Datasets:

KMaly

/

ait526_sentiment

like 0

I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.<br /><br />Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.<br /><br />The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.<br /><br />This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.<br /><br />Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.

The college teacher Larry Donner (Billy Cristal) is a blocked writer since his former wife Margareth (Kate Mulgrew) ruined him, stealing his novel that became a best-seller. He does not hide his hatred for Margareth, upsetting his girlfriend Beth Ryan (Kim Greist), who is an anthropologist teacher in the same college. While giving classes of Creative Writing, he is stalked by the student Owen (Danny DeVito) that wants to know his opinion about his crime tale. Larry tells that he did not like it, and explains that in every mystery tale, the murderer should eliminate the motive and establish an alibi, otherwise he would get caught. Further, Larry suggests Owen to watch Hitchcock's movies to understand the structure of a suspenseful story. Owen, who wants to kill his detestable mother (Anne Ramsey), watches "Strangers on a Train" and misunderstands Larry's advice, believing that his teacher wants to swap murders to eliminate the motive. Owen travels to Hawaii and while in a ship, Margareth falls overboard vanishing in the sea and is considered dead. However, Larry does not have an alibi and becomes the prime suspect, while the deranged Owen presses him to kill his mother as part of their supposed deal.<br /><br />"Throw Momma from the Train" is one of the funniest comedies of the 80's and a great tribute to Alfred Hitchcock. The direct reference is "Strangers on a Train", but there are jokes with "Vertigo" (with the spinning camera), "Family Plot" (with the car without breaks) and other movies. The lines are excellent and there is an interesting point when Larry tells that every great romance or mystery has a train. Anne Ramsey is amazing in the role of a nasty and abusive dominating mother and the viewer will certainly feel sorrow and understand the insanity of Owen. Kim Greist is very beautiful and Kate Mulgrew is the perfect bitch. Billy Cristal performs an obsessed character with many silly and unreasonable attitudes but necessary to the plot. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Jogue a Mamãe do Trem" ("Throw Momma from the Train")

Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.<br /><br />For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.<br /><br />On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.<br /><br />Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.<br /><br />Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world.

There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.<br /><br />There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.<br /><br />You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.<br /><br />But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie.

I happened to catch this on community TV a few years back and was pleasantly surprised how enjoyable a film it was.<br /><br />While a bit corny in certain ways, as its prime function of being a mystery thriller it works superbly, thanks to a script that concocts an ingenious plot; it kept me guessing throughout and the resolution is inspired.<br /><br />The cast is a star-studded one, containing a mixture of those at the end of their careers (indeed Richard Long died the same year this was made), or those who were on the verge of stardom in hit TV series (Kate Jackson, Tom Bosley). They all do a good job, with the exception of Cesare Danova who sleepwalks through his role.<br /><br />Strongly recommended.

The fact that I watched this entire movie says something about it...or me. It is not a good movie. Terrible in fact. But terrible in the way that kept my attention in that perverse manner that is akin to watching a tragedy and not being able to look away. It would have made a great MST3K subject!<br /><br />Most of the things that make a terrible movie enjoyable are here: bad dialogue, inappropriate music, contrived plot sequences, ridiculous pseudoscience. You'll thrill to slo-mo death sequences, the poor victims with mouths agape and waaaaaaaay too much time to contemplate their impending doom, facing the outrageously contrived deliverer of their deaths. Your heart will be warmed by old action scene cliches like when two women struggle for a gun and it goes off, but WHO'S SHOT? Both look at themselves, then the other, then themselves, then (seemingly 15 minutes later), one finally goes down. You'll sing along (in latin of course) with the street carolers that turn into a ghastly death's-choir that, for a moment, threatened to turn the movie into a twisted musical.<br /><br />So if you believe like I do that as movies get worse they get better, then this might be a decent choice for you. It's not as funny as my current sci-fi schlock favorite, "They Live" featuring Rowdy Roddy Piper, but it's more fun to watch than luke-warm movies like Omen II or III.<br /><br />I give it 4 out of 10.

This film is BORING, BORING, BORING, BORING, and BORING!!! It's not the worse film I ever saw, on the contrary, but.......how shall I put this.......IT'S BORING! There is some very nice scenery and some clever dry wit but that's about it. If it was advertised as a travelogue I would rate it a 7 but it's supposed to be a film with a plot, some drama, and for god's sake a point or a satisfying conclusion.<br /><br />I read some of the comments on this board about this films and I wondered if they saw the same movie as I did.<br /><br />See this film (yawn) at your own risk........one thing for sure- it really is rated correctly= G RATING! (Which most stand for GOD AWFUL BORING!)

If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.<br /><br />After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.<br /><br />OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.<br /><br />The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.<br /><br />Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO!

Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up.

What a travesty of movie ratings injustice - a 2.1 on the IMDb scale as I write this. Folks, this is a lot closer to a 3.0, I'll even go out on a limb and say 4.0 where I've put it. Come on - how can you have a movie about a net of static electricity surrounding the earth and alien amorphic cell structures, and not give it at least a 4.0 for creativity? Then you've got all that great dialog like - "Dave, look at the composition of this mud." You know, I don't think they ever got back to that mud. No matter, this is the kind of flick that 'Z' movie diehards live for, and I can now rest easy. Actually, I saw this quite a few years ago without the proper appreciation for it, along with Corman titles like "Attack of the Giant Leeches " and "The Wasp Woman". I don't know what the fascination might be, but to quote a character from the film - "Whatever it is, it works fast!"<br /><br />Back to that alien amorphic cell structure - I liked the idea of a third element competing against your standard red and white blood cells. When astronaut John Corcoran (Michael Emmet) returned from the dead, I had visions of a scene that might have been a precursor to 1979's "Alien", but that was not to be. Instead, budget restrictions limit the picture to a de-feathered Big Bird knock off, even though that concept was still almost a decade away. Who knows where one idea leaves off and picks up with another? <br /><br />Look, this is not that bad. Not that good, but not that bad. Anytime you can hook up crash landing astronauts with alien beings committed to taking over the Earth, you've got a winning combination. Throw in the cheesy monster factor and you're on your way. Just remember - "A wounded animal that large isn't good".

I am a 20 year old bloke from England. I don't cry at films. But this one moved me. I cried like a girl! This is absolutely the most moving film I have ever seen, even though the story was questionable. Joseph Mazello's little face when he dreams of crying made me sob every time. How could anyone hurt such a sweet looking kid? I'm going to cry now just thinking about it! Remarkable.

Well it was a nice surprise after all. its trailer did not predict a good film at all, it was even a bit misleading. Especially the part of Jeff Bridges was a positive surprise, well written, sardonic and funny. Less real though, I do not think a guy who got where he got would show signs of such irreverence towards everything that his current company stands for. One does not become a top suit just to doubt it all suddenly again. The ending of the film, during the showing of Dolce Vita, was too corny, cliché and quite disappointing. And of course a guy like Pegg's character would not last past his first week in a blitz New York magazine like this. I hope one day I will see a decent role written for Megan Fox, here she looked a poor actress playing a bimbo. And by the way, I do not see why she is the "sex symbol" of the year, I see hotter girls on nearly every cover of every magazine.

Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck.

MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½* <br /><br />Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence) <br /><br />By Blake French: <br /><br /> Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said. <br /><br />This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny. <br /><br />How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?<br /><br /> The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.<br /><br /> "Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money. <br /><br />So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.<br /><br />

Long before "Brokeback Mountain" (about 23 years before), "Deathtrap" was the first time I ever saw two men passionately kissing on screen, and frankly, I was shocked. I understood it in terms of the plot, and it didn't really upset my sensibilities (not much), but it was the first time I ever saw it, at least, in a "mainstream" movie. I thought it was a gutsy move for its time, and took courage for them to try it, especially Christopher Reeve, in the midst of his time as PG-rated Superman. Male bisexuality on screen may have hit its stride with "Brokeback," but it's interesting to note this much-earlier incarnation.

*May contain spoilers*<br /><br />I bent over backwards to be fair to this film. I knew it starred Madonna. I knew it lasted a whole week in theaters. I knew it got a lot of bad reviews. I wasn't expecting a deep and thoughtful examination of class, culture and sexuality like we got in the Italian original. The benefit of the doubt lasted a whole ten minutes.<br /><br />Madonna plays a rich, pretentious, nit-witted Gorgon who goes on vacation with her henpecked husband and flippant friends (the brunette woman is as bad as Madonna, exhibiting some really dumb facial expressions). Adriano Giannini plays the ship's first-mate who the Madonna character delights in humiliating and treating like dirt in every scene they have together. Why is she such a bitch to him? Simply because the plot requires it so that later when the two of them get marooned on a deserted Mediterranean island the tables will be turned and he will teach her a lesson. Just as inexplicable is how they fall in love despite having nothing in common and having abused each other for two-thirds of the movie.<br /><br />"Swept Away" is a silly, simplistic, superficial movie from beginning to end. Madonna gives a typically wooden performance. There are many dumb scenes: Madonna singing and dancing atrociously at the demand of Giannini, a fantasy scene with Madonna and a lot of scenes where he slaps her and kicks her in the butt. Guy Ritchie does his "stylish" editing which is laughable here. The film contains some of the worst dialog I've heard in a major movie in several years. The ending is sappy and implausible. It's basically "The Blue Lagoon" meets "Overboard" minus the nudity of the former and the sense of humor of the latter.<br /><br />Maybe Madonna's ego is so big that she insists on continuing to prove herself as a competent actress. Please give it up, Madge, for our sake as well as yours. This isn't her worst movie though. That distinction still belongs to "Shanghai Surprise". She hasn't made anything worse than that...yet.

This film has a clear storyline, which is quite unusual to the musical genre. "Cats", "Phantom of the Opera", and other Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals can be considered metaphorical, as they use literary works as their framework. "Biarkan Bintang Menari" (BBM)'s storyline touches the very core of human relationships, especially that of Indonesian people. Despite the fact the film was based on a "supposedly" fairytale, it's actually a fantasy of the 'child' in Indonesian adults. The dance sequences are not perfect, yet the songs represent how Indonesians express themselves. I reckon the choreographer should explore Indonesian way of dancing, by not dismaying the fact that Indonesia's dance development tends to be more westernized. The dance sequences seem awkward in some ways and not synchronized with the songs and/or music. Yet, I still love this movie and regard it as a new wave of Indonesian film genre which I hope to improve in the future.

I usually enjoy watching Laurel and Hardy, but this is obviously one of the films they made while they were on their way to becoming a successful comedy team.<br /><br />The plot is all too simple, and is mainly based on one joke; how strange kilts and Scotsmen are. And that's all. Okay, there are some other jokes, but I didn't find them very funny at all; they are outdated and (I guess) were not very entertaining when the movie was first released.<br /><br />Still, the movie has got two of the most charming faces in history, and they make the best out of the awkward story (which I expect was filmed without a proper script) and the scenery is nice to look at. <br /><br />In my opinion, watching this is only worthwhile for Laurel and Hardy fans, other people should stay away from it.

The 2002 version of "The Time Machine" is just the latest in a string of terribly disappointing Hollywood remakes that fall flat on their face despite extravagant special effects. <br /><br />What a lousy, uninspired bland story, with no imagination. Why so totally rewrite such a wonderful sci-fi classic? Are today's movie audiences too hip for the H.G. Wells writing largely as is? The 1960 George Pal version told a much more endearing story, even with clunky low-budget effects, beach-party looking Eloi, and Morlocks that looked like Smurfs on steroids.<br /><br />The 2002 version must have H.G Wells turning in his grave:<br /><br />1. The idea that the time traveler is motivated by the desire to change the past and trapped in a time paradox is an old sci-fi cliché. This totally distracts from the love affair with Mara (what happened to Weena?!) that made the 1960 version so endearing. This sets an unfortunate and distractive tone early on that makes the whole movie dour. If Guy Pearce's character was so brilliant either he or his buddy Einstein would have realized the time paradox dilemma – not have it dawn on him 800,000 yrs in the future – from a Morlock no less, Doh!! What's wrong with time-traveling just for fun & adventure & curiosity -- as embodied in the 1960 version?<br /><br />2. Only if you saw the first movie would you realize at all what Pearce was doing with the time machine when you first see it. The George Pal film carefully explains the whole weird idea of 'travel' though a 4th dimension.<br /><br />3. The director goes out of his way to make Pearce's character look geeky, a worn out old stereotype of scientists. In the 1960 version Rod Taylor was a little nerdy too (at least around Weena) but managed to be swashbuckling, playful and charming.<br /><br />4. Among the key themes of the 60's version -- abandoned in the remake -- is the idea that endless war leads to the bifurcation of humanity. Blowing up the Moon to destroy humanity is pointless -- and doesn't do much for science literacy. For over 4 billion years the Moon has suffered vastly more powerful asteroid impacts, which would make any nuclear device look like a firecracker. Yes, science fiction needs artistic license, but this is just plain dumb and meaningless.<br /><br />5. Destroying the time machine is stupid too. Apparently our time traveler invented the neutron bomb to power this thing. Blowing up the machine to kill Morlocks is sort of a cop-out 'machina ex machina' Disappointingly, Pearce never comes back to the 1800s to tell his tale to his incredulous friends, a key part of the Wells story with the irony that in a week the time travels goes into the far future and back.<br /><br />6. Having Morlocks running around in the daytime totally ruins H.G. Wells' wonderfully spooky, ghoulish portrayal of them as shadowy creatures of the night. A true cinematic opportunity lost. Also, Wells depicted the Eloi as frail and childlike. These guys in the movie looked like they could take on Morlocks, if they weren't such big baby wusses.<br /><br />7. The one smart Morlock – kind of a bleached-out Star Wars Evil Emperor -- had potential, but is so lame and aloof he tells Pearce to take his machine and go home ?! Boy, what a dramatic high point! In the book the Morlocks steal the machine because they are so fascinated by it, and fight to keep it.<br /><br />8. The goof ball hologram at the N.Y. Public Library is too much. It makes light of the idea of human cannibalism. the 1960 version simply had the "talking rings" that delivered a chillingly somber eulogy for humankind. Derailed evolution is serious stuff.<br /><br />Its sad the wonderful effects in this movie can never make up for a weary contrived clunker of a script. Save the cost of a ticket & popcorn and go rent the DVD when it comes out (soon no doubt), at least you can fast-forward thought the dull parts, just like our time traveler.

Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. "Are you fast?" ... "Y'ain't THAT fast."

the town of Royston Vasey is a weird, but wonderful place. The characters would be just wrong and too disturbing but the fantastically brilliant writing means that it works, and it works very well. Most people will know others with a touch of some characters, but hopefully no one knows people with extremes of personalities such as Tubbs and Edward, the stranger-hating owners of the local shop, or the pen-obsessed Pauline who treats "dole scum" with much contempt.That was only a few of the strange inhabitants. The TV works consists of 3 series and a Christmas special. There are references to many horror films, such as the wicker man. A more recent addition to the range of works is a film, the league of gentlemens apocalypse, of which I will not say much but highly recommend. All in all the league of gentlemen is a hilarious comedy show with genius writing and brilliantly bonkers characters. I would definitely say that it is worth watching as you wont regret it!

It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either.

Well.....horror this ain't, but.......!!!??? A terrible low low budget backwood-flic of the worst kind, sort of AND...therefore quite charming and funny to watch...at least on my tv set!!! A cross between Pete Walker, Herschell Gordon Lewis and...say....damn, I give up...just can't come up with any "prettier" resemblances for this trashy movie. Everything is soooo wrong that I just have to enlist it in my film collection alongside with....Death In Venice.....Nekromantik.....Blue Velvet and The Good,Bad,Ugly... right !!?? People with some small talent for adding gory inserts or sexy happenings to film they buy offa other people, should pick this film up immediately....sure is a fat lil' ol' goldmine waiting here, oh maaaannnn!!!!!

I am surprised that so many viewers didn't find all the symbolism in the movie.....it's what made the movie an incredible work of art! The story deals with some of the saddest content a movie could hold, yet it is one of the best movies I've ever seen because of the need for your own imagination and the brilliance in the storyline.<br /><br />If you will pay close attention, the message is there. The younger brother is killed by the stepfather. The older brother made up the story about the wagon flying as a way to deal with the pain of his brother's death. There are those that would argue why would he lie to his own children with the story. To me the answer is because he doesn't want to share such ugliness with his own children, or that he has blocked it out and replaced his memory of the horrific event with the thought of his brother flying away to safety. I've read some of the reviews that believe he was an only child and that he created the younger brother as an escape to deal with the abuse he suffered. Although this is an interesting idea - I love the imagination used to come up with that. I don't think he would have lied to his own children about having a little brother. But, I do find it plausible that he would have lied about his little brother's death. However, I like that idea of an ending much better than the notion that the movie had no symbolism at all.<br /><br />There are many different takes you can have on the movie, but if you take the movie at face value.....two brothers creating a wagon that flies to escape an abusive stepfather - you've missed the brilliance. The fact that I was able to see the subtle messages in the script were what made the movie so incredible to me. It requires your own thought process and your own imagination to make it work......dig deep when you watch it. You'll be amazed at the genius contained in the film. The only other movie I've seen as close to this in symbolism and subtle messages is Pleasantville.....but that's a comment for another movie!

The turning point in "The Matador" comes about half through the movie when Danny, an unsophisticated man from Denver, is sitting in the balcony of his Mexico City hotel, enjoying a quiet moment. Someone knocks on his door, and knowing it's Julian, the paid assassin, he refuses to answer. But did he really? <br /><br />Richard Shephard, the director of "The Matador", presents us with a character, Julian Noble, who shows no redeemable qualities. In fact, we have already seen him in action, doing what he does best. When Julian meets Danny at the bar of the Camino Real in Mexico City, he spills the beans and tells his new acquaintance what he really does for a living.<br /><br />Danny, who has come to sell his program to a Mexican company, but it seems he is competing against a local outfit that appears to be in the front for getting the contract. Danny is a naive person who falls prey of the charisma and charm doled out by the smarter Julian. It's not until some time later, on a cold winter night that the killer appears at Danny's door asking his friend to repay a favor and accompany him on a trip to Tucson. It's at this point that the secret that binds them together is revealed in an unexpected way.<br /><br />Pierce Brosnan, acting against type, makes a great contribution with his irreverent Julian Noble. Just to watch him walking through the hotel lobby in his Speedo and boots gives the right impression about his character. Greg Kinnear, on the other hand, plays the straight part of this odd couple. Hope Davis appears only in a couple of scenes leaving us to lament why didn't she stay longer. Philip Baker Hall puts an appearance as the liaison between Julian and his assignments.<br /><br />Richard Shephard directs with style working with his own material. The musical score is by Rolfe Kent and the crisp cinematography of David Tattersall enhances everything.

First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !

Jack Black and Kyle Gass team together to promote their band Tenacious D in this Rock Classic called Tenacious D In The Pick Of Destiny. Jack Black and Kyle Gass invent their own Rock Opera..it was like an Opera of Rock 'N' Roll. Some of the most twisted events took place in that movie....the big foot part....the mushroom part....and in the end when they did the rock off against the Devil. A classic formed in Tenacious D....one of the best films I have seen in a long time. The last couple things I saw in the theater were stupid..but this movie rocks. This really made me laugh hard. The whole basis is Jack Black runs of to find his rock partner in Los Angeles. His partner is Kyle Gass and man who has always been bald. They work together to find this magic pick that can make the most terrible musician play greatly. They finally make it to the Rock 'N' Roll Museum and steal the pick. On the way they meet The Stranger Played By Tim Robbins. They make it to the club to win their prize money when the owner grabs the pick and all along he was the devil and he battles the D in a Rock Off. The D doesn't win but the Devil's horn falls off sending him back to hell. Therefore LONG LIVE THE D!!!!!!!!!!

The photography of this bid-budget production is surprisingly bad. Colors are muddy and brownish and the photography has very 80ish look to it. Direction and editing are often quite uninspired and TV-movie like, too. *And* at first the movie only seems to want to torture its viewers with lurid images of sex and violence. Hans Zimmer's score is also a typically simple and bland work of this overrated, untalented composer.<br /><br />But if you are willing to watch the movie further you are rewarded with a very moving family story, a sort of European version of Edna Ferber's family epos Giant. While at first you wonder why Clara married this idiotic man, even his character gets more depth and more background one can judge him by. Clara delivers the movie's spiritual lesson, a great and moving statement set against the terrible happenings in her country. Her daughter, whose lover is a young Antonio Banderas at the beginning of his international career, understands that lesson and ultimately tries to live by it. The way the plot was constructed with the ending mirroring the beginning was great. The actors all do a great job, too. I was wondering "Who is the actress playing Blanca?" all the time, but of course, it was a really young Winona Ryder!<br /><br />All in all, this movie really made me want to read the book.

I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.<br /><br />As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great.

I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time

Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.<br /><br />The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.<br /><br />Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.<br /><br />Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.<br /><br />On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.<br /><br />All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise.

We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.<br /><br />The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.<br /><br />Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.<br /><br />Please, don't waste your time. Please.

I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!

I'm not here to tell you "Armored" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire. Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel ("Charlie Varrick") and Walter Hill ("The Warriors"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog.<br /><br />"Armored" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds? Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then stay away.<br /><br />At 88 minutes, "Armored" is all muscle without an ounce of fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack. Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through it.<br /><br />Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout. At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger brother. He needs cash bad.<br /><br />Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ...<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Everything goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban decay.<br /><br />Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the course of the movie. Love that guy.<br /><br />Also, credit is due to the menacing, throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records.<br /><br />Also, it's surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one — one! — f-bomb in this entire movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the kids.<br /><br />The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set in the Budapest subway system called "Kontroll." Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere guy called James V. Simpson.<br /><br />A lot of the people in this movie are just starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers.

Trading on the success of the 1975 hit, this film is a cheaply made story of a plantation where Massa gets down with the slave women, and the Missus gets down with the big black stud, and with massa'a son also. In fact, there is so much getting down going on, that I really don't know why anyone bothered to get dressed.<br /><br />So, if you want to see white women rolling their naked bodies all over tied up slaves, or you just like a movie with tits on display every five minutes, then this one is for you.<br /><br />There is a funny/sad story in here, but it only comes at the very end so as to not interfere with all the hot sweaty sex going on on the plantation.

If you ever see a stand up comedy movie this is the one. You will laugh nonstop if you have any sense of humor at all. This is a once in a lifetime performance from a once in a lifetime performer. This is a stand up standard.

This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment.

Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?<br /><br />The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).<br /><br />The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. <br /><br />This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.<br /><br />There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.

It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss!

I loved KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER since I saw it on the night it premiered on September 13, 1974. I loved the monsters which seemed scary at the time and the cool music by Gil Melle (hey, where's the soundtrack guys?) and have often thought about what makes this show work for me so completely and have finally concluded that the reason it endures when many others do not is one simple, important element it has that almost no other scary show seems to have and that is a main character that most people can relate to on an everyday level. When Darren McGavin's Carl Kolchak starts to discover odd situations, he reacts like most people would. He finds them odd and as he gets closer to danger, he is frightened, even if he knows he must move forward to try to defeat whichever menace is being showcased in that episode. It's rare that he is brave enough to stand up against some superior supernatural force. He's usually set a trap and is hiding or waiting in the wings to see if it works. Sometimes, he seems as surprised that he managed to defeat a foe as we are. In one episode, he goes to find a monster in a sewer but when he first sees it, he runs to get out of there but is trapped so reluctantly, he must go back and defend himself. He's heroic because he is willing to do things most of us probably wouldn't do but that doesn't mean he probably wouldn't much rather someone else did it instead of him. He's a regular guy, doing a job, trying to make a buck, not a monster-hunter. He just gets wrapped up in things involving the supernatural, which he has an interest in but he doesn't want to be hurt or killed anymore than any of the rest of us do. If his plan to defeat the creature didn't work, you will often see him running for his life to get away from it, which is of course what I would do in the situation. That's why I was often watching the climax of the shows through my fingers as a kid. Kolchak was likable and you cared if something bad happened to him. You were scared for him and for the other characters too. The producers and writers obviously knew that anyone can create a monster suit, scary music and direct a suspenseful scene but it's all for naught if you don't care about the characters. Darren McGavin said that the reason why the show only lasted on season was because he got tired of doing a "monster of the week" show and he decided not to continue. I can tell you I mourned when this show was canceled when I was a kid but, as an adult, I can see why it couldn't go on in that formula for very long. I still love the 20 episodes and two movies that starred McGavin as the bumbling, determined and brusk but good-hearted reporter for the INS, known as Carl Kolchak. I seriously doubt anyone who makes shows or movies will ever really understand why I loved the show. It's not the monsters, darkly-lit sets, creepy music or goofy guest stars, although they are all vital ingredients. The secret to it's success is right there in the title - "Kolchak: The Night Stalker". Without McGavin's lovable, bumbling Carl Kolchak to root for and to care for, then it just ain't a Night Stalker.

OK so this is about 30 minutes of gore with no story whatsoever. There is no spoken dialogue, no subtitles, not even any real characters. You see three people in the entire movie (that are alive) and two are just there for very little reason. The main guy has no emotion and just mutilates corpses for no apparent reason. That is the entire movie. I love to see very gory movies, especially since in America real gore just isn't very common in modern movies. So yeah the gore effects were pretty cool. But it just isn't really disturbing. Why does everyone think it's so disturbing? There are no characters at all, there are just 3 living people and 3 corpses. No one has any personality or back story. You see three corpses being hacked apart and you can't really identify with it unless you just identify with death itself and how this could very well happen (despite the guy losing his job and going to jail very shortly after.) To be disturbing the viewer has to care and to care they have to identify with the victim. For example in a good horror movie you should really care about the main character. Here it's just a guy and a corpse. It's as deep as a puddle made from only a single rain drop. They never give you any reason to care about anyone in the movie. All it is a guy hacking up a few bodies, then he has sex with a body. Now with the sex scene here is an odd thing about it, he makes sure to wear gloves but doesn't use a condom. So he couldn't care less about catching some weird STD from having sex with a corpse but as long as his hands don't get messy there is no problem, now that is really logical. I don't really dislike the movie, I liked that it was very gory but when it ends there is no reason to watch it again, no reason to even care, and it just isn't a very compelling movie. I say if you can find it for under 10 dollars then you might as well get it but if it's more than that it just isn't worth it.

When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.<br /><br />The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."<br /><br />I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.

Glenn Close is back as Sarah Plain and Tall, a woman who keeps a family together through the good and bad times. The acting is superb -- Christopher Walken (unusually non-spooky) as her husband once again delivers a top-notch performance. It's good to see young Christopher Bell all grown up; too bad we don't get to see much of Anna (Lexi Randall, also a few years older), but the new addition to the Witting family (played by Emily Osment) was very welcome. And finally, Jack Palance, as the long lost Witting patriarch, is as fine as ever.

"Father is still away on business" was headline of an review after "Promise Me This" premiere in Cannes. I do understand why many thinks the same but unique expression of Kusturica is still present in his new movie and is something why critics can't touch him. I had two hours of pure energy without rest. Even when Kusturica is suffering of lack of concentration or fear of empty space he is still unique and unspoiled. Surprisingly good performance of Stribor Kusturica. Much More close-ups and less landscapes then in "Life Is A Miracle". Marija Petronijevic has femme fatal world class potential, please don't spoil it. Surely, I recommend to everyone to see this film.

The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.<br /><br />Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.<br /><br />Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.<br /><br />Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.<br /><br />

Oh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!<br /><br />However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:<br /><br />Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore. <br /><br />The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.<br /><br />Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.<br /><br />C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!<br /><br />This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's "re-watchable" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.

Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.<br /><br />If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.<br /><br />*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***<br /><br />First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.<br /><br />As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care.

This is a wonderful comedy short--one of Keaton's absolute best. Through a long series of silly mistakes, Buster is mistaken for a wanted killer. And, as a result, most of the film consists of him running from the cops and one detective in particular. While generally I am NOT a fan of movies with a lot of chase scenes, this one is the absolute best as far as pure athletic and acrobatic ability. I have seen some that have had wilder stunts, but none where the star was so limber and able to move with amazing grace. In particular, there is a scene where he runs across a table, jumps on a man's shoulders and dives up through the transom as lithely as is humanly possible. Plus so many of the gags are funny and perfectly timed, such as how he really comes to believe that he's actually killed someone. By the way, this film is VERY similar to COPS, also by Keaton, but original enough and with enough energy to make them both worth seeing.<br /><br />This film is brilliant and the only Keaton short I can think of that I probably liked even more was THE PLAYHOUSE--where Buster plays every role at the theater.

Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.<br /><br />Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.<br /><br />The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.<br /><br />All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.

Now really can u call that a movie. I knew some of the movies that Japanese people do are good for nothing but this bad? I mean com'om i fell a sleep three times at this movie. No horror at all, some tiny percent (0.2-0.5) comedy. Action let's just admit that it has some but the scenes are poorly filmed, the actors are pathetic. None of the actors did a good job in it's own role. The were not convincing. The script is also awful. I mean this movie may be great, REALLY, but for the 60's(in not 100% sure.) I recommend NOT to see it, unless you want to get so bored as i did. I can't quite figure hot this movie got it's rating. It's OVER, OVER, OVER RATED!!!. This is a PERSONAL opinion of course. I don want to offend anyone but who could like this crap? So i hope this helps someone NOT to loose some time "enjoying" this movie. Nevertheless it's your choice!

One of Frances Farmer's earliest movies; at 22, she is absolutely beautiful. Bing Crosby is in great voice, but the songs are not his best. Martha Raye and Bob Burns are interesting, but their comedy, probably great in its time, is really corny today. Roy Rogers also appears- in a singing role. In my view only worth watching if you are a Frances Farmer fan, and possibly a Bing Crosby fan.

This is superb - the acting wonderful, sets, clothes, music - but most of all the story itself.<br /><br />I am amazed there aren't more reviews of this movie - certainly one of the best of the 1980s.<br /><br />It's also a wonderful movie to see in tandem with the great "Random Harvest" which has much the same opening crisis <br /><br />-- a middle aged, unknown English W.W.I officer is in a hospital toward the close of the war, suffering from shell shock and complete amnesia without any idea of his name, origin, or anywhere he belongs - he proves to be a very wealthy established man - when he "recovers", he will not remember the years before the war -- <br /><br />But there the movies' resemblances end.<br /><br />My warmest thanks to all who participated in the movie - particularly the actors Ian Holm, Alan Bates, Ann Margret (what a great and surprising casting choice), Glenda Jackson, Julie Christie.<br /><br />This one stays with you forever.

I gave this a 10 because it's the best film of its kind...a good old-fashioned T & A film in the shadow and spirit of "Animal House." I saw this with a similar film called "Swap Meet" and both were good of their type...a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. Let's be honest...there are more breasts in this movie than one could imagine for an R-rated movie. From beginning to end, they just seem to keep showing up on screen (sunbathing scenes, bedroom scenes and, of course, the climactic football game). Also, a memorable kissing booth (kiss me, Clutz!) Everybody seems to be having a good time in their roles (several Playboy Playmates, Danny Bonaduce, several familiar TV and movie actors, etc.). The only complaint I have to register is that Lisa London's character is called by her last name "O'Hara" and not a good 1970s name like "Olivia" (or even Ora or Ona or O...??!!). I saw this again in the late 1980s with my now ex-wife (pretty well endowed herself) and she couldn't believe I was actually enjoying the movie!! She was probably jealous!! Again, this movie is a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon...just don't think too hard!

The more I watch Nicholas Cage, the more I appreciate him as an actor. Watching this movie now (in 2005), I can see that it doesn't really fit into the genre of movies that was coming out in the early 90s. I don't really think it can be considered a film noir, but it is pretty dark at times, due mostly to the lighting and odd personalities of the characters.<br /><br />Typical performances from each of the three main actors, who all did a good job with their roles. I thought, however, that Hopper and Boyle's characters were left undeveloped, as it was sometimes hard to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. Hopper is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The plot is really good, and although I found some parts to be very unrealistic, there were parts where I had to hand it to the director (i.e. when he first sees the sheriff). All in all, this movie is definitely worth watching. ***1/2

What a movie! I have always liked the Asian style of shooting, and this movie does not disappoint at all! Photography is breath-taking, ranging from amazing landscapes to whirls of colours. The main actor is really realistic in representing the painter (whose paintings are astonishing). The ending is also very well chosen, very poetic. The only remark is that they should have maybe shown a bit more deeply the connection between his inspiration and his abuse of alcohol and women. But altogether this is an excellent film!

now don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd.

Utterly tactical, strange (watch for the kinky moment of a drop-dead gorgeous blonde acting as pull-string doll for some rich folks), pointless but undoubtedly compelling late-night feature. This unhinged French production is a stew of perplexedly unfocused ideas and random plot illustrations centred on its very charismatic stars (if somewhat anti-heroes) Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. Really they don't get to do all that much, especially during the confined, lengthy mid-section where they hide themselves in a building during the Christmas break to crack a safe with 10,000 possible combinations. Oh fun! But this is when the odd, if intriguing relationship is formed between Delon and Bronson's characters. After a manipulative battle of wills (and childishly sly games against each other), the two come to an understanding that sees them honour each other's involvement and have a mutual respect. This would go on to play a further part in the twisty second half of the story with that undetectable curve-ball. Still their encounters early on suggest there's more, but what we get is vague and this is magnified by that 'What just happen there?' ending that might just make you jump. YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! Glad to get that out of the system. <br /><br />The pacing is terribly slow, but placidly measured for it and this seems purposely done to exhaust with its edgy, nervous underlining tension. Watch as the same process is repeated over and over again, and you know something is not quite right and the scheming eventually comes into play. Now everything that does happen feels too spontaneous, but the climax payoff is haunting. The taut, complex script is probably a little too crafty for its own good, but there are some neat novelties (Coins, glass and liquids… try not spilling) and visual symbolisms. Jean Herman's direction is efficiently sophisticated and low-key, but get a tad artificial and infuse an unwelcoming icy atmosphere. The sound FX features more as a potent note, than that of Francois DeRoubaix's funky score that's mainly kept under wrapped after its sizzling opening. Top drawers Delon (who's quite steely) and Bronson (a jovial turn) are solid, and work off each tremendously. Bernard Fresson chalks up the attitude as the Inspector who knows there's more going on than what is being led on. An attractive female cast features able support by Brigitte Fossey and Olga Georges-Picot. <br /><br />A cryptically directionless, but polished crime drama maintained by its two leads and some bizarre inclusions.

"Soylent Green" is one of the best and most disturbing science fiction movies of the 70's and still very persuasive even by today's standards. Although flawed and a little dated, the apocalyptic touch and the environmental premise (typical for that time) still feel very unsettling and thought-provoking. This film's quality-level surpasses the majority of contemporary SF flicks because of its strong cast and some intense sequences that I personally consider classic. The New York of 2022 is a depressing place to be alive, with over-population, unemployment, an unhealthy climate and the total scarcity of every vital food product. The only form of food available is synthetic and distributed by the Soylent company. Charlton Heston (in a great shape) plays a cop investigating the murder of one of Soylent's most eminent executives and he stumbles upon scandals and dark secrets... The script is a little over-sentimental at times and the climax doesn't really come as a big surprise, still the atmosphere is very tense and uncanny. The riot-sequence is truly grueling and easily one of the most macabre moments in 70's cinema. Edward G. Robinson is ultimately impressive in his last role and there's a great (but too modest) supportive role for Joseph Cotton ("Baron Blood", "The Abominable Dr. Phibes"). THIS is Science-Fiction in my book: a nightmarish and inevitable fade for humanity! No fancy space-ships with hairy monsters attacking our planet.

Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. "How Harry Met Sally" and "Two Weddings and Funeral", even "Sleepless In Seattle" had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying".

"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.<br /><br />Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.<br /><br />Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. <br /><br />Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.<br /><br />Pathetic.

This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.<br /><br />A lot of effort has been put to make "The Edge of Love"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.<br /><br />Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.<br /><br />As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.<br /><br />I strongly advise avoiding "The Edge of Love", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.

This was without a doubt the best of the "Dirty Harry" series. From the opening credits, you're swept up in a revenge tale that hits hard and is profoundly engrossing. Sondra Locke is perfect in the role of a traumatized woman out for revenge. Eastwood has many "aside" sequences that have nothing to do with the plot, but show Harry at his bad-assed best. Loaded with unforgettable characters in minor roles, this film rocks and should serve as the standard for detective/action flicks. This is the one Dirty Harry flick that's raw and devoid of any "fluff". I can watch this again and again (okay, not in one sitting) because it's a gratifying "out for revenge" yarn. The pace is quick and several of the scenes are unforgettable. "Go ahead - Make my day...You feel lucky, Punk? ...." classic Eastwood as only Eastwood, with his anguished, rubbery expressions, and whispery, menacing voice can do it.

I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...<br /><br />There were great script moments, such as:<br /><br />Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"<br /><br />To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical.

The movie starts with a board meeting at a major advertising agency. Putney Swope is on the board for no other reason than the fact that he is black, and the agency needs a "token" on the board. Swope is ignoring the meeting, reading Jet magazine at the big table, and everybody is ignoring Swope... Suddenly, the CEO croaks on the spot. No time is wasted. A janitor is called to haul off the corpse, and the board immediately and unceremoniously tackles the business of electing a new CEO. And as the votes are tallied one by one, the tension is built up and then finally snapped in a hilariously ironic climax to the vote, that gives the viewer a delicious dish of logical implications to savor for the rest of the movie. If you've ever talked back to some stupid television commercial, you'll like seeing this movie. Too bad there don't seem to be any real Putney Swopes in the world.

Many of the classic films of the late '60s haven't retained their ability to disturb and confront the audience. "In Cold Blood" hasn't lost an ounce of its power. Its exceptionally well made yet forces the viewer to think. Some have complained not only about the film, but about Truman Capote's source "non-fiction novel", that the central message is unsubtle. That may be true, but this is definitely a case where the lack of ambiguity doesn't detract from the film at all. Its refreshing, especially considering today's simplistic and manipulative moral dramas, to see a film with a convinced political voice unafraid to force the audience to consider its viewpoint. To be honest, I'm not sure if I agree with the film's central message, but I admire its audacity nonetheless.<br /><br />Even if you disagree with the anti-capital punishment message, there's plenty to admire about the film. The acting from the two leads is terrific. Scott Wilson (still one of the most underrated actors ever) is chilling as the nihilistic leader, one who uses his charisma to hide his weaknesses. Robert Blake is also chilling as the more submissive of the two and the one with a conscience. His character obviously has a voice of reason, but is terrified to go against Wilson (theres a good amount of homoerotic subtext on his character's part). The cinematography is terrific, sleek yet gritty and really giving the impression the viewer is watching a documentary. Add another classic score from Quincey Jones, and you have a masterpiece. (9/10)

Here you see Mr. Eastwood in all of his glory (i.e., at the top of his form as an actor and at the height of his physical appeal), but the "ladies" depicted are hardly typical of the South, then or now. The young girls at the boarding school are incredibly naive, some showing signs of developing into really depraved women, and Geraldine Page, full-blown in her corruption, hardly represents the mean when it comes to head mistresses of girls schools, either then or now. (That is not to say that there isn't the occasional bad apple in any barrel.) Mr. Eastwood has said this is one of his own two favorite films.<br /><br />"The Beguiled" does have an original plot, a lot of attractive characters and many surprises in store for the viewer. It's thoroughly engrossing and entertaining but not really realistic. (I know, having grown up in the South and attended a girls' school and college. Moreover, I have been acquainted with innumerable girls who did the same, not to mention their laid-back teachers, or you might even say "repressed professors" who were a far cry from the headmistress depicted here.) She is downright comical in her depiction of a Southern gentle woman who is not quite what she seems.<br /><br />This movie was a little outrageous when it first appeared and still is, I think, but you won't be sorry you spent your time watching it.

No? Didn't think so! Well, in that case all you have to do is stay far, far away from "Do You Wanna Know A Secret", as it's just the umpteenth pointless post-"Scream" slasher with absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. The plot is extremely ridiculous; the characters are insufferably dumb, the gore-factor is negligible and the whole thing is just plain boring! As you can derive from the title already, this film is mainly inspired by "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer", as the events take place in a similar setting and the killer's motivations are equally stupid. Why anyone would want to steal ideas from junk like "IKWYDLS" is a complete mystery to me, anyway. At least that film could depend on the precious rack of Jennifer Love Hewitt, whereas the girls in this junk are, apart from brainless, also terribly unattractive. One year after the still unsolved murder of her boyfriend, Beth Morgan, her new adulterous lover and four other simple-minded college students go to Florida to spend their Spring Break holiday in a fancy beach house. The killer hasn't made a move all year, but now he follows the posse to Florida and starts butchering them whilst leaving behind the titular message as some sort of business card. You really don't need to be a horror-expert in order to quickly figure out which face hides behind the unspeakably ridiculous mask and the writers' attempts to put you on the wrong track are downright embarrassing. Since the plot is so thin, most of the film is purely irrelevant padding, including the sub plots regarding the incompetent Floridian police force and the 'mysterious' FBI inspector who seems to have a personal score to settle. The murder inexplicably happen off screen (don't you hate it when that happens?), there isn't even any gratuitous T&A to enjoy and you better don't get me started on the quality of the dialogs. Suffering through crap like this only makes you realize that the delightful spirit of the 80's slashers is gone for good.

(Contains spoilers)<br /><br />People who put a Lonely Heart's ad in the newspaper are often idealists. They try to put into a few words everything they are and expect. The exchange of letters is full of hope...Louis Mahe (Jean Paul Belmondo), owner of a cigarette company on the ile de la Reunion (east of Madagascar) is so affected by the letters of Julie Roussell that he proposes to her. But not the expected pretty brunette comes from board of the "Mississippi", but - Catherine Deneuve. And we know from the start that she is a marriage imposter and that a crime has taken place. She shows no interest in "Julie's" wardrobe (she does not even get her trunk open) and neglects her canary until it dies. But the most basic tricks of seduction (an open zipper) are sufficient to transform Louis into a pliable little dog. First: a joint bank account. And then, when Julie's sister draws attention to herself, the flight. With 27,850 millions of Louis' 28 millions - she would have needed his signature for the entire sum.<br /><br />Louis and Julie's sister engage a private detective (Michel Bouquet). Louis contrives to trace Marion (Deneuve's real name) in Antibes where she works as taxi-girl - her gangster-lover left her penniless, or rather centimeless. Louis finds himself unable to kill her. She tells her story: Orphan. Precocious. Lesbian experiences. Many sugardaddies. Jail - and soon she leads him by the nose again. The detective turns out to be sly as a fox and tenacious as a blood hound; Louis and Marion bury his body in the cellar. They flee to Paris, where Louis discovers that Marion has a costly taste. She worships money like a deity. He sells his firm at a fraction of its value. But when the corpse of the detective is discovered (a flood) they have to flee again - without the money. Life in a mountain lodge, together with a whining loser - Marion can think of a more cheerful life without this appendage...<br /><br />A high point in the careers of everybody involved. Belmondo's self-deceit makes him nearly endearing. Deneuve looks beautiful in her wardrobe by Yves St. Laurent, and her performance is delightful: At first she fakes the fragile wifey - too timid to ask her husband for money, that's why the joint bank account is needed - but after being exposed she sounds like Katharine Hepburn in the jail scene of BRINGING UP BABY. The scenery is spectacular - the tropics, the riviera, Paris. Truffaut directs with self-evident aplomb: the sixties were the only decade when european films were head and shoulders above american productions. After this film Truffaut was able to look his idol, Alfred Hichcock, full in the face.

It's depressing to see where Jackie Chan has ended up. He used to be an unstoppable hurricane of punches, kicks and incredible stunts. To be fair, he's now in his fifties and one would expect some slowdown. But with 'Rush Hour 3', where he takes a back seat to Chris Tucker (of all people!), and then there's 'Kung Fu Panda' where not only is he in a purely vocal role but his character barely has any dialogue... to say that Jackie Chan has seen better days is a colossal understatement.<br /><br />It's times like this when the only solution is to whip out a dusty old VHS tape and watch Jackie kick some arses in his younger, fitter, Chris Tucker-free days.<br /><br />Enter 'Police Story'. Jackie Chan plays Kar-kui, a policeman whose task it is to protect a witness before a major trial. He faces resistance from both the unco-operative witness and the numerous hit men sent by the mob to silence them both.<br /><br />But on the other hand, who cares? We don't watch Jackie Chan films for the story. We watch them to see Jackie Chan perform eye-popping stunts and generally punch and kick a whole lot of people who are less awesome than he is.<br /><br />And on that level, 'Police Story' doesn't disappoint at all. There is an awesome showdown in a shopping mall at the end that culminates in Jackie sliding down a giant, high-voltage chandelier. Seriously, if this sort of thing happened more often, no male would ever need coaxing to go shopping for clothes.<br /><br />There is also comedy, much of which involves Kar-kui inadvertently upsetting May (Maggie Cheung), his eternally suffering and apparently ever forgiving girlfriend. The humour on the whole is pretty unsubtle, but it works so I'm not complaining.<br /><br />The acting isn't too subtle, either. Indeed, I'm not sure there was anything subtle about 'Police Story' at all. Director Jackie Chan (yeah, he does that too) clearly has a deep understanding of why we watch his films, and knows that while we're waiting for the next fight to start, the last thing we want is to be looking for nuance and depth and inner meaning.<br /><br />So 'Police Story' is a blast. As is the case with most of his films, the fact that Jackie actually does the stuff you see on the screen puts it head and shoulders above the competition. I mean, when Jackie Chan really is hanging from a speeding bus by an umbrella, a whole new "Wow!" factor is added to the action.

I remember seeing this movie as a child in the 60's. It took my breath away then at young age. I was glued to my seat in front of the black and white TV. The cast was one of the best i have seen in my life. The musical was one the greatest ever have been written. Please to the Gershwin and Goldwyn Families please release this on video or DVD so that the generations now and in the future can experience what I'm sure what so many of us have done when we saw this great work of art .Please consider, let not this great man's work go unseen for years more. I,m praying and hoping that the hearts of these families will be soften and let the world see this great movie again.

It's a rehash of many recent films only this one has fewer stars, lesser complications and a more fuzzy feel to it. Abhay and Ritika (played by Fardeen Khan & Esha Deol respectively) meet at a friend's wedding where their own marriage (unbeknowst to them) begins its process of being arranged. Within no time the two strangers are married and sent of to a honeymoon camp where they meet other couples going through the motions similar to theirs. As they spend time together, secrets are revealed, hearts broken and/or mended and love blossoms.<br /><br />If you've seen Honeymoon Private Limited and/or Salaam-e-Ishq, then you've seen this film. The plot twists are the same, there is not a single element of surprise in the entire two and a half hours of the film. Everything is predictable. I only enjoyed it because I had seen 'Darling' (also starring the leads Deol & Khan) earlier in the day and enjoyed their chemistry in that so I said "why not" when my sister suggested we rent 'Just married' as well.<br /><br />See it: Because Kirron Kher co-stars and is her usual darling self in it.<br /><br />Skip it: Because you've had enough of all this couple-fest nonsense! <br /><br />C+

This was truly a deeply moving movie in every sense of the word. I myself was a Mormon missionary and I know first hand the wanting to complete my mission but at the same time hiding the fact that I was gay. Like the character Aaron, I was sent home for being found out and excommunicated, but being the only Mormon in a family of Catholics wasn't as big a shame as it was for the lead character. This movie really took me back to those days and helped me to realize, years later, how fortunate I was to have a family that accepted me and understood what I was going through. I found myself applauding the end of a movie when Aaron and Christian find each other again by shear chance at Lila's Restaurant. I was truly moved to tears. I highly recommend this movie to all who read this review and also declare it a must buy.

This was a great romantic comedy! Historically inaccurate (Einstein had no nieces or nephews as noted elsewhere in IMDb) but he made a great matchmaker. He brought together two very nice people played by two of the best actors working. The supporting cast (Lou Jacobi, Joseph Maher, Gene Saks, Stephen Fry, etc.) all clicked on screen and made this a great viewing experience. The fact he drove a car to get around seems to contradict all those images and posters of him riding a bicycle to get around. And did he wear socks in one scene...reportedly, the professor never wore socks! (Two new entries for the IMDb goofs section.) Historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies aside, this was a great movie to watch with a great cast. I give it an 8!

The makers of this film have created a future where not only is abortion and birth control illegal in every state,but women are prosecuted for murder and sent away to serve long prison sentences.In other words,this film is every liberals worst nightmare!The political agenda is so heavy-handed here and the style of the film is so low-key that it just loses steam pretty quickly.Regardless of which side of the fence you're on,I'd recommend skipping it.

Riding Giants is a brilliant documentary that dives deep into the world of one of the most under-appreciated sports and brings to the surface a very human and raw emotion that only director Stacy Peralta could capture. Everything from the structure, to the players, to the amazing stock footage, to even the style in which this was filmed only reinforced the beauty and power behind the sport of surfing. Of all the surfing films that I have seen (Endless Summer, Billabong Odyssey, and Step Into Liquid) this was the most consistent and relevant. Beginning with the early ages of surfing (a brief history lesson) lasting all the way till Laird's infamous ride, Riding Giants goes further into the mind, heart, and soul of the sport than any of these other documentaries. How does it do this? By giving us the whole story, from start to finish, without fictionalizing or jig jagging from wave to wave.<br /><br />To begin this film was structurally sound. In the other films that I have seen about surfing, you sometimes find yourself jumping from new person to new person, wave to wave, event to event, without any knowledge of why or who? In Riding Giants, we have a very small cast of veterans and newbies. This allows you to really go deeper into the mind of each one. Also, instead of just riding waves, we are handed more history and more personal insight to the world than before. This is what really attracted me to this film. I was impressed that instead of showing all these big waves (because it is a big wave movie), we listen to stories and see first hand what these surfers had to overcome to get to those waves. I loved the information about the "beach bums" or father's of surfing. I am still floored by the amazing tales of Greg Noll and his early adventures into the harsh deep blue. Then, to see him in person, talking about what was going on in his mind, only added more fuel to the fire. The straightforward structure that Peralta followed allowed me to follow and walk away with more knowledge of the sport than with any of the earlier films. Peralta shows so much emotion and passion that you cannot help but be amazed by what these brave people have done, and where the sport is going.<br /><br />Add to a immaculate structure some intense and creative cinematography, and you have darn near perfect film. Using techniques that I last saw in The Kid Stays in the Picture, Riding Giants creates some scenes that almost feel as if they are jumping out of the screen. While it isn't 3D, it is that flat dimensional feeling that you get when you put two pictures on top of each other. In this film, it worked. It created more depth to the scenes, and really added to not just the shock value (man these waves were huge), but also the danger that these guys constantly faced. If it broke differently or they maneuvered wrong, these waves would kill them. Some did die, but it didn't stop the sport. It only created more excitement and more passion to do better. It is this love of the ocean and sport that leads me to my final point.<br /><br />The human element. So many of my earlier adventures in the world of surfing documentaries left me with beautiful waves, but very little about the people. The films knew that people were watching for the waves, so it would basically go from wave to wave to wave and the maybe a short second about the person. This film was the direct opposite. Peralta created this masterpiece by still giving us the waves, but devoting so much more attention onto the surfers and the immortal question of why they do this everyday. What rushes through their minds, what pushes them to go further, and the bonds that are formed while out there on the wild blue yonder. I felt like after watching this film that I not only knew more about big wave surfing, but also about the emotional side to the sport. This was an element not as developed in the other films and pushed Riding Giants to a whole new personal level.<br /><br />Overall, this film was brilliant. Never have I witnessed so much passion, devotion, and love wrapped in a structurally sound film. From beginning to end, I was impressed. I would be very happy if this film won the Oscar this year for Best Documentary, and to see a new rebirth in the surfing world and open more doors for films of this nature.<br /><br />Grade: ***** out of *****

A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood".

Chili Palmer is tired of doing movies and know wants to do some success in music. Being half mafioso half expert negotiator, he wants to rise in the music market. However, know everyone is like him and making the good singer Linda Moon to record a hit will be harder as expected. The first part is funny and filled with irony, this one falls into the easy jokes and has many less good moments. Only the two women (Uma and Milian) are decent in their part. Most of the film is done with histrionic character, excessively exaggerated (a little is OK, too much is disgusting) and the only one that one could save is the gay bodyguard, who, at least is coherent, the rest, are too much idiot. The most surprising thing is the fact that the movie is not boring, everything happens so quick and there are so many things happening that you do not have time to get bored, if you want to follow the movie. It may insult your intelligence (a lot!), and the movie is bad(yeah!), but, well, it's not boring.

Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*<br /><br />It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.<br /><br />The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.<br /><br />

I'm usually not inclined to write reviews about films I don't think deserve a mention. But, in the quest to grow as a writer and film critic, I feel it is important to express my thoughts when I DON'T like a film. "Queen of the Damned" is one of those films.<br /><br />Anne Rice's popular horror stories of Lestat, a bisexual Vampire, first took to the screen in 1994 in the successful "An Interview With A Vampire". Starring two of Hollywood's biggest heavyweights in Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, the film's stylish aesthetic and gothic mise en scene captured the audience. While it may have been a case of style way over substance, there was something about it that worked, despite its chessiness (I have never been that enamoured with the Vampire genre in general).<br /><br />Since that time Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have gone on to much bigger things. It's likely both would have roared with laughter when asked to appear in a sequel. They would have been laughing even harder when they saw the final outcome. "Queen of the Damned" typifies the type of cr*p Hollywood is content to put out at a low cost with the hope of earning a quick buck thanks to an average soundtrack and big marketing campaign aimed at 13 to 17 year olds.<br /><br />Needless to say this film is terrible from the start. Lestat, now played by Brit Stuart Townsend of "Shooting Fish" fame, awakens from his dark grave to the sound of... you guessed it, Nu-Metal. He freaks out some confused punkish musicians and joins their band, under the proviso that he only appear at night, what with the sun burning his skin and all during the day...<br /><br />Jesse (Marguerite Moreau), a student studying the paranormal (Vampire Studies 101 perhaps?), tries to find out if Lestat really is who he says he is. Along the way she falls for him (something to do with her odd past), but has a little competition in Queen Akasha (Aaliyah), a Vampire demon queen who is returning from the underworld to acquire Lestat as her chosen King.<br /><br />The film is shamefully self-indulgant, yet its campy tone leaves some room for its depreciating humour. Anybody who sees this film for anything but a good laugh needs to see more films in general! Watching Townsend is enjoyable. He knows the role is utterly over the top and does his best to walk the tightrope between utter hamming and serious acting. The late Aaliyah is, unfortunately, terrible in the title role. She has minimal screentime, and what she does have she does not use to the fullest. The poor makeup and special effects do not help; at times she sounds like she's talking through a voicebox.<br /><br />It is rumoured that this film was heading straight to video until Aaliyah's untimely death last year. With the possibility for people to see her final film, Warner Bros put this out to a general release. Otherwise this would have been one of those movies you see on the shelf at video shops but avoid because you can tell it is going to be simply terrible.<br /><br />No doubt films like this will continue to be made. Look at the spate of teen rom-com rip offs around or the spoofing of that genre itself with films like "Not Another Teen Movie". If there is a market to exploit Hollywood will do so.<br /><br />The biggest issue I have with this film is not the film itself. Hollywood is about making money, so if there is a market for this film then they will pursue it. That's business. But what concerns me the most is that people will actively go out to the cinema and pay money to watch it! I guess that's the biggest argument in the world of cinema: is film art first and entertainment second, or is it the other way around? The only people who can decide that is the audience. If you like and are intrigued by good films, stay clear of this turkey.

Olivier Gruner stars as Jacques a foreign exchange college student who takes on and single handedly wipes out a Mexican street gang in this obnoxious and racist film which is so horrible that it's laughable. Bad acting, bad plot and bad fight choreography make Angel Town a Turkey.

I can't help but notice the negative reviews this movie has gotten. To be honest, I saw the preview for this movie, and the premise looked intrigued me. Yes, I rented it after reading others' comments. They are correct in that some of the acting leaves a lot to be desired. They are also correct that one of the best performances of this movie was that of Dr. Graves.<br /><br />Also interesting is Scott Clark, who plays Grant, the kid in the wheelchair. I identify with the character he played, perhaps because I am in a wheelchair.<br /><br />This movie is certainly worth your looking at.

The 1970's saw a rise and fall of what we have come to know as "Blacksploitation" Films. The term is a reference to kind of broad catch-all, rather than a true Genre of Film. In short, any comedy, drama, adventure, western or urban cops & robbers shoot-em-up, that are so constructed and so cast as to appeal to the large Urban Black population of the Mid 20th Century. That indeed could embrace the widest type of films, as long as the had a slant toward the inner-city black population.<br /><br />It appears that the idea of producing these films of particularly keen interest to Black Americans had its genesis with the Eastertime Release of 100 RIFLES (Marvin Schwartz Prod./20th Century-Fox, 1969). In it, former Syracuse University All-American Footballer and Several Times All-Pro Fullback for the Cleveland Browns, Jim Brown, had a Co-Starring Billing. Having appeared in a number of films already, as for example, RIO CONCHOS (1964),THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967), (ICE STTION ZEBRA (1968)* and others, it was beginning to make more sense to the Studios' "Suits" that Jim was a hot property.<br /><br />Now this 100 RIFLES brings record numbers of Black patrons to the Big Cities' central business districts on Easter Sunday to view Mr. Brown. Why not start to film more of these adventure epics and other types of film with more Black Players and Stars? Why not, indeed.** So we saw a succession of Cops & Robbers, Bad-ass Private Detective Films, Comedies, all going the route. Along the way, we eventually got to some more family oriented, wider appealing films. The movie goers were treated to SOUNDER (1972), THE TAKE (1974), CONRACK (1974)and, ultimately, CLAUDINE (1974).<br /><br />In CLAUDINE, we find no stigma nor easy classification as being "Blackploitation", as the story is universal, and could easily have been done as a story about people of any descent, any where, and not just in the 1970's USA.<br /><br />That the story was done of a SINGLE mother, Claudine (Dianne Carroll), struggling to keep a family together after "....two marriages and two almost marriages.", is a far cry from a shoot-em-up Harlem Style. The problems that plague the everyday citizens of our nation are confronted and examined under the ol' sociological microscope.<br /><br />But we also consider Claudine's psychological and physical needs as a female. For "Woman Needs Man and Man Must Have His MATE",***and we do concede this point. (That's S-E-X that we're talking about, Schultz!) Claudine meets up with a very masculine, broad shouldered, athletic type in Private Scavanger Garbage Man, Ruppert B. Marshall (James Earl Jones) and they go on a date.<br /><br />The Great Welfare State intervenes with the Couple as Claudine's Welfare Case Worker, Miss Tayback (Elisa Loti), comes snooping around to see just who is this unattached Male, who is suddenly paying so much attention to Claudine's family.<br /><br />After a humiliating experience with the Welfare Bureau's auditing and "deducting" binge, which would be the norm for the family, the two decide to get married with or without the blessing of Big Brother.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Claudine's elder son has gotten involved with some big talking but little doing Black Activist group. But, with Ruppert's help, he and they all come through it A.O.K.<br /><br />It ends on a Happy, Upbeat and Hopeful note. We know that it may not be exactly "...Happily Ever After!", but rather the'll make it all together! If there is a single criticism that we must state it is that sometimes in a movie like this, a misconception is spread to a large portion of Urban Blacks. And that is, the apparent implied myth that all Whites are wealthy, having none of their kind ever in need of a helping hand, out of work or suffering any disabilities.<br /><br />Well, folks, it just ain't true! NOTE: * At one point, Jim Brown's career was a real hit as a rugged actioner. He was even being tauted as "...The Black John Wayne." NOTE: ** The idea of producing films with All-Black Casts, filmed for All-Black consumption was not a new idea. In the 1920's, '30's and '40's, we saw productions from people like Noble Johnson, Spencer Williams, Jr. and Rex Ingram.<br /><br />NOTE: *** That's "As Time Goes By", you know, Schultz, it's from CASABLANCA (Warner Brothers, 1942).

Thank God! I didn't waste my money renting it but i downloaded it! This happens to be the worst movie i have ever seen in my whole life, f*****g visual effects, unnecessary gore and nudity! Far apart from other Zombie movies like Night of the Living Dead and others. There are lots of loop holes and mistakes in the movie. OK if you get time after reading this comment, please check out the director's(Ulli Lommel) profile. After seeing that i got a self explanation why the movie is like this, i mean every movie directed by Ulli Lommel gets a rating between 1 and 2. And now am not willing to search what kinda movies these are directed by him, but i can finish all this by saying one strong sentence. Even for fun or time pass or even at an extreme bored situation please DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.

Wow, I just finally managed, after several attempts, to finish watching this god awful movie, only to learn that Rick Sloane and his production team have completed a straight-to-video sequel this year.<br /><br />Of all movies reviewed by MST3K--and they truly dig from the bottom of the barrel, screening the reputationally bad 'Manos,' 'Werewolf,' 'The Incredibly Strange,' and the lesser know disasters like 'Laserblast,' 'Zombie Nightmare,' and 'Time Chasers,'--this certainly has to be the absolute biggest pile of garbage they'd ever shown (which makes it perfect for riffing). Very simple, the movie is about a bunch of Munchies-like gremlins on the loose, exploiting people's desires for fame, fortune, prowess, and of course, sex in ways that end up with people getting killed. But this is the kind of movie where the acting is so ridiculous (a test of machismo, for example, is illustrated by two guys who battle in the front yard with garden tools), the writing is so forced (such as the oft-described scene of a gremlin hanging on the arm of one girl who would notice it, if only she turned her head a quarter to the left... and this isn't the first time in the movie this happens), and the story is so... rarely given attention (hence the MST3K riff about a "law in the future where films have to be made by FILMmakers), that you actually root for the furry puppets to kill off everyone on screen. Worst movie... ever.

It is sad what they are letting into film festivals these days. I had to sit through over twenty minutes of this dreary short that wasn't funny at all to get a good seat for a feature film that I wanted to see at a local film festival. The festival planners paired this horrible short with a great feature. I am just glad the feature was good, otherwise I would have not been a very happy camper!<br /><br />For a comedy short film it got no laughs. The title says it all.

My reaction to this remake of "The Italian Job" is probably hopelessly mixed up with the events occurring in my life when I saw it; This is the first movie I saw after I had just landed a job after 8 months of unemployment and going back to school for retraining. Money was still tight, but I no longer had to choose between seeing a movie in the theaters and paying bills (or eating lunch), and the sense of relief and gratitude I was feeling at the time was enormous. In consequence, my enjoyment of "Italian Job" was probably far out of proportion to its actual worth. <br /><br />Still, I picked it up used on DVD a few weeks ago and watched it again, and I still enjoyed it immensely. I have never seen the original (though I have heard it is an absolute classic), but its modern day counterpart is eminently watchable if you have a taste for modern day production values applied to older films plots and themes. <br /><br />What initially won me over to this movie was the soundtrack - IMO Don Davis writes some of the most supple, textured and aurally pleasing soundtracks around. IJ opens with a sly, witty, pulsing arrangement that combines strings, guitar harmonics, brush work and quiet moments - it won me over completely from the opening seconds. And the whole movie is like this - I haven't heard this kind of ringing, chiming, pulsing soundtrack music since Stewart Copeland left the Police and started doing soundtracks for movies like "Rumble Fish". There are at least a dozen irresistibly scored motifs in here, along with some pop song remakes that range from "all right" to "inspired". For people to whom the soundtrack is important, this movie is a delight. <br /><br />On to the movie: I can take or leave Mark Wahlberg, but he's okay here as the leading man, and the movie doesn't ask him to do anything he can't do well. He's the weakest "major" actor in the film, but that's because the rest of supporting cast is so strong, especially Donald Sutherland in a bit part. Mos Def, Jason Steadham, Ed Norton, Seth Green and Charlize Theron all turn in solid, fat-free performances. Norton seems to mostly be phoning it in (rumor has it that he didn't really want to be in the film), but he's still a natural even at 1/2 power. My one quibble with the casting and acting is with the character "Wrench", who seems to be a male model pretending to be an actor. His part seems to be shoehorned into the movie, and he has little chemistry with the rest of the cast (although you can blame some of that on the size of the part and the "late walk on" nature of the character). If I were a cynical sort,I would wonder who the actor slept with to get put into this movie in such a supernumerary role? Nah, never happen...<br /><br />Production values, camera work, stunts, plot...everything cooks along quite nicely and Gray and his production crew pull things together pretty seamlessly (with the exception of the "Wrench" character, see above). <br /><br />The dialog has a nice, light touch that rewards your indulgence, and there are several satisfying major and minor plot payoffs along the way. (My favorite moment - when Norton's character tells Wahlberg's character that he's just lost the element of surprise. Wahlberg proceeds to cold cock Norton with a right cross, and then asks him, "Were you surprised??" Hmmm, maybe you had to be there...) <br /><br />Of course the movie requires a certain level of "suspension of disbelief" to work, but if you just relax and go along with it (and don't think too hard about the mechanics of cracking a safe underwater, or the likelihood of anyone being able to successfully hack and manipulate LA traffic via a laptop, etc), you'll have a fun ride. <br /><br />"The Italian Job": it's lightweight summer fluff, but it's very good for what it is, and it doesn't try to be anything else. It isn't good enough for an "8" but I'd give it a "7.5".

Yeah, right.<br /><br />I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining."

"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick. It's much to bad to be ordinary. One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing. The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him. Guess which one is the good guy. Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through. Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser. Not recommended for anyone.<br /><br />

I could tell this would be a bad one from the trailer, but the lure of the DVD box got me to rent it anyway. Boy was I right..<br /><br />Also for some reason the DVD version is VERY fuzzy and unclear at times (in terms of video quality). It appears as if they shot the whole movie with a 20 year old camcorder, it looks so bad. I really did not like the plot, and after watching the movie I was very let down. I will NOT tell any spoilers, but let it be said that the end was so bad that I laughed, it has been done so many times before.<br /><br />The whole story seems like something that came out of a middle schooler's English paper. If I had to peg one movie as the worst horror movie I've ever seen, this one may just be it. I can't believe they actually released this film. It really isn't worth the rent, or a penny of anyone's money unless you want a good laugh at the movie's expense.

Listening to the soundtrack at the moment, the images come back with a vividness that makes my longing for a dry eye very strong (in order to be able to type this). I've seen it twice thus far, and I should be ashamed for having seen it *only* twice.<br /><br />I've seen all Miyazaki & Studio Ghibli films, and they are invariably nothing less than masterpieces (except maybe for Nausicaa which was, even in the non-cut up version too premature compared to the nec-plus-ultra manga). Still, their strength sometimes becomes their weakness, as they tend to get too naive/positive (Chihiro), or, with more nuance, a bit too explicit/moralist (Mononoke). At least, compared to for example the other Ghibli master Takahata (Grave of the Fireflies / Only Yesterday / Raccoon Wars). But not this one.<br /><br />In Laputa, Miyazaki pours all the brilliant storytelling that tellers of tales have gathered and perfected over the ages, combined with a bit of morale, but nicely interwoven with not only a completely transcendental atmosphere, but also with the humor and amusement of for example Totoro. Every single main character is perfectly portrayed with their doubts and fears and their qualities that help them overcome difficulties. The pacing is so perfect that I know of nothing except a black hole that would be able to exert such a gravitational pull on your whole being. The story sets out as an action flic with mysteries hinted at, but when the girl falls from the sky, unconscious, floating with the stone, and the main theme kicks in, you get a glimpse of the grand mystery you're about to uncover, but the story then settles and gradually, over a number of carefully selected scenes of action and serene beauty, builds to an unforgettable climax of melancholy, hope, beauty - like, following days of sombre gloom, finally seeing the horizon on a clear morning, knowing the path walked, seeing the distance ahead, but smiling at the mere fact of being able to catch a glimpse of it.<br /><br />It is so like an exploding white light in your skull that if by the time the credits start rolling you have kept your eyes dry and your mind numb, you should see a therapist.<br /><br />Despite the fact that technically-image-wise some more recent Miyazakis might be more overwhelming, this to me remains his undisputed masterpiece. If you take a fraction of a second to realise that this was made back in 1986, you can only come to the conclusion that Hayao Miyazaki is a genius like a star that appears only once every 200 years. This of course has been suggested before, but to me this is his only film that can, on its own, fully illustrate that simple fact. If you miss this during your lifetime, you'll die with a huge gap - which would be a pity, as the coffin costs the same.

John Waters has given us a genuinely enjoyable film. This certainly isn't without its shocking Waters-esque moments, but it is tamer than his older culty stuff, such as "Pink Flamingoes". "Pecker" harkens back to John's early mainstream stage in that it reminds the viewer of the same kind of humor that was evident in "Polyester". Overall, a really fun comedy with some great moments!

i guess its possible that I've seen worse movies, but this one is a real stinker! the plot is unremarkable but thats not the worst of it. the directing is no where close to what you would expect from andy ching. he's capable of good work but failed to pull this movie together.<br /><br />angie harmon, playing the female lead as a reporter dogging into who's behind the assassination of the president, truly butchered the role. there was no chemistry with gooding, her demeanor was flat and wooden, and the 5 inch spike heels she wore throughout the movie were absurd. this outing for harmon places her solidly at the bottom of the "b" list.<br /><br />and what was cuba gooding thinking??? he has to his credit a number of outstanding performances, but this was far beneath what we've come to expect from him.<br /><br />poor james woods and burt reynolds. poor poor poor poor poor.

Call it manipulative drivel if you will, but I fell for it. Sure, there could have been more character development. Yeah, there could have been better cinematography and less of a constant "movie of the week" score, but Ed Harris was impeccable, Cuba Gooding adorable and touching, and let's face it people, in real life, how many of us really get to know the motivation of others. Not many. We did get a little glimpse into the coach's motivation (a very provocative dialog in my opinion, not to be soon forgotten) so in my opinion, this was a lovely tribute to one human being who broke out of his "comfort zone" to reach out to another human being, and in the mean time, touched the lives hundreds more. A lesson we all need to me reminded of. Why is it that the right thing to do is so often the hardest thing to do? I recommend this beautiful little movie to anyone with a heart. You won't be disappointed. And bring your Kleenex. 8/10

this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".

MST3K fodder. It's so bad it's actually worth seeing just for that reason. There are some hilarious things in it, such as the mysterious device the bad guy is seen working on for the whole movie, that turns out to be this tiny helicopter that flutters around carrying and firing a machine gun without so much as a wobble, but is brought down by a bag of balloons (the kind they release at political conventions). Many other wonderful touches of that sort. Stars Charlie Sheen. There's one scene where he spends five minutes recording a conversation, only to drop the microcassette in the Potomac River by accident. If they'd cast Emilio Estevez in the part that never would've happened.

Now I like Victor Herbert. And I like Mary Martin and Allan Jones. But it would have been nice to see a real biography of Victor Herbert. Walter Connolly as Herbert does have a decent resemblance to him in his latter years<br /><br />Jones and Martin sing beautifully though. The Herbert music is just there to adorn the plot line concerning these two musical performers. Jones's John Ramsay is a frail character, very similar to Gaylord Ravenal in Showboat who Jones also played.<br /><br />As for Mary Martin, it's a mystery why she never had a good Hollywood career. She did films with Bing Crosby and Dick Powell as well as this one. She performed well, but movie audiences didn't take to her. The best musical moment in the film is Jones and Martin in a duet of Thine Alone. The recordings I have of the song are individual and it was written as a duet. There's also a pleasant scene with Jones and Martin riding bicycles swapping Herbert songs as they ride.<br /><br />The real Victor Herbert with his womanizing and his Irish patriot background and his musical training in Germany where he developed a love for all things German would have been a fascinating study. He was also a cello virtuoso before he turned full time to composing. I have to take strong exception to the reviewer who said Cuddles Sakall would have been a good Victor Herbert. Sakall as Irish, HELLO.<br /><br />Nice movie, but the real Vic would have been so much better.

"The Notorious Bettie Page" (2005) <br /><br />Directed By: Mary Harron <br /><br />Starring: Gretchen Mol, Chris Bauer, Lili Taylor, Sarah Paulson, & David Strathairn <br /><br />MPAA Rating: "R" (for nudity, sexual content and some language) <br /><br />It seems as though every celebrity nowadays is getting a biopic made about his or her life. From Ray Charles to Johnny Cash, biopics are very posh right now. "The Notorious Bettie Page" is the latest of these to be released on DVD. It features Gretchen Mol as the world's most famous pin-up model, Bettie Page and was filmed mostly in black and white with certain excerpts in color. Unlike "Ray", "Walk the Line", and "Finding Neverland", however, this movie is not going to be one to watch out for at the Oscars this year. This movie lacks the emotional resonance displayed in other biopics and most of the more dramatic moments in Bettie Page's life are either completely ignored or only merely suggested. This does not mean, however, that it is a bad movie. In fact, "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a thoroughly entertaining and fulfilling movie--a solid work of cinema. This film focuses more on Page's exciting career and the thin line between sexuality and pornography. It is filmed with fervor and care and Mary Harron's direction captures the look and feel of the time period as most filmmakers only dream about.<br /><br />Everyone knows Bettie Page (played by Mol). Whether you know her as an icon…or a simple porn star…you know her. She is a woman who had a very profound impact on American culture only by revealing more skin than deemed appropriate at that particular time. Now, most people know her as one of America's first sex symbols--a legend to many models, especially those of Playboy and other adult-oriented magazines. She lived in a time when showing just an inch of flesh below the waste could have someone arrested and Page's bondage-style photos were just the thing to push the American public into an uproar. In fact, the photos launched a full-fledged senate investigation about common decency and the difference between harmless films and porn.<br /><br />The performances in "The Notorious Bettie Page" are absolutely wonderful with Gretchen Mol standing out. Her performance as Bettie Page is simply brilliant. I understand that, when she was announced for the role, many people were skeptical. Her name is not one that immediately leaps to my mind when I think of great performances. Now, it will. She completely aced the role and drew me in with her vulnerable and yet deeply engaging performance. David Strathairn is fresh off of last year's "Good Night, and Good Luck", in which he gave one of 2005's best performances. Here, he gives yet another fine performance…even though he is slightly underused. I was shocked at how very limited his screen time was…but quality over quantity is always the most important aspect of any good movie. The only performance I have seen from Lili Taylor was that in "The Haunting" (1999). While most people ignored the movie, I found it to be an enjoyable, if not completely shallow, horror movie and I also have always thought that Taylor was perfectly credible as the emotionally-distraught Nell. Here, Taylor gives yet another credible performance. She gives a very subdued performance and delivers the perfect performance to compliment that of Gretchen Mol.<br /><br />After everything was said and done, I realized that "The Notorious Bettie Page" cannot be compared to other biopics, such as "Finding Neverland" and "Walk the Line". It is incomparable to these because it tells a story of a woman and her career, from the beginning to the end. Her personal life is briefly implied, but it is really her impact on the world that becomes the high point. We watch the film knowing that Page will eventually bare all and we know the impact that her decisions will have…but we are rarely shown the impact that they will have on her personal life. She is a woman that never looked back and could constantly reinvent herself. After all, she was an adult model turned Christian missionary. This movie does not over dramatize anything. It could have included fictitious moments of Page sobbing hysterically and begging God to forgive her. It could have shown Page running and screaming through the rain, trying to escape the ghosts of her past…and yet it does not. "The Notorious Bettie Page" tells a simple story and that is something rare by today's standards. Fortunately, it is quite refreshing.<br /><br />Final Thought: "The Notorious Bettie Page" is a relaxing movie with absolutely amazing cinematography.<br /><br />Overall Rating: 9/10 (A)

Geordies...salt of the earth characters...bricklayers...beer...Geordies...happy go lucky...adventures working abroad...salt of the earth characters...warm wonderful people...Tyne Bridge (tear in the eye)...brown ale...salt of the earth characters...cute little Red Indians children in Newcastle United tops...emetic...Geordies...salt of the earth characters...<br /><br />etc etc etc....<br /><br />Please. This is so poor. And you should know better Timothy Spall. They can't have paid you that much.<br /><br />As for Jimmy Nail. Well the kindest thing that can be said is that he is every bit as good an 'actor' as he is a singer and writer. Come on Jimmy, the joke's over. 'Crocodile Shoes' and 'Spender' were very funny, unfortunately I don't think they were supposed to be. With 'Auf Wiedersehen Pet' the opposite applies.

Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.

Don't drink the cool-aid.<br /><br />This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a "truth" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google "Global Warming" and "Hoax" or "Junk Science" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie.