Datasets:

KMaly

/

ait526_sentiment

like 0

Aaah...The Thing.<br /><br />To see a horror film in which not only is every character over the age of thirty, but distinctly UNattractive, makes a refreshing change, and reminds me of those distant times when actors were chosen because of their talent and their ability to play realistic characters, rather than because of their teen appeal on a magazine cover. And Carpenter chooses a production designer and a cinematographer who can actually create realistic environments rather than over-styled parodies. And there's no gimmicky 'twist' ending, or cameo celebrity appearance, or lame pseudo-romantic subplot.<br /><br />And I REALLY miss on-set physical effects; with all those 20 year old kids trying out crazy new ideas with vats of blood and latex and early animatronics. In the 5 years between 1979 and 1984 we saw Alien, The Elephant Man, Poltergeist, The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, The Thing, The Company of Wolves, A Nightmare on Elm Street...what an era for horror effects! And don't get me started on the death of matte painting. The matte work in this movie is beautiful and seamless.<br /><br />What do we have now? Third rate CGI, former music video directors and professional stylists, that makes even 'gritty' horror movies look like glossy MTV videos.<br /><br />Now I'm going to go Netflix 'The Howling'.

A unique film...one of the best of all time. Acting, script, Quincy Jones' score, cinematography, editing, etc. -- just fantastic. As most viewers know, this movie is based on Truman Capote's book about the famous murder of a Kansas farm family (the Clutters) by a couple of young guys during a misguided robbery. I've never seen a movie that so brilliantly turned a true story into a riveting film. <br /><br />The actors are solid across the board, but the focus is on the killers, Dick and Perry, and the law enforcement team pursuing them. Scott Wilson, as Dick Hickock is amazing. Cocky, twitchy, and devoid of compassion he comes across so charming, oily and plausible. Robert Blake as Perry Smith is extraordinary as well -- lonely, and at once empathetic and cold-blooded. Who could fold these characteristics into one individual and make us buy it? He does, and it's brilliant! A key point of the book is how it took the intersection of these two very differently sociopathic individuals to create the critical mass to commit such a stupid and heinous crime, and these two actors make it work beautifully. Both had moments in their subsequent careers, but these performances are high water marks, and that stands for acting period. <br /><br />The cops are wonderful too. Leading the investigation is John Forsythe, but the other three detectives are great as well. Unlike contemporary movies where producers feel it necessary to endow police with superhuman assets or foibles, these are just genuine flatfeet, working the case with determination and competence. They seem so real. I've never seen cops on the screen so powerful in their authenticity; and I've seen most of the crime classics going way back. Really one of a kind in this respect. <br /><br />PARTIAL SPOILER COMING (this movie's unique in that you already know what's happened, but I'm warning for the record). <br /><br />Of course, the best scenes from the best crime shows and movies are the interrogations -- the intellectual fencing matches between the cops and the crooks, Mano a Mano. This movie has hands down the best interrogation scenes you'll ever see on film. Watch Dick and Perry try to bluff their way through and slowly unravel, unaware the cops have the goods on them. But the cops need to deftly prep their suspects to fracture their alibis and hopefully elicit confessions. This is some of the best acting you'll ever see. Think Glengarry Glen Ross without the showboating. <br /><br />To help translate the sad and horrific angles of this true story, ICB was filmed at the actual Clutter house, and I've heard the Clutters were played by film students to give them a genuine feel. It works. These seem like decent, simple folk. It makes the crime so palpable and sad. <br /><br />I'll stop here. It's not a feel-good movie, but it is one of the best movies ever made, and so unique, it's mandatory viewing for every film buff.

The film is not visually stunning in the conventional sense. It doesn't present a series of pretty pictures. Instead it is a visually interesting film. It forces the viewer to constantly process or perhaps imagine the context of the various shots. This sort of thing is easy to try but hard to succeed at. The film refuses to use the crutch of a genre to help the less than fully engaged viewer get what's going on. Instead the film touches on and moves through a number of different genres. The trick to loving the film is being able to enjoy this playfulness. I suspect 99% of North American viewers will just not get it. If you try to pin down the narrative of this film, or the philosophical message, or the symbolist structure, etc. you will waste your time. There are none of these. The film only feints towards these genres and others at times. The only unifying force in the film is Claire Denis's own sense of what fits together. There are so few feature length films that come close to satisfying Kant's description of what art is, namely the enjoyment of the power of judgment itself instead of simply subsuming experiences under concepts. Film usually takes the easy way out and opts for the simpler pleasure of understanding what's happening. Most film is not art. Most film doesn't come close to art. When a film does, as this one does, and is still enjoyable by a large range of viewers, it's something of a miracle. My on negative comment is that at times I find the film too simplistically buying in to the various narrative threads that run through it. The Tahiti father-son narrative, even though it's not exactly conventional, ends up making things a little to clear and simple. It dominates too much.

This movie forever left an impression on me. I watched it as a Freshman in High School and was home alone that night. I think I lost all respect for Robert Reed as an actor having been a huge fan of the "Brady Bunch". I also thought the role of Chuck Connor was horrendous and evil. However, this movie made such an impact on me that I am now a volunteer in the women's state prison doing bible studies and church services and trying to change womens lives, one at a time. What fascinates me is that so few people actually watched this movie. None of my friends watched it and my family is clueless to this day when I discuss this movie because they didn't see it.

This is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM "B" actors.<br /><br />One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.<br /><br />Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.<br /><br />

How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.<br /><br />The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.<br /><br />From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.<br /><br />7 of 10 but almost a 6.

no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and "the killer is out here somewhere" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!

The contemporary chapter of the U.S. Navy's elite underwater demolition team is called to do.... whatever they want, apparently.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen was made an officer. Already the storyline is unbelievable. Michael Biehn is his immediate C.O., but he keeps Charlie on a rather long leash and one of the guys pays for it early on by getting killed thanks to Charlie's patented stupidity. The rest of the team spends their spare time committing courts-martial offenses. Mostly an exercise in random gunfire and paper-thin ethics, these particular Seals might be better suited to serving as crash-test dummies.<br /><br />Some good action scenes counter the goofy proceedings.

Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his "Lady Vengeance" and "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.<br /><br />Others have compared/contrasted this to "Let the Right One In," and I have to say that "Let the Right One In" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.

I see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. The main actor was really good but the editing around his moments takes you out of it. The camera work, ie lighting and exposer is kind of amateur which I could forgive if the direction was more fluent but it wasn't. The sound was a bit off and that takes you out of the film as well. I see could see this director doing a little bit better in the future so not a total right off but don't expect a dv movie nearly as good as 28 days later or anything, keep your expectations low and you'll get more out of it. At least it was only an hour and a half. Oh yeah and other than the lead the acting was pretty bad if you ask me. But I'm a movie snob so take that for what that's worth.

Saw this in the theater in '86 and fell out of my chair laughing more than once. "Beirut"..."What do you know about Beirut?"..."Beirut...he's the best damn baseball that ever lived."<br /><br />You know how it's going to end but it has a great time getting there. The training scenes are very funny but the best scene may be the one when Jack and Reno are attempting to watch the Falcons v. Vikings Monday Night Football game while attempting a make-up dinner with their wives.<br /><br />Williams and Russell seem to have a lot of fun with this one and it's too bad that it's overlooked as a top notch comedy.

It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.<br /><br />That alone says what to expect of this movie.<br /><br />And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.<br /><br />In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.<br /><br />Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.<br /><br />With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.<br /><br />According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.<br /><br />If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.<br /><br />Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.<br /><br />1940s and 1950s, serve your country.<br /><br />1960s and 1970s, mock your country.<br /><br />This is the history.<br /><br />The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.<br /><br />Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.<br /><br />I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.<br /><br />I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.<br /><br />I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.

'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.

An excellent film depicting the cross currents in the lives of a multi-ethnic mix of not so ordinary people in the rural Pacific Northwest. Solid directing and writing along with fine acting, especially the performances by Kwami Taha and Dan Stowe. Interestingly, this film was made in the same year as the highly successful "Crash," written and directed by Paul Haggis. The pace of the action may not be as frantic as that in urban Los Angeles, and the characters may seem to be better acquainted with each other in "Apart From That," but the personal relationships of the characters are as flawed and troubled and their stories as resonant as any of those in "Crash." For those viewers who appreciated "Crash" this is a must see film. Also, fans of Jim Jarmusch and John Cassavetes will like this movie.

Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.<br /><br />Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.<br /><br />What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.

Yesterday, I went alone to the cinema, because here in Mexico, most of the times movies from other countries are part of the so called "camára alternativa" (alternative camera). But after I saw this movie, I realized that not all the foreign movies are alternative. Afortunately, this is a good a example. But I have to said that I enjoyed so much this movie.. that at the end I was happy.. this movie is a little spoon of hope in these days. And the main lesson for me.. is that at the end of the day...the love is main force behind us. This is a good option to see a good movie in Spanish...and I have to mention the good music.. specially the main song of the movie.. Cosas que hacen que la vida valga la pena.... Excellent song!!!

In general I like dinosaur movies but this one is pure crap. No script, no dialogues, no acting. And the brave colonel Rance trying to show he is tough and so curving his mouth resembles as a twin brother the stupid Proctor from the Police Academy. So this was a complete waste of time (fortunately not waste of money as I saw the film on TV). And I really cannot understand 7 people who graded this sh*t 10. They must've joked. My advice, if you see this title run from it!

I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...

How much can you really say about a condom with teeth? The plot was really out there, but it was something campy to see on a Friday night. The story has a lot of unexpected twists, and it's a great way to offend all you're conservative friends!

"Committed", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.<br /><br />One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as "chit-chique poetry"). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written/directed (or "auteured") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a "spiritually superior" people, which is the "highlight" of this film's political correctness.<br /><br />The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic "actor"; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed "Werewolf"; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.

Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!

Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!

Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.

Having enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º

Bette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.<br /><br />There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.

I really enjoyed this movie and it was a little difficult do that when your brother is making stupid comments in it ever 30 seconds. But this movie I enjoyed, mostly because I'm used to the usual HK action films. Most of the films like this are don't watch it for the story line, watch it for the mindless action. And mindless action is right. You get to see Jet Li Jump, spin, kick, punch, shoot, make impossible jumps and dodge countless bullets. It's true that this movie was released to a broader audience after Li was in Lethal Weapon 4. That is one of the reasons the ratings on this movie dropped. Most people were probably expecting to see a movie that was as polished as a North American film. But you need to remember most HK film budgets aren't nearly as high as a North American film, and the style in a HK action film is usually very different usually requiring in wire work in a lot of them. If you want to see a good action film you should see this just try to ignore the dubbing.<br /><br />My rating was an 8.

After watching this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.<br /><br />The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.<br /><br />The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.<br /><br />The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with.

Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this "thing",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this "thing" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed.

I am Curious (Yellow) (a film, in near Seussical rhyme, is said right at the start to be available in two versions, Yellow and Blue) was one of those big art-house hits that first was a major sensation in Sweden then a big scandal/cause-celebre in the United States when the one print was held by customs and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. What's potent in the picture today is not so much what might offend by way of what's revealed in the sex or nudity- the director/"actor" Vilgot Sjoman films the various scenes in such a way that there is an abundance of flesh and genitalia and the occasional graphic bit but it's always more-so an intellectual expression than very lust-like- but the daring of the attempt at a pure 'metafilm' while at the same time making a true statement on the state of affairs in Sweden. Who knew such things in a generally peaceful country (i.e. usually neutral in foreign affairs and wars) could be so heated-up politically? At least, that's part of Sjoman's aim here. <br /><br />Like a filmmaker such as Dusan Makavajev with some of his works like W.R. (if not as surreal and deranged) or to a slightly lesser extent Bertolucci, Sjoman is out to mix politics and sex (mostly politics and social strata) around in the midst of also making it a comment on embodying a character in a film. The two characters, Lena and Borje, have a hot-cold relationship in the story of the film, where Lena is a "curious" socialist-wannabe who demonstrates in the street for nonviolence and 'trains' sort of in a cabin in the woods to become a fully functioning one, while at the same time maybe too curious about her car salesman boyfriend. And as this is going on, which is by itself enough for one movie, Sjoman inserts himself and his crew from time to time as they are making this story on film (there's even a great bit midway through where, as if at a rock concert, title cards fill in during a break in shooting who the crew are, negating having to use end credits!) Then with this there's a whole other dynamic as Sjoman gives an actual performance, not just a "hey, I'm the director playing the director" bit.<br /><br />At first, one might not get this structure and that I am Curious (Yellow) is just a film where Lena is a documentary interviewer asking subjects about their thoughts on class, socialism, Spain and Franco, and once in a while we see Lena's father or Bjore. But Sjoman does something interesting: the structure is so slippery as the viewer one has to stay on toes; it's impressive that so many years on a picture can surprise with not being afraid to mix dramatic narrative, documentary, film-within-a-film, and even a serious interview with Martin Luther King, who also acts as a quasi-guru for Lena. It might not always be completely coherent analysis politically, but it doesn't feel cheating or even with much of a satirical agenda like in a Godard picture; the satire Sjoman is after is akin to a Godard but on a whole other wavelength. His anarchy is playful but not completely loaded with semantics or tricks that could put off the less initiated viewer.<br /><br />If I Am Curious (Yellow) stands up as an intellectual enterprise and a full-blown trip into exploring sex in a manner that was and is captivating for how much is shown and how comfortable it all seems to be for the actors, it isn't entirely successful, I think, as an emotional experience. Where Bergman had it down to a T with making a purely emotional film with deconstruction tendencies, Sjoman is more apt at connecting with specific ideas while not actually directing always very well when it comes time to do big or subtle scenes with the actors. Occasionally it works if only for the actors, Lena Nyman (mostly spectacular here in a performance that asks of her to make an ambitious but confused kid into someone sympathetic and vulnerable even) and Borje Ahlstedt (a great realistic counterpoint to the volatile Lena), but some 40 years later its hard to completely connect with everything that happens in the inner-film of Lena and Borje since (perhaps intentionally) Sjoman fills it up with clichés (Borje has a girlfriend and kid, will he leave her, how will Lena reconcile her father) and a heavy-handed narration from his starlet of sorts.<br /><br />And yet, for whatever faults Sjoman may have, ironically considering he means it to be a comment on itself, I Am Curious (Yellow) holds up beautifully as an artistic experiment in testing the waters of what could be done in Swedish cinema, or testing what couldn't be and bending it for provocative and comedic usage. I'd even go as far as to say it's influential, and has probably been copied or imitated in more ways than one due to it being such a cult phenomenon at its time (a specific technique used, with the film rewinding towards the end, is echoed in poorer usage in Funny Games), and should be seen by anyone looking into getting into avant-garde or meta-film-making. If it's not quite as outstanding an artistic leap as W.R. or Last Tango, it's close behind.

For a movie like this, there's always something to follow by in years to come. Clive Barker, the man who brought "Hellraiser", makes a horror movie that is part-Goth, part-Mythology, and all horror in-between. "Nightbreed" are a bunch of mutants who only come out at night, and roam the place called Midian. Now a man name Boone(Craig Sheffer) claims to suffer hallucinations he goes to this shrink Dr. Decker(David Croneberg) who "helps" Boone with his problems. Unaware of this situation, Decker claims to be a purist which he's only a hate-monger in disguise. Boone however, goes into Midian and make the claim that he's one of the mutants there. But a mutant named Peloquin(Oliver Parker) sees Boone as meat! His bite however, spares Boone so after he is killed by a gauntlet of fire arms, he's one of them now. After being mislead by Decker, Boone does everything in his power to protect Lori(Anne Bobby) from him. Lori saves a mutant from the sun, and in return helps the others as well. I liked the lady mutants one who gives a smoky "kiss of death" and the Porcupine Woman who dreamed Boone show off her power that is so seductive and deadly at the same time. I've enjoyed this horror movie all the way, and the rule of it is, never trust a shrink! Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars!

The first time I've seen this DVD, I was not only happy because of the fact that it was the first time in decades that the band put out anything, but also because the DVD itself is extremely loud. Jimmy Page obviously can't live with quiet music, I guess. I do must say though that during the concert at Royal Albert Hall, they expanded 'How many more times' and 'Moby Dick' too long. Other than that, it was exquisit. My favorite song of all time is now on that DVD. Trampled Underfoot. It's either that one or 'In my time of dying'. In that song, Jimmy really plays that thing good. Ever seen Randy Rhoads play? Well, Jimmy plays just like him, except his guitar is lower.

Nicely filmed, a little uneven, "Nobody" is a good evening's entertainment. The plot is simple enough--three yuppies get into a scrap with a group of strangers in a bar, and it turns out to be much more than they bargained for. The acting is decent, and there are a few unexpected twists. Watch for the completely unbelievable (like the 10 shot revolver, and 25 shot semi-automatic handgun).

In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.<br /><br />Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.<br /><br />Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.<br /><br />Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting "Give us back our husbands". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, "I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.<br /><br />The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, "there was nothing we could do". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on.

This is the best version (so far) that you will see and the most true to the Bronte work. Dalton is a little tough to imagine as Rochester who Jane Eyre declared "not handsome". But his acting overcomes this and Zelah Clark, pretty as she is, is also a complete and believable Jane Eyre. This production is a lengthy watch but well worth it. Nearly direct quotes from the book are in the script and if you want the very first true 'romance' in literature, this is the way to see it. I own every copy of this movie and have read and re-read the original. The filming may seem a little dated now but there will never be another like this.

no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.<br /><br />Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10<br /><br />cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10<br /><br />little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10<br /><br />Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10<br /><br />wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10<br /><br />ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10<br /><br />john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10<br /><br />overall this was bulls*it id give it a 3/10

This is my favourite film and I think it is perfect. Unlike virtually any other film I can name, I never watch this film and think it would have been better if they'd changed this or that or whatever. Is this the definition of a work of art? I think so. Every brushstroke in Mishima is perfect and it all flows from the Schrader's script. I've always sort of liked Paul Schrader's work (you can't argue with Taxi Driver and Light Sleeper is an amazing film), but while his writing often seems to border on the bombastic, his directing style is usually non-existent. This is deliberate, I think, because his films usually deal with a search for redemption and are set in the real world; ugly and harsh. His style suits his themes as he presents his characters in a simple and realistic way, and lets them show the audience the truth of the situation. Imagine if Schrader had directed Taxi Driver or Bringing Out The Dead, instead of Scorsese. But like the protagonists of those two films, while Mishima the man was ideal Schrader material, right-wing, vain and at odds with society, his works were subtle and beautiful. In fact he had a secondary writing career as a woman's writer, churning out what can reasonably be described as romantic potboilers. So you wouldn't necessarily imagine that Schrader was the ideal man to capture that subtlety and beauty on film. I think the film shows that he was. The script he helped fashion splits Mishima the man into three parts; his life, his death and his mind. His life is represented in black and white, still camera, formal compositions. His death, for which he will always be best remembered, is handheld documentary style. And his mind is represented by the dramatised extracts from his novels, each one revealing the thought processes of this complex man, who hardly ever wrote a character that wasn't a reflection of himself. These dramatisations are beautiful to look at, thanks to Eiko Ishioka's remarkable production design and Schrader's imaginative staging. In all parts, the acting is superb, especially from Ken Ogata as Mishima, who captures the essential charm, arrogance and narcissism of the man. The photography is excellent throughout and contains images that the viewer will retain forever. Finally, the music is simply superb, perfectly matching the images, although written and recorded before shooting, adjusted during the editorial process and then re-recorded. How much the music influenced the shoot I do not know, but it bonds perfectly to the image. I have seen many ideas of what various people think the theme of the film is, what Schrader is trying to say. You know, the big stuff about life, death etc. But I do not think the film is saying anything. Mishima has already said it, the film simply repeats.

I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.

Loretta Castorini (Cher)is a woman in her late thirties, a widow, who lives with her parents in a duplex apartment in Brooklyn. She is engaged to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello), a bland man, more out of a resigned duty than actual love. Before their wedding Johnny takes a trip out to visit his mother who is sick and leaves Loretta the function of playing the olive leaf with his brother Ronny by notifying him of their impending wedding. Ronny (Nicholas Cage) hasn't forgiven Johnny for being the cause of his accident which caused him the loss of his hand (and subsequently, his then-bride-to-be), but he does fall for Loretta, and hard. After a heated affair Loretta out of respect for Johnny tries to avoid Ronny, but his dark looks and overpowering masculinity win her over. Meanwhile, Loretta's mother Rose Castorini (Olympia Dukakis) is not only suspecting her husband Cosmo (Vincent Gardenia) is seeing another woman, but is also herself the subject of admiration from a college professor and wonders why do men chase women. Things get complicated when Johnny returns from Sicily to tell Loretta they can't be married.<br /><br />The setup is pure sitcom, but the story, written by John Patrick Shanley with a deep understanding for Italian-Americans living in New York, is genuine: he gets the idiosyncrasies of these people and their day-to-day foibles and quirks, and all of the characters have a deep romanticism that comes through in key moments throughout the story. Loretta, a character hardened by the loss of her husband and knowing her chances of happiness are slim, slowly emerges as a woman who is so swept by the sudden recognition of love she becomes the heroine of La Boheme -- the one who acknowledges the love of the man with the wooden hand (in a clever gender reversal), and Cher inhabits the role and makes it hers and in her own style subtly trades her frumpiness to a deep, dark beauty. Ronny is pure fire and Nicholas Cage exudes masculine power as if he were channeling Marlon Brando. The Castorini's and the Cappomaggi's, counterbalancing the central couple, both express their love for each other in two very crucial moments: the latter couple, on the night of the full moon when Loretta and Ronny consummate their affair -- a rare scene depicting love and intimacy among the elderly --, and the former at a tense moment over breakfast when Rose bluntly reveals, in touching words, that she wants Cosmo to stop seeing his mistress Mona (Anita Gillette).<br /><br />MOONSTRUCK is not only the romantic comedy and date movie of choice, but also a beautiful examination of love and passion among regular people. The ending is a tour de force of emotional impact, the family situation going beyond the momentary complications to cement it in tradition going back to the days of immigrants, and is one that elevates this movie from being just another feel-good movie to a classic. MOONSTRUCK deservedly got its Oscars for Best Writing, Actress, and Supporting Actress, and has proved to grow beyond its time.

I love the Satan Pit!!! David Tennant is such a great actor and so is Billie Piper!!! Who else loves Will Thorp to pieces??? He is so cute, isn't he? I hated the bits where he got possessed by the devil and where he got told to "go to hell", as Rose so bluntly put it. Mind you, he was quite funny when he said, "Rose, do us a favour, will you? Shut up!". Mr Jefferson was so brave, wasn't he? Dying to save the others. I felt really sorry for Toby (Will Thorp) when he came out of the possession for the 2nd time because he was so scared. I was like "Oh my god if I was Rose I'd be so scared for him". And when she hugged him I was like "grrrrrr, he's mine! hands off!" but I thought that was really sweet. And the doctor....well, I thought he was gonna say to Ida "tell Rose I love her" but he didn't. Oh well.

I suppose that in 1997 Hollywood wasn't quite at the point of openly celebrating homosexuality, so one might want to give some credit to those who put this movie together for having shown a little bit of courage. One simply wishes that credit could be given them for having put together a really good movie, and in my opinion "In & Out" doesn't qualify on that count. It's the story of Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) - a small town high school English teacher who on the eve of his wedding is outed by a former student who happens to win an Oscar and who then has to go through what can only be described as a period of self-discovery as he comes to terms with being homosexual. To me, that was the first problem with this movie. Howard didn't really have to turn out to be gay. The movie would have been funnier (and perhaps even more thought provoking) had Brackett remained defiantly straight in spite of the stereotypically gay aspects to his life and the town's belief after the Oscar speech that he was gay. (In fact, I thought that identifying him as gay given the presence of those stereotypes might actually have been rather insulting to the gay community, as well as to straight men who like poetry and believe in dressing neatly!) <br /><br />Kline was decent enough in the role, and largely carried the film. Aside from him, most of the other cast members (although fine actors) were people not really noted for their success on the big screen. Folks like Tom Selleck and Wilford Brimley and Bob Newhart are good actors but not big movie stars. I actually thought that the funniest (if very small) role in the movie was that of the super model Sonya, played by an actress named Shalom Harlow (Speaking of stereotypes, I loved her oh-so stereotypical model line "I promised to do that photo shoot this afternoon. I have to shower and vomit!") In the end, what really turned me off about this movie was the ridiculous ending, starting with the graduation ceremony (and, to be honest, even if someone decided that the graduation was really necessary, the movie should have ended there, rather than proceeding on with the totally unnecessary nuptials at the end.) <br /><br />Basically, I got a few chuckles out of this but nothing more. 3/10

As a "lapsed Catholic" who had 11 years of Catholic school, but hasn't been to Mass in 35 years except for weddings and funerals, I thought I'd get a kick out of this. And I did . . . for the first two-thirds of the movie. It was all the standard stuff -- strict parochial school teachings, repressed sexuality, etc. But then, suddenly, the movie turned mean. REALLY mean. Now mind you, I saw this before the pedophilia scandals hit . . . and maybe I wouldn't have been quite so offended at such nasty, hateful digs at the Catholic Church if I'd known about those abominations (such a Catholic term!) and coverups.<br /><br />It's been a few years since I rented the video, and I won't go back to rent it again with a new perspective. It just left such a dirty, nasty, ugly taste in my mouth . . . I wonder what experience all the actors had with the Church, because either they *really* hate it, or they whored themselves for the paycheck. It's an incredibly anti-Catholic movie, offensive to anyone who has a glimmer of a gleam of respect for Catholic education. Which I still do because there were no better teachers back in the '50s. Whatever else those nuns did, they forced me to learn how to read and write the English language. They made us memorize. (How many kids today can do simple arithmetic in their heads?) Truth is, there's nothing more essential for success in America. Can ya read? Can ya add/subtract/multiply/divide? Great. You can get any advanced degree you want. And the discipline of Catholic education will stand you in good stead, not just as you continue your studies, but also for the rest of your life, no matter what you think of the Catholic "mythology" we all had to learn.<br /><br />Such a great cast, such a lousy, rotten script. I really feel bad (and no, it's not "badly" -- trust me, the nuns taught me better) for the writer and director.<br /><br />I thought I had mixed emotions about Catholic school. But the participants in this project must've been those bad (ie.e, stupid) kids who sat in the back of the room, if they were willingly involved in making this movie.

As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.<br /><br />Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out!

Life is too short to waste on two hours of Hollywood nonsense like this, unless you're a clueless naiive 16 year old girl with no sense of reality and nothing better to do. Dull characters, poor acting (artificial emotion), weak story, slow pace, and most important to this films flawed existence-no one cares about the overly dramatic relationship.

Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from ****

I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did. I got it simply because I saw it on the list of Top 25 Most Controversial Films of All Time. It didn't look particularly great. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was one of the most cleverly composed films of recent memory.<br /><br />It's about a twenty-year-old woman wants to know everything. She stores every bit of information she collects in an enormous archive. She experiments with experience in sex, political activism, and human relationships. Meanwhile, film's crew is shown making the film and we view their reactions to the story and each other. Nudity, explicit sex, and controversial politics kept this film from being shown in the US while its seizure by Customs was appealed. The film is a narrative yet it's a documentary that shows us the behind-the- scenes world of the filmmakers during the narrative, the fourth wall being broken. This film is the most direct possible way of making a movie I have ever seen. The movie predominantly works as a time capsule of 1960s psychedelic goings-on, freedom-fighting and sexual liberation. I like to think of it as much more than that.<br /><br />I didn't think I would want to waste my time with the blue version of this movie, but I actually really do. This film is a buried treasure. Give it a try.

'The Shop Around the Corner (1940)' is a pleasant romantic comedy, not the sort that I will hold dear to me until the end of my days, but nonetheless a film thoroughly deserving of its reputation. By 1940, director Ernst Lubitsch had long ago taken Hollywood by storm, and his famed "Lubitsch touch" had become a sparkling commercial trademark. This film was planned for a 1939 release, but scheduling conflicts meant that James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan were unavailable for filming. Rather than substituting either of his main stars, Lubitsch decided to postpone production, in the meantime directing Greta Garbo in 'Ninotchka (1939).' When it was finally completed, 'The Shop Around the Corner' appears to have been met with relative indifference, receiving zero Oscar nominations despite an excellent screenplay by Samson Raphaelson and fine performances from its two leads and Frank Morgan in a supporting role. Time, nevertheless, has betrayed the film's massive and enduring influence, with high-profile remakes including 'In the Good Old Summertime (1949)' and 'You've Got Mail (1998).'<br /><br />At its surface, one might assume 'The Shop Around the Corner' to simply be the story of two lovers, Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), who love each other without knowing it. However, Lubitsch's film runs much deeper than that. It's the story of Matuschek and Company, a stylish gift shop in Budapest, and the various human relationships that make the store such a close-knit family. When store-owner Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) begins to suspect his oldest employee of having an affair with his wife, we witness the breakdown of two families, both at home and at work. There's absolutely no reason why the story should not have been set in the United States – perhaps in the blustery streets of New York – but Lubitsch was deliberately recreating the passions and memories of his former years in Europe, the quaintness of love and life before war brought terror and bloodshed to every doorstep. This subtle subtext brings a more meaningful, personal touch to the film – in fact, even as I write this review, I'm beginning to appreciate the story even more.<br /><br />Sullavan and Stewart are both lovely in their respective roles, but I think that it's the supporting cast that really make the film. Each character brings a distinctive personality to the mix, and their interactions are always believable and enjoyable. I especially liked how Lubitsch knowingly directed much of our sympathy towards Hugo Matuschek, who, in any other film, would have been restricted to an underdeveloped, two-dimensional portrayal. Matuschek may have lost the love of his family, but he recaptures it in the affection of his employees, and you feel a heartwarming glow when, in the bitter cold of a Christmas Eve snowstorm, he finds companionship in a freckle-faced young errand-boy (Charles Smith). This genuine warmth towards a supporting character strikes me as being similar to several of Billy Wilder's later creations, for example, Boom Boom Jackson in 'The Fortune Cookie (1966)' or Carlo Carlucci in 'Avanti! (1972).' Of course, it doesn't really need saying, but Billy Wilder learned from the best.

THis was a hilarious movie and I would see it again and again. It isn't a movie for someone who doesn't have a fun sense of a humor, but for people who enoy comedy like Chris Rock its a perfect movie in my opinion. It is really funnny

I absolutely LOVED this Soap. It has been one of my favorite. Will highly recommend :)... I just love Brazilian soaps, they deal with real life events. I'm really sad that the soap ended but I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere. For those of you who have not seen it, please see it. I loved the characters, the plot and how things turned out in the end for the villains. The only thing I would have changed is the end for Xica and her long life love. I can't wait to see it again and highly recommend it. Xica has been by far, the best soap I have ever seen. Forget everything else :)GO XICA.. Hope you all like it as well.

German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.<br /><br />Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.<br /><br />The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.<br /><br />The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.<br /><br />The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.<br /><br />Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.<br /><br />More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.<br /><br />After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.<br /><br />At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.<br /><br />Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.<br /><br />I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.

The A-team is still repeating every day on Dutch television (RTL7, around 1800hrs) and I still watch it! I don't like the A-Team... I absolutely adore them!! It is just great to see Justin chasing the former members of A-Team. Brings back memories from the old days, when I was young an sweet. I would have given you a 10 for excellent, but Justin looks like he is chasing the former A-Team members all by himself. Of course, that is the only bad thing on this documentary. Too bad Justin does not look for Melinda Culea ("Amy A. Allen"). But it is great to see Mr. T. back into action. Too bad for him, he does not show up at the party, at the end. But that party is too short to laugh again and to see everybody in action again.

The film begins with a little girl (Rita) seeing her father killed. He apparently was a criminal who squealed on his fellow crooks. Later, and this part makes little sense, the girl has grown to adulthood and STILL her father's past haunts her! A bit later, Rita meets a good-for-nothing and dates him. During one of their dates, he's a bit intoxicated AND driving like a total fool. The cops give chase and he speeds away--killing a pedestrian in the meantime. Here comes the Really stupid part. He convinces her to confess to the crime, as he assures her his lawyers can get her off scot-free. Why, oh why, would she agree to this?! Yet she does and spends the next couple years in prison!! And, soon after her conviction, this boyfriend disappears--showing that he's a total heel. What a chump!!! Later, after her release, her friend (Jack La Rue) informs her about the truth about the boyfriend. Then, he explains, the boyfriend's family is loaded and she should shake them down for lots of cash for all the trouble he put her to by taking the rap. Frankly, this does make sense--as they certainly owe it to her--especially since they knew she'd go to prison and had every intention of using her and then casting her aside.<br /><br />Now the idea of bleeding money from the rich chumps is a good plot idea. However, there is no way this would have occurred in the first place because it's hard to believe anyone could be so stupid as to take the rap for a hit-and-run! In an interesting twist, the dumb lady decides on a life of crime--donning a wig and picking up a rich guy--taking him into the desert and robbing him at gunpoint! Wow...how she's changed! Apparently she loves the idea of stealing from "phonies"--i.e., rich hypocrites. However, and this made no sense, she soon stopped doing this and began shaking down the father of the old boyfriend--why she bothered to do some petty robberies in the meantime made little sense. And, what also was a bit hard to believe was that instead of wanting money from the old jerk, she was interested in getting him to put his influence behind a mob-controlled man for mayor. Odd...very, very odd.<br /><br />In the meantime, another plot develops involving a young Alan Ladd. He's an undercover agent who has infiltrated the mob. He was chosen because he just happens to be a dead ringer for a real crook--what a cliché! But what makes no sense is that this real crook isn't in jail and is out committing crimes while the fake one is infiltrating the mob in another town.<br /><br />Eventually, evidence that Ladd is able to uncover is enough to issue warrants to the mob kingpins--including Rita. This is a case of very bad timing, as in the interim, she's made a decision to become a decent and legitimate woman, as she's met a really nice guy who she wants to marry! Wow,...what are the odds?! Overall, this is a goofy and rather dumb movie that suffers from "kitchen sink syndrome"--in other words, there is way too many plot elements and weird twists to make the movie the least bit believable. Plus, since the movie is only a little over an hour long, it all seems very forced and contrived. It's a relatively bad B-movie from crap-studio PRC of note only for the performance of Alan Ladd just before he gained great fame the following year at Paramount.<br /><br />By the way, this DVD was released by Alpha Video---a company which sometimes releases some wonderfully obscure titles (mostly public domain) but which NEVER cleans up the prints or adds closed captions. In other words, the DVD production values are strictly 3rd-rate...at best.

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.<br /><br />This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *

A horror picture set ultimately to parody but still in it's play out could scare a few of those that are frailed nerved or easily disgusted when they see whats under their skin. I laughed at it though. It was easy to decipher the true killer and his acting didn't help. This only led to Potente looking even better. Anatomie is not much of a horror picture for those foreign of the genre but those contained should get a few unintentional laughs and an interesting peak at German horror cinema. 6/10

This movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up.

On top of the fact that Skylar is a complete douche bag and his cons are unimaginative, his schemes require way to much preparation to make any of his scams worth while. Without giving away any spoilers (as if it matters with this piece of crap) his cons are such a sham because it takes the effort of days and days of planning, and the use of multiple accomplices and an entire camera crew etc. just to scam someone into a service that would cost less than a hundred bucks.....in addition if you read in the credits they re-stage some of the phone calls etc. because they don't pan out...The whole concept of this show is bunk because all of his cons have the cost in both the crew and the effort of ten times the actual cost of the service he is trying to get for free...what is the con?

I watched this last night on TV (HBO). I have to admit, that the tension in this movie was unsurpassed by most other FN era movies. I loved the way Chip would be all calm one moment and then VIOLENT the very next moment. It was classic. Ahh yes. The dames, the villians, the cigars and thuggish cops! It has it all. This movie delivered all the goods to me. I especially loved the way they mixed communism into the plot, very common for this era of movie. Very daring also since blacklisting was popular in those days. I rate this movie one of the best I have seen in the FN genre!

I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.

Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius.

The TV announcer who introduced this late one Saturday night said it should have won Oscars. Quite a statement for a film I'd never heard of...though why I should have taken any notice of a TV announcer, I don't know. In the event, said announcer was talking tripe.<br /><br />It's a dreary, miserable movie that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I couldn't get on with Hoskins' awful Burr-ming-gum accent. Can't see any advantage in it being set in the Midland's anyway. <br /><br />Unresolved threads abound...and I wouldn't normally mind this but half of them make no sense. And what about when Hoskins' says he'll pick Felicia up from outside her B&B although she never told him where exactly she was staying??? Or her buying into the funeral that clearly never took place (and where was she during those days???) Clumbsy and ill-thought through bits of business if you ask me.<br /><br />It's a thriller without thrills. It's full of pretentious bits of business. It's depressing... <br /><br />Didn't like it. Thought it was rubbish. Wouldn't recommend it. 'Nuff said.

This film is one of the more risqué black and white films of this time in the early 1930's before the Hoyts Code was enforced. It's the story of a young beautiful woman moving to New York and making her way to the top of the business by using her body as a tool to get there.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck plays the young and beautiful Lily Powers who indeed does a fairly well job with her performance. Lily moves to New York and makes her way up the business place by sleeping with all the men. Stanwyck does an outstanding performance as being a strong woman who uses men as one time deals, hardly any emotion towards them playing them as if they were pawns. Lily Powers is a woman who doesn't have love on her mind just power and money.<br /><br />I thought this movie to be a little bit different then other films I have seen because there is hardly any background music heard. I believe it is only because this is when people were first introduced to live sound and dialogue between the people of the film. The few times the music is heard is during the beginning as we are shown how she makes her way up the chain. The filming and different scenes were something fantastic! The director of this film did all the right angles and all the right tricks, making this film full of realism.<br /><br />This film was all together an alright movie.The ending to this movie wasn't as good as it should have been, but it didn't entirely ruin it. Baby Face had its slow moving scenes throughout the movie, and perhaps a few predictable parts such as who she will sleep with next. But this is a lovable movie that can be watched more then once, and suggested to some people and friends.

The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.

As others have commented, I checked this out after Siskel and Ebert listed this as one of their top 10 movies of the year. What a gift. I then went out to buy it, just so that I could loan it out.<br /><br />Best quote? Dwight Yoakum stops his truck when he realizes that someone (Cage) is on top of his cab. When Cage peers down, he apologizes. "I'm sorry if I scared you." Yoakum thrusts his pistol in Cage's face with "Does THIS look like I'm scared?" Great bit of humor after an exciting (and temporary) escape.<br /><br />There really was a sense of fun to this. The constant sighting of the "Welcome to Red Rock" sign elicits a groan and a smiling head shake. The music created a hunting, eerie quality to the film reminiscent of "Twin Peaks". Unlike "Twin Peaks", though, it doesn't spoil things by going too far into the outlandish, needing to "top" itself.<br /><br />I admit watching the credits 15-20 times. You see, they had Yoakum's "Thousand Miles from Nowhere" (perfectly chosen) playing as a freight train curved around down to the desert floor . . with snow-capped mountains in the distance. This was incredible, fluid framing. Further, I've never seen a better unification of sight and sound on film. Also, it totally fit the story.

Oh dear - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.

Hollywood has made a lot of strange movies over the years, but none stranger than this. WHY this movie got made I will never know, nor how Paramount could have thought it would sell any tickets in 1947. It is the strangest mix of genres I have seen in a long time, a movie that truly does not know whether it is trying to be a serious war drama or a Viennese operetta comedy.<br /><br />It tells the story of a British spy trying to get a poison gas formula out of Germany in the days just before WW II began. Ray Milland, a fine actor, is stuck playing the part like an escapee from Monty Python, all very exaggerated English prep-school dialogue. In Germany he meets a gypsy, Marlene Dietrich, who helps him to travel under cover as, of course, another gypsy. She plays her part like the typical Viennese operetta gypsy caricature, as do the other "gypsies" in the movie. But there are also Nazis, who are not funny at all. And then Milland finds he is starting to think like a gypsy, and that is not treated as a joke. Sometimes the music is for a light comedy, sometimes for a drama. Every time the Nazis show up, the film score plays Wagner, which is funny by itself.<br /><br />This movie could have been a comedy, or it could have taken the plight of the gypsies seriously and done a serious job of showing how the Nazis treated them. Both are hinted at in this movie, but neither pursued. What we are left with is a truly strange mish-mash of genres that must have embarrassed everyone (except the director) involved.<br /><br />Bizarre.

This movie actually hurts to watch. Not only did I not laugh once, I ended up getting a serious headache. At times, I felt so sorry for the actors involved. The best way to sum it up is to note that among sex comedies, it is probably the least funny and least sexy of all time. I'm only sorry I can't give it a vote of less than one. To give this a rating of one is an insult to every movie that scores two or better.<br /><br />Now I see that they're filming a sequel. Hearing that someone is actually paying these people to make another movie convinces me that there's just too much money in Hollywood. RAISE THEIR TAXES!!! Making a sequel to this movie may very well constitute a crime against humanity; perhaps an international tribunal should be convened, or U.N. sanctions applied to the filmmakers.<br /><br />In short, it's a really bad movie. Really, really.

Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. <br /><br />What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. <br /><br />Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? <br /><br />It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the "Wood"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!<br /><br />Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. <br /><br />But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!

After I first saw this, I thought, "Wow, this is the most spectacular movie, visually-speaking, I've ever seen." Since that time, I've seen some that topped it but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better than the VHS tape.<br /><br />The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and "lush" is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, "seeing" is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no "hearing," no dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film. <br /><br />Story-wise, all I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction period <br /><br />In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.<br /><br />The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes.

Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.

OK, I've now seen George Zucco in at least four separate horror/suspense films recently as I worked my way through various 50 pack collections, and I have to say, the guy had a limited range, but he was good at what he did. He wasn't Karloff, but PRC was lucky to have him. <br /><br />But the poor guy was stuck in a kind of back-water ghetto of horror films, and he wasn't good enough to take them to the next level of interest....not with the thread-bare screenplays and direction and budgets he worked under. That's the case here. <br /><br />This movie is, well, slow, stodgy and unexciting for the most part. The "heroine" seems to be doomed to be a rent-a-center version of Judy Garland, the "hero" is bland as white rice, and the poor guy playing the monster doesn't even get a good transformation scene out of the deal. His make up effects aren't scary at all - he looks like a slightly more shaggy version of a farm hand, is all. <br /><br />It's not a total waste. Zucco looks good on camera, he chews the scenery while managing to deliver some terribly affected and contrived set speeches without flinching or losing the flow. There are some moody B&W shots here and there that don't completely suck. <br /><br />So all in all...this movie helped some "C" through "Z" level actors pay their rent for another month, and it never sinks below a certain hacked out level of quality. Watch it once if you like George Zucco, or just feel the need to see every wolfman-themed movie ever made.

Talented detective Mr. Philo Vance (William Powell) cancels his overseas trip to investigate an apparently cut and dried case of suicide he has good reason to suspect is really something much more, a rather deliciously complex murder! <br /><br />As far as murder mystery films go, it just doesn't get any better than this one. Populated with suspicious characters, all connected to a dog show and all having very good reason to murder the apparent suicide victim Archer Coe, it's truly tough to figure this one out or wrap one's head around it but boy, does it proves fascinating to watch unfold before us. Even the cops, the coroner and the district attorney prove colorful, fleshed out characters adding a level of unexpected gritty realism to this one's proceedings and amping up its overall "fun" factor. I particularly enjoyed the comic scenes involving the coroner (played by Etienne Girardot), who is always it seems to him being rudely and untimely interrupted by the discovery of corpses or injured men during this one's running time. Also Eugene Palette's Detective Sgt. Heath provides welcome, often later delightfully humorous at his expense, critical commentary during Vance's investigation. I cannot think of any valid criticism to give this movie in fact except perhaps that it hasn't dated particularly well. Doesn't stop the movie from being just plain good fun viewing though. Watch and see if you can wrap your head around this one's mystery. Highly recommended you try!

Saw this film on DVD yesterday and was gob-smacked and flabbergasted. The unaffected acting of DDL just blew my mind, and I was surprised by the whole cast and its superb acting. All of the character were so authentic to me, I really took DDL for Christy Burns and Brenda Fricker for his mom. Go and see it! You'll cry your heart out, but you'll experience a wonderful catharsis! Besides, it teaches you one important lesson: Determination is everything. You may be a cripple in the poor suburbs of Dublin, but when you are headstrong enough you will have no problems at all. If you can only operate your left foot you are still good enough to be a painter or a writer. The worst thing you can do when you are mentally challenged is to indulge in self-pity. It won't get you anywhere and the only person who'll pity you will be yourself.

I would put Death Wish 3 in the same box as Stallone's Cobra and Commando. The box that I would sell for $2 at a garage sale with all the videos inside. The story is about the main character coming back from the previous movies' success to ruin it all with this load of trash. Why did the makers want to destroy the reputation of the past 2 films with this cheap junk. The story is so lame that had to be a outrageous sequel. I mentioned Cobra earlier because it has the same mood, that one man can kill 20 or 30 gang members without a scratch. Both this movie and Cobra were bent on showing the hero firing his guns at hip level and the enemy falling in large numbers. Police officers spend hours at the shooting range so why did they get gunned down by gang members firing aimlessly from their hips? This movie was so bad I thought for a minute it was Death Wish 4.

This is just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes.

I'm not at all picky about horror movies, and I'm willing to watch pretty much any of them. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to re-watch many of them, or that I won't have criticism for them. This movie is creepy, and is very well done. In fact, I think this movie would make an excellent double-bill with Session 9.<br /><br />I should specify, before I get to my comments, that I watched this alone. I started watching it before going to bed, and got about 15 minutes in before I realized that it was too effective, so I saved the rest of it for the morning. Even while watching it in broad daylight, it was still creepy. However, I can't vouch for how effective it would be when watching in a larger group.<br /><br />After the death of their daughter, a couple move to a remote cabin as a means of trying to come to terms with this death. Let me make note of this death - this is one of the rare movies that doesn't shy away from the death of a child. This is much more important, as it both sets the tone, as well as explains much of the acting that permeates the movie.<br /><br />The couple is not doing well. The wife has distanced herself from the relationship, and the husband is doing what he can to try to bring her back. While some of the comments have complained about their acting - one specified that they act more like a father and daughter than husband and wife, and that's legitimate. He's trying to give her more direction. It's a role that men sometimes take on.<br /><br />There are a variety of scares in the film, and most are fairly non-violent, though grotesque in some ways. The story itself feels very straightforward for most of the film, and takes an odd turn near the end. While the turn is not absurd, it is certainly not what you expected from the way things had been progressing.<br /><br />Moody, atmospheric, and very well done for something that appears to have been shot on video.

Recently I saw this movie again (after 25 years). In the original there is a scene in the bathroom of an airplane during the landing between Jacqueline Bisset's character and Michael Brandon's character. The rented version did not have this scene in it. Did I imagine this?<br /><br />Or, is this part of the "clean up" of movies where some are altered to exclude portions some people think are not "appropriate"?<br /><br />I love this movie -- it is exactly like the friendship between a friend and I and we've been friends for 25 years and saw it together. Her husband thought it was us as well.<br /><br />Thank you, Joan

This movie is just downright horrible, the movie was only an hour long and for about 25mins of the movie was just useless random snowboarding clips that don't even connect to the movie. The storyline is completely "retarted", my 5 year old cousin could probably write a better script. I don't understand how someone could fund the production of a film like this ... horrible. This is definitely the shittiest most horrid movie i've ever seen in my entire existence. I think the casting director just took some random kids from off the street to act in this movie. The directing, acting, producing and writing for this film are all really bad. I feel bad for the people who wasted money funding this garbage. U couldn't pay me to watch this crap again.

The original story and funny compelling characters went over well for a teen girls slumber party movie (2 times now). I loved it, it was fun and moved quickly, no boring drawn out scenes. It is violent and has a little language (though most of it is covered up). Its a great movie. David Strickland was a terrific actor. Ron Eldard gave a wonderful performance. I watch it with the girls every time.

Am glad that i am not the only one to find this series very good. This is the best series for young ladies! I have so strange taste on comedies and i find so hard one to please my intelligence, and i am so happy that their humor is exactly what i need. Love the gang of actors! If anyone knows a series or just a movie similar to this one, i say pretty please write back because i miss the series.<br /><br />And kindly ask the writers and the producers to CONTINUE it, even if the actors are now all grown up, i guess!<br /><br />Have a nice morning/day/evening/night! (because i do not know the exact time you will be reading this post)

I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show

Kurt Thomas stars as Jonathan Cabot some kind of a gymnast who trains for a special game which involves being hunted by a group of ninjas, but those ninjas won't stand a chance, especially since Cabot is a gymnast! Taken as a whole Gymkata is one helluva bad movie, the atrocious acting, the god-awful script and really incompetent directing make the quality below human standards, however this movie is so terrible it becomes really, really funny. I mean with dialog such as "I know I'll outsleep them!" or "Ha!, your through!" only add to the mock value that Gymkata more then obtains. Besides it's (Wisely) the only movie that has are hero a gymnast who finds things to swing on in the heat of the moment.

This is one of the worst films I have seen in a while.<br /><br />The problem is that it doesn't know whether it wants to be an intelligent political film, 'artistic' or an exercise is eroticism. As a result it fails on all accounts.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious, the narration off putting and the supposed symbolism pointless.<br /><br />Klaus Kinski is probably the best thing about this film but that isn't a good thing. Sure he has an intense and 'unique' look but ultimately he can't actually act. Just look at how he reacts when his mistress leaves....<br /><br />Really don't watch this film, some say it needs repeat viewings I say one is too many.

Rated E <br /><br />I never actually owned a Nintendo 64 but I have played one many times.In my opinion along with Conkers Bad Fur Day, Super Mario 64 is one of the best video games for the Nintendo 64 system.I have played this game plenty of times and its good every time.If you have an N64 and don't have this game you should try to find it.The original Super Mario Bros games were side scrolling video games but Super Mario 64 has a 3D Mario in a nice 3D environment.The game is sort of weird but there is plenty of things you can do in the game.You play as Super Mario and once again you must rescue Princess and the 120 power stars from Bowzer.Now you can do it in a 3D environment.Super Mario 64 is a very fun and good N64 game and I recommend it.<br /><br />10/10

HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.<br /><br />HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.<br /><br /> **** out of 4 stars.

God bless Joe D'Amato...I love Italian horror, cheese (movie-wise ;)), sci-fi, etc.<br /><br />This one, admittedly, was a bit harder to watch, but another fun BAD movie.<br /><br />I like how people preface a negative review with "I normally enjoy bad movies, but..." No buts, this was a bad movie FOR people who love bad movies. It's one of my top bad movies.<br /><br />Miles O'Keefe was a poor man's Conan, but oh what fun. Who can't have fun with a primitive nuclear bomb, a hangglider and a cheesy rubber monster? It's fine to hate this movie if you only like Hollywood drek like "Titanic" or "Pretty Woman" but if you truly, I mean TRULY love bad movies, check this one out.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that are fun to rent for a beerbust or when you have a couple buddies around and looking for a little mindless fun.<br /><br />My rating 8/10.

Marlon Brando had long since lost interest in acting when he made this film. His performance as "The Swede" is the worst of his career, and that is precisely what he intended it to be. He doesn't overact. Instead, he simply acts in a bizarre fashion and pokes fun at his embarrassingly gargantuan girth. The scene where Brando climbs over the toilet stall is probably the worst, funniest moment in the history of cinema. As we witness him fall head-first into a toilet, it is hard to believe that we are watching the same actor who starred in A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, and The Godfather.<br /><br />I guess the real question is why Marlon behaved like this in his later years. Was he sick of the movie business? Did he just like making a complete and utter fool out of himself? I guess we'll never know. But this film serves as a fascinating study as to what bad acting is all about.<br /><br />On that note, watch fellow acting veteran Donald Sutherland as he struggles to deliver his lines, embarrassed at himself for agreeing to participate in this travesty.

THE GOOD: The acting were great especially Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton. Terrence Howard should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor instead of Matt Dillon.<br /><br />THE BAD: I'm a visible minority (non-white) and I have experienced some form of racism in my life. BUT despite my life experiences and the movie's subject matter, I would definitely NOT say that this movie is the best of the year, in fact, it's FAR from it. I have problems with this movie both from a moviegoer's perspective and from a visible minority's perspective. Some of my problems with this movie are:<br /><br />(1) Poor character development (or none at all). Just because we saw extremes in a character, for example, Matt Dillon being a racist cop and being a good caregiver to his ailing father, that does not mean in any way that the character is well-developed. Yes, I admit that in a big cast ensemble like in this movie, it is quite difficult for every character to be well-developed, BUT that does not mean that at none of the characters should be like that.<br /><br />(2) The dialogue seems really contrived to the point that I'm really surprised this movie won for Best Original Screenplay. They should show this movie in a screenplay writing class NOT because it's good but to show students and future screenplay writers what NOT to do. I just felt like I've been hit by the head over and over again how bad racism is. I get it.<br /><br />(3) The plot seems so coincidental, it is laughable. What are the chances of a black car robber running over an Asian guy who also happens to be a human trafficker while entering his van, and that same black car robber ended up carjacking that Asian guy's van several hours later after he brought him the hospital, only to find out that the several Asians being trafficked inside the van just to show you that the black car robber has a good side after all? Or, what about that scene where a prejudiced upper-class white woman who fell down the stairs and all her prejudice and hatred vanished into thin air? If it was THAT simple, why don't we throw every racist in America down the stairs so they will have a change of heart?<br /><br />(4) I think my biggest misgivings about this movie is the unrealistic view of racism. As someone who has experienced racism in my life, the realistic view of racism is that it is hidden rather than in your face. I've been refused to enter a supermarket because I'm not white. Did the store owner said because I was not white? No, he said the store was closing even though there were a lot of people shopping inside. Did he yell racial slurs? No. Racism in America is more hidden. Some cab drivers probably won't stop to pick you up because you're non-white but that does not mean that they will try to run you over or get out and say racial slurs. If a Chinese woman rear-ended me, I won't be saying "blake! blake! Learn some English bitch!". On the other hand, if I was a Chinese woman and I accidentally rear-ended a Mexican woman, I won't say "Mexicans are bad drivers" in front of her face. That's not how things work. Instead, I would give out my insurance info, say sorry, and go home and tell my fellow Chinese friends and family that Mexicans are poor drivers and make fun of them behind their backs. That is the real racism. It's hidden and not in your face.<br /><br />Anyway, Crash is not original unlike what some people may say. The interlocking and interweaving story lines, plots, and characters have been done before. "Magnolia" is a movie that does this much better than Crash did and yet, it was never nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. It had a stellar cast -- Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who won best Actor recently), Tom Cruise, etc. It really boggles my mind how Crash was even nominated for Best Picture.

Bought this movie in the bargain bin at Rogers Video store for $2. I enjoy a good B movie now and then and figured this looked like a good one.<br /><br />The movie is quite cliche "1970's" and is quite groovy for that. Unfortunately the story line is hard to follow and not a lot happens in the movie. In fact, I turned it off after watching it for 45 minutes and figured a week later that I should watch the whole thing no matter how slow it was.<br /><br />The movie has good spots in it, but you have to wait and wait and wait.......for them.<br /><br />If you are into B movies, this might just be for you, just be warned that the movie is slow and not much really happens, and did I mention not much story line either...<br /><br />

Ultra-grim crime drama from Pou-Soi Cheang, the director of "Home Sweet Home". Tonally, it reminded me of Billy Tang's "Run and Kill", although it's not as polished as that. Nevertheless, it's an engaging, flawed bit of mayhem about a Cambodian loner, Pang (Edison Chen), who arrives in Hong Kong to kill a lawyer. While fleeing the scene, he kills the partner of cop Sam Wai, who, to add insult to injury, is in the midst of dealing with his dying father, so Sam begins an insane, obsessive manhunt for Pang that results in close to a dozen dead bodies and relentless violence. There must be something in the air lately because I've never seen so many humans beating the pulp out of each other as I have lately. This is grim, nasty stuff, which is why I'm so partial to it, and I applaud its downbeat vibe. It's visually arresting and the sound design is very unique. Dramatically, everything spirals downwards until every character finds him- or herself in a world of screaming pain. A subplot involving Pang's attachment to a sexually abused girl adds depth to the story and spawns a surprise fourth act which boasts a fine act of grotesque surgery.

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

Chapter One: Once Upon a Time… At A Table (1941)<br /><br />In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.<br /><br />Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)<br /><br />In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content. <br /><br />Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking<br /><br />In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table. <br /><br />Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking<br /><br />In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.<br /><br />Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table<br /><br />In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.<br /><br />The End

The film really challenges your notions of identity and the society we live in. It is well made and very powerful. The persons in the film are honest and revealing about the world that exists outside of the normative ideological perspective. I believe it give great insight into a sub-culture who shakes the very ideas that the viewer has of society. It is shocking at times and more powerful because of it. Some parts were difficult to watch, as most reality is, but it is not over done. Its good the first time you watch it, but it becomes even better the second or third time around; because you have had the chance to wrap your mind around the very topics they discuss and challenge.

After seeing the 'oh so acclaimed' Fargo and thinking it was nothing more than average, I was wandering if it would be a good idea to rent another Coen 'masterpiece'. This time I was much less disappointed than I was with Fargo and I must say that most of the credit for that goes to the good jokes and the good acting of George Clooney. Well done Mr. Clooney, make more of these and less 'Perfect Stormish' movies. You can act and you showed it here.<br /><br />7 out of 10

It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.<br /><br />As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.<br /><br />The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.<br /><br />The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.<br /><br />To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh.

What an excellent movie, made even more so by the fact that my wife and I stumbled onto it so serendipitously, channel surfing on a nice frozen day in North Texas. Kathy Bates is at her usual best leading a cast of very normal and human costar characters thru one of the most wonderful feel good movies we've ever seen. Why this movie wasn't given the attention it deserved on it's release in 2002 is difficult to understand. Why it was head and shoulders above so many of the boring pieces of trash released with greater fanfare and attention is evident in the viewing. It is obvious that we as a general public are being force-fed that which has been deemed "great and wonderful" by the powerful and influential while true gems such as "Unconditional Love" manage to shine thru all those pretenders to really enjoyable cinema. Rent or buy this movie.....you won't regret it!

There is so much that is wrong with this film, but to sum it up: Terrible acting- so bad it must have been on purpose. poor script - they may have had some good ideas but this was not the best way to present the story. ridiculously bad ending- in some cases the ending manages to save the film-not in this case. if you manage to sit through the entire film you will want to kick yourself at the end because the ending is not even worth waiting for. This is the worst film i have seen in a long time. It was complete torture sitting through this film, i would have appreciated someone warning me in advance. So do yourself a favor. Watch this film only if you have absolutely nothing better to do. Even then you will regret having put yourself through the unspeakable torture.

I could not, for the life of me, follow, figure out or understand the story. As the plot advances it too stays incomprehensible. I'm going to guess and say that there was a preproduction story/plot problem that never got sorted out. The producers could never separate the many details that the novel, or any novel, has the time and space to create from the other idea, which was to make a movie about a serial killer and the killer's pursuit by the police. They ended up with too many things happening in a proscribed feature film time limit. Too bad really because they had a solid cast, a director who knows how to move things around and excellent cinematography. In fact, a well made movie that one could enjoy and relax with for a couple of hours.

Dressed to Kill starts off with Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) having a sexually explicit nightmare, later on that day she visits her psychiatrist Dr. Robert Elliott (Michael Caine) for a session in which she admits to be sexually frustrated & unfulfilled in her current marriage. Kate then visits a museum & picks up a stranger, they go back to his apartment for casual sex, when done Kate is set to leave but is attacked & killed in the buildings elevator by a razor blade wielding blonde woman. Prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen) discovers the gruesome scene & sees the killer but manages to escape. Detective Marino (Dennis Franz) says he suspects Liz as being the killer as there are no other witnesses so Liz teams up with Kate's son Peter (Keith Gordon) to track down the real killer, clear Liz's name & see that justice is done...<br /><br />Written & directed by Brian De Palma I thought Dressed to Kill was a good solid psychological murder mystery. The script is measured & slow at times but it likes to focus on the character's so you really know them, the entire first twenty minutes is just developing Kate as a character before she is suddenly killed off, then the film switches it's attentions to Liz & no one else gets a look in. This way Dressed to Kill is quite absorbing & engaging, unfortunately the character's themselves aren't exactly likable. I found some of the dialogue quite funny at times, especially the dirty talk that Liz spouts occasionally. The killers motives are somewhat plausible but I guess you'd have to be pretty messed up to do anything suggested in Dressed to Kill. It's a good film but it didn't excite me that much & I didn't really find any character to root for or like. The film tacks on a needless & unnecessary twist ending that I didn't really see the point of.<br /><br />Director De Palma directs with style & visual flair, from the art museum sequence to a car chase & as a whole it's impeccably filmed throughout. I'd imagine that every shot in Dressed to Kill had a great deal of thought put into it. I felt the film was a bit flat & uninspired at times though, nothing about it really excited me that much. There is a fair bit of nudity, some sex & rape along with a few bits of gore & violence, Kate's murder by razor blade in the elevator being the highlight, if that's the right word. However, it's by no means as shocking or controversial when viewed today as many would have you believe.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $6,500,000 Dressed to Kill has that glossy high production value feel of a Hollywood film. The New York locations are nice, the cinematography is good & as a whole it's extremely well made. I thought the music was inappropriate & was far to loud & intrusive. The acting is OK but despite his top billing I didn't think Caine had that much screen time. Allen was married to director De Palma at the time Dressed to Kill was made, interestingly out of the four films she appeared in made by De Palma in two of them, this & Blow Out (1981), he cast her as a prostitute... A body double was used for Dickinson as she pleasures herself in a shower at the start.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill is a good thriller that is well worth watching but I didn't think it quite lived up to it's lofty reputation. Good but not brilliant.

First, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.<br /><br />By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?" It seemed to go on forever!<br /><br />Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.<br /><br />I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.<br /><br />Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!<br /><br />I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.<br /><br />

Who could possibly sympathize with these two obnoxious protagonists? What's intended to be a light, frothy comedy about neighbor children who can't give up their childhood game of dare even as they age well into adulhood, comes off more as an exercise in cruelty and petulant self-indulgence. As children, the pair are unbearably precocious; as adults they're intolerably immature. It's a bad combination.

Remember these two stories fondly and in the first, set in the not too distant future, we see a young boy preparing for examination day, the state i.q test. The boy is slightly puzzled as to his parents anxiety as some of his friends have already done it already and eventually goes off to do the test. Upon arriving he is given an injection and is curious as to why. The examiner smiles and tells him that it is just to make sure he tells the truth. The boy then asks, puzzled again, why wouldn't he? It is later and the parents are sitting waiting worriedly by the screen when a message appears and declares that the state are sorry, but their son's i.q level has exceeded the national quotient and ask politely would they like a private burial. A corker of a concluding scene! A Message From Charity was a heart warming story about a fluke mental connection between a girl from the past and a guy from the present. Which pans out into a weird story of witchcraft accusations in the past and delving into the history pages in the present. A nice story with a heartwarming conclusion.