you!".<br /><br />Dud would on occasion interview the eccentric Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling ( Cook ), who when he was not teaching ravens to fly underwater, was planning on opening a restaurant called 'The Frog & The Peach'. Another classic was 'The Leaping Nuns' ( also reused in 'Bedazzled' ). But my all-time favourite has to be 'Superthunderstingcar', a wickedly funny ( and accurate ) parody of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's 'Thunderbirds'. Pete and Dud played all the roles, with the latter making a fetching 'Lady Penelope'. 'Ludwig' had Ludwig Van Beethoven as the star of a 'This Is Tom Jones' style variety show. 'The Immortal Bargo' was a spoof documentary on the life of reclusive movie star 'Emma Bargo'. In an unforgettable moment, she drove through London, bellowing through a loudhailer: "I want to be alone!".<br /><br />A Season 3 feature was 'Poets Cornered' with the likes of Ronnie Barker, Spike Milligan, Barry Humphries, Willie Rushton and others suspended over a gunge tank. They each had to improvise the line of a poem, and anyone failing to make it rhyme wound up in the nasty stuff.<br /><br />Three seasons were made in all, produced ( at different times ) by Joe McGrath, Dick Clement and Jimmy Gilbert. Sadly very few editions survive. To make matters worse, the scripts were destroyed as well. It beggars belief that this situation was allowed to happen.<br /><br />The show ended in 1970. The comics then hit Broadway, made the infamous 'Derek & Clive' tapes, but Cook's ever-increasing alcoholism broke them apart. Eight years later, Cook announced that a new series was in the offing, but it turned out to be wishful thinking on his part. His ex-partner was making films in America, and had no intention of working with Cook again ( not at that time anyway ).<br /><br />Enough footage was scraped together for a season of B.B.C.-2 repeats in the early '90's. As expected, some items had not held up as well as others. Cook died in 1995, and by way of a tribute the B.B.C put together a programme compiled from various 'Parkinson' interviews and 'Not Only...But Also' shows. It ended rather appropriately with Pete and Dud finding themselves in Heaven. "Bloody Hell!", exclaimed the latter. Moore passed on in 2002.

Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.<br /><br />The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.<br /><br />Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.

OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.

...this is a classic with so many great dialogs and scenes nobody should miss. Nice story, funny riches-to-rags situations, Mel Brooks is not a bad lead, maybe not perfect but he is funny ;D Don't pay attention to the rating, it's BS. Watch it, then watch something like final destination (2009) and tell me that Life Stinks deserves about the same rating. If you do, I don't think we can be friends XD At this point I recommend the fourth season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" to every Brooks fan ;) Vote 10 against the ignorant opinions of inchworms! I've to make 10 lines here to post a comment? I don't wanna write a book here :P

This movie could have been very good, but comes up way short. Cheesy special effects and so-so acting. I could have looked past that if the story wasn't so lousy. If there was more of a background story, it would have been better. The plot centers around an evil Druid witch who is linked to this woman who gets migraines. The movie drags on and on and never clearly explains anything, it just keeps plodding on. Christopher Walken has a part, but it is completely senseless, as is most of the movie. This movie had potential, but it looks like some really bad made for TV movie. I would avoid this movie.

Summer Phoenix did a great performance where you really feel what she's not able to feel and you just cannot understand what she has on her mind. Besides, she portrays a jewish girl who behaves really confronting the status quo of that century.

I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.<br /><br />I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.<br /><br />Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.<br /><br />Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.<br /><br />The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.

Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it. <br /><br />Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 6 out of 10.