Datasets:

KMaly

/

ait526_sentiment

like 0

I haven't read the Anne Rice novel that this movie was based on, but who knows, maybe reading the book is cheaper than renting QUEEN OF THE DAMNED and is probably better for your health. It isn't that this movie is necessarily bad for your health, but a book can be very relaxing and certainly exercises the active part of your brain more so than this movie. You can count the number of pages by Anne Rice that I've read on one hand, but after seeing this movie and Interview with a Vampire, I get the feeling that she writes really good novels. The plots for both movies hint at a whole sea of deep and interwoven vampire history.<br /><br />Still, Stuart Townsend's voice-over narration gets a heck of a lot more annoying than Brad Pitt's vampire narrative ever did, and you can tell that QUEEN OF THE DAMNED's limited production resources barely give enough flesh to the Anne Rice storyline. While Interview decided to go with lace and elegance, QUEEN relies on low budget special effects that try really hard to be taken seriously. One can see that the original novel had potential as a movie and that the production team focused its attention in the wrong places. The costumes and rock & roll stage could have been replaced with more blood and an eerier soundtrack.<br /><br />However, I'll give credit where credit is due. The soundtrack is excellent. Korn and Disturbed had me down with the sickness bobbing my noggin like Butthead.<br /><br />The film opens with a very cool Goth-rock zoom & splice montage, but after the first ten minutes or so, the directing degenerates quickly. It's as if the movie was so long that the director realized that there wasn't enough time and enough money to do an Anne Rice novel justice. What results are some mediocre vampire scenes and plenty of cheesy special effects. Unfortunately, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED fails to do the genre justice just as its John Carpenter counterparts fail to impress. Where are the yellow contacts? Where's the pale blue make-up? Scene after scene, I shook my head reminiscing about the days of Salem's Lot and Fright Night when low budget was done right.<br /><br />There are redeeming qualities though that save this movie from being garbage. Props to Aaliyah, and may her soul forever rest in peace. She might have become a renowned actress, had her life not been taken from us so prematurely, for she did give this movie a decent performance with plenty of nice belly dancing. Did I mention that the soundtrack was good? Let's see, what else can I say? It wasn't too long. The Anne Rice novel could have easily been a three hour movie if an ambitious director like Francis Ford Coppola got his hands on it. There are a few twists and turns here and there in the plot. But all in all it was a legitimate rock and roll addition to the slew of second-rate vampire movies out there. The director of this movie went on to direct a new Battlestar Galactica mini series if that tells you anything.<br /><br />JY<br /><br />Jimboduck-dot-com

I found the movie at my local video store and I was surprised to see it on DVD. I had heard about the explicit sex scenes, gruesome violence, and the notorious debauchery. I sat and watched and I began laughing! The set decorations and art direction was cheap and fake; the nudity was sardonic and incredibly unsexy; the story was poorly written and it was just a parade of incredibly beautiful and talented actors being held hostage to quote the worst dialogue ever written! The incestuous relationship between Caligola (Malcolm McDowell) and his serenely beautiful sister Drusilla (Theresa Ann Savoy, a vulnerable beauty) can't be taken seriously...it's not even shocking or repulsive! Peter O'Toole and John Geilgud were obviously held hostage during the making of this film luckily they die in the first thirty minutes of the film. The cinematography was a joke and I was even more amused when they used a quote from the Bible! The book of Mark no less. If you are looking for shock value, this movie will disappoint you. If you are looking for camp cult value, you will be even more disappointed. I know I was. I have seen shocking and this is two hours of your life you will never have back.

after seeing this excellent film over 100 times, i still find new things that blow me away with this movie, great special effects, incredible acting, and a plot full of ingenious twists makes this movie an excellent depiction of capitalism versus communism, and in this ending everyone is happy and all is well. best movie ever!!!

I don't know why I like this movie so well, but I never get tired of watching it.

Painful to watch, and not entirely for empathy with the struggles of the characters. Two of the main characters, Cynthia the mother and Monica the acknowledged daughter, spend the great bulk of the film pathetically mewling and bitterly bitching respectively. Their characters are so firmly established that their redemption into tolerable personalities after a quick family catharsis is unbelievable. It wasn't worth the wait. I wish a worthy pitch for honesty among families was less of a headache to view.

Jane Eyre has always been my favorite novel! When I stumbled upon this movie version in the late 90's I was ecstatic! This is the best and most complete version of the book on film! This version is a little long to sit through in one sitting but well worth it. Timothy Dalton is amazing as Rochester. I was glad that they cast a normal looking actress (Zelah Clark) as Jane and not a glamorous person. I love the sets and the location. For anyone who is a true Jane Eyre fan, this is the version to watch!!! For those of you who are interested, I just found this version on DVD. I have watched my VHS copy almost to breaking so I was thrilled to find it on DVD.

Undoubtedly the best heavy metal horror item made in the manically headbangin' 80's, which admittedly doesn't sound like much considering how utterly abysmal many other entries in this odd little fright film sub-genre like "Hard Rock Zombies," "Blood Tracks," "Terror on Tour," and the especially ungodly Jon-Mikl Thor-starring stinker "Rock'n'Roll Nightmare" tended to be. That aside, this one still deserves props for downplaying the excessive splatter and needlessly flashy special f/x razzle-dazzle in favor of focusing on adolescent high school characters who are depicted with greater acuity and plausibility than the norm for a mid-80's teen-targeted scarefest. Moreover, the film's pointed sardonic parodying of both ridiculously overblown 80's heavy metal stupidity and the nauseating self-righteousness of the uptight killjoy conservative stiffs who claimed it was the devil's music are very clever and on the money funny (famed Greed Decade heavy metal god Ozzy Osbourne has a hilarious bit as a smarmy anti-metal TV evangelist!).<br /><br />Marc Price (the hopelessly dweeby Skippy on "Family Ties") gives a surprisingly strong and winning performance as Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer, a geeky, socially awkward and severely persecuted heavy metal aficionado who's constantly picked on by the stuck-up jerk preppie bullies who make up the majority of the student body at Lakeridge High School (the cruelty and mean-spiritedness of the high school kids is nailed with painfully credible accuracy). Eddie's life takes a turn for the worse when his rock star idol Sammi Curr (an impressively whacked-out portrayal by Tony Fields) perishes in a hotel fire. Hip local disc jockey Nuke (KISS front-man Gene Simmons in a cool cameo) hooks Eddie up with Sammi's final, unreleased album, which when played backwards resurrects Curr's malevolent spirit back from the dead. Sammi encourages Eddie to sic him on all the vile scumbags who make poor Eddie's life the proverbial living hell, only to have meek Eddie prove to be a most reluctant would-be accomplice. It's up to Eddie, assisted by token nice girl Leslie Graham (likeably essayed by the lovely Lisa Orgolini), to stop Sammi before things get too out of hand.<br /><br />Ably directed with commendable thoughtfulness and sensitivity by character actor Charles Martin Smith (who also briefly appears as a nerdy school teacher), smartly written by Michael S. Murphy, Joel Soisson, and Rhet Topham, and capably acted by a uniformly up-to-snuff cast, this surefire sleeper even comes complete with a handful of nifty "jump" moments (an outrageous attack in the back of a car by a grotesquely lecherous long-tongued mutant thingie rates as the definite highlight), a rousing "Carrie"-style high school dance slaughter sequence, a neatly utilized Halloween setting, revenge being correctly shown as a truly ugly business, and a solid central message that you shouldn't make a particular over-hyped person your hero strictly because of the calculated anti-establishment posturing said fellow does to qualify for that special status.

I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.<br /><br />The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.<br /><br />Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.

This show has all the typical characters in a comedy: the good guy, the idiot, the pervert, the rich girl... but it's set on the 70's. That's the only difference that it has with other TV comedies. I don't know how you can like this show. Its humor is pathetic! I mean, the jokes are so direct... A typical dialog is this: "Fez: Oh, Jackie I want to have sex with you. (audience laughs) Jackie: Fez you're a pervert. (audience laughs) Fez: Oh yes I am. (audience cheers and applauds)" This isn't funny. I think that if it didn't have those laughs (I don't know how you call that in English, sorry) you wouldn't laugh at all. This isn't intelligent comedy, this is an insult to the public. I like most of the American comedies, but this isn't good at all. I would give it 4 out of 10. (Sorry for my poor English again.)

Clever, gritty, witty, fast-paced, sexy, extravagant, sleazy, erotic, heartfelt and corny, Footlight Parade is a first-class entertainment, what the movies are all about.<br /><br />The realistic, satirical treatment gives a fresh edge to the material and its pace and line delivery are breathtaking. To think that they only started making feature talking pictures 7 years before this! The brilliance of the dialogue cannot be matched anywhere today, especially considering that "realism" has taken over and engulfed contemporary cinema.<br /><br />This film was made at a time when the Hayes code restricting content was being ignored and the result is a fresh, self-referential, critical and living cinema that spoke directly to contemporary audiences suffering through the depression and the general angst of the age. I'd recommend watching any film from this period, that is 1930-1935, for a vision of what popular cinema can potentially be.

In 4 words, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was "completely out of tune" with the book. The novel provided sufficient character background to understand the relationships and personal challenges the characters needed to overcome; the script writer chose to ignore the details. In ignoring them (e.g. the priest's role initially as a buffoon, but later as a spiritual leader, the fiancee's inability to read until taught by a socialist rebel, the bomb experts advice to Corelli and his eventual ironic demise), the story and characters fall flat.<br /><br />This was the first movie that I've ever walked out of midway through. Interesting cinematography, great actors do not MAKE a film; the story does.

It is easy for a movie that tries to be suspenseful to wind up being merely uninteresting. It happens quite often. Not only is Dark Harbor uninteresting, but it is very poorly done. Scene after scene is tacked on to an otherwise overdone premise. A troubled couple picks up a troubled stranger only to find more trouble.<br /><br />Some movies build tension by building the story. Dark Harbor keeps adding on to its story but never building upon it. I was hoping that like other movies, the suspense would finally explode. It never does. Also, the characters have no continuity from scene to scene. They may act one way in one scene, but then act a completely different way in another scene. At first, you think that they are merely out of character, but by the end you realize that they are not really characters at all. They are just props for the final twist. The final ten minutes try to be shocking. Instead, it's rather lame and uninteresting. The only thing that was shocking to me was that the movie finally ended. At less than ninety minutes the movie still feels way too long.<br /><br />This isn't one of those low-budget gems. It's more like a counterfeit watch that breaks as soon as you take it home.

For a film by a first time director, this is a simply amazing little film, though I have to admit that it's a bit hard to watch and will probably offend the sensibilities of many who watch it, as the film takes a definite stand in favor of assisted suicide. However, what I loved about the film is that I had no idea this is what the film was about until the film was more than half complete and by then I was already hooked.<br /><br />In addition to the excellent way the subject was introduced, I was amazed at the very professional style of the film--with some of the best cinematography I've ever seen in a short film. Plus, this camera work was combined so well with music and images that made the film just beautiful.<br /><br />As I said, this is a controversial film. I myself struggle with what I think about this debate, but the film managed to make a statement in such a literate and intelligent way, I really have to respect the team who made this film.

This movie pretty much surprised me. I didn't have very high expectations for it but I was wrong. Mary & Rhoda was very funny and well written. They didn't spend too much time rehashing the past so they weren't relying on the success of the old TV show to carry the movie. Overall it was very entertaining.<br /><br />My girlfriend commented that this could be a weekly sit-com and I think I might agree with her.

Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.

Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.<br /><br />Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).<br /><br />Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.<br /><br />Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.<br /><br />Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the tits erased.<br /><br />While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.<br /><br />Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world… no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day…? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study… (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.<br /><br />On the plus side Stellan Skarsgård puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.

That this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this "film"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw "Highlander 2: The Quickening" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our "cinema" that there's no chance for an "Air America 2."

Spoilers in this review! Despite a few highly improbable scenes, including the boys in PE measuring their penises in a contest and the few obligatory teens-trying-to-get-laid vignettes, this movie captures the painful essence of high school in ways that few teen films have ever done. It achieves this by not only showing the trio of friends, Gary, Dave, Rick, as smoking, drinking, ever on the prowl teens, but also dwells on the nature of friendship itself as these three friends have their loyalties tested. This film is a snapshot of the time when childhood ends. For the shy romantic Gary, when he sees the lovely Karen for the first time he falls instantly in love. The awakening emotion in Gary is writ large on the screen, and he proves his love for her by taking her in when she is jilted by her lover. This love for Karen signals the end of Gary's innocence, as the bonds with his two best friends will be tested, and broken, over the course of the story. The confident ladies man, Rick, is the person in high school we all secretly wish we were: handsome, cool, and always has the impossibly beautiful girls in a swoon. Rick turns out to be a cad, but you have to bear in mind that his character is only 17 years old. He panics and makes a bad decision. From Rick's perspective, the story is also about finding the one girl of his dreams, a bad breakup, and then at the end reconciling. The look on Rick's face as Gary walks in and sees Karen kissing Rick, shows that he at last understands that his best friend and he love the same woman. As in real life, you don't bow out because your friend has an unrequited love. This is the tragedy of the film. Rick is no villain, and constantly through the film he reminds Gary and Dave that they're his best friends. The soulful quality of Gary's performance, however, is the heart of the story. Lawrence Monoson is a beautiful loser. He does everything right, his heart's in the right place, and he's consumed by love for Karen. Yet, Karen, in the end, is not moved by Gary's devotion and kindness. Karen represents all the people in the world who take in without giving back, who exist in a vacuum of their own ego and never stop to realize the emotional damage and trauma they inflict on others. This film is brutal in its statements on love and friendship, but that's what makes it unique among teen films. It ceases being a comedy and becomes a hopelessly romantic film, albeit one doomed to a tragic conclusion. Anyone who has ever found the girl of his dreams and did not win her, will understand. The heartrending crushes of high school are every bit as real as the emotional strains of adulthood, and this film will remind you of that in bold strokes. Gary's final reversal, as he drives away with the inscribed locket, is as poignant a moment as any in cinema. One feels, after watching this, that it's really made of two movies. The first part is a silly teen sexploitation film, and once the story begins, it's a strongly affecting drama. A terrific movie. It should also be noted that the soundtrack was prescient in its selection of many rising stars including The Police, The Cars, Devo, Oingo Boingo, The Plimsouls, The Waitresses, Gleaming Spires, and Phil Seymour.

I watched this series after Tipping the Velvet, for which I gave 10/10 grade. I had read user comments on this and I expected an equally good series, or if possible, even better. At this point I must emphasize that this series is good, and it definitely captured me throughout it and thus worth watching. However, I didn't enjoy it as much as Tipping the Velvet, for the following reasons: <br /><br />1. Less passion, love, and related sexual content. There were surprisingly little emphasis in these elements, which I held integral for a love story. Fingersmith felt like a watered down version of Tipping the Velvet.<br /><br />2. Similarly, as in Tipping the Velvet, the story had three parts: the beginning, a shocking second part, and the ending. The second part should have been the climax of the story (as in Tipping the Velvet), but instead it was almost totally skipped, perhaps due to inability to make shocking but believable asylum content. The series should have been in three parts, featuring two cliffhangers, with a lot more focus on the second part.<br /><br />3. Almost no weight was given to what Fingersmiths were and how it affected their personalities. I found it rather annoying that the series did not properly address such central topic. <br /><br />4. The ending was much more hasty than in Tipping the Velvet. Fingersmith left several interesting plot lines open.<br /><br />Despite these shortcomings, Fingersmith is a good series, and well worth 7/10. However, it is not a classic like Tipping the Velvet.

I understood before watching this film that it would be a low budget gore film. But even by those low standards this film doesn't cut it. <br /><br />The problem isn't so much that the filmmakers had a low budget or had bad acting, writing, directing, sound, music and editing. I expected all of that to be bad, and it is.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this film is that it didn't even do a good job on the guts and gore. Most of the 'action' takes place off screen and all we get to see are the after effects, which look very fake -- even by the standards of low budget gore films. <br /><br />There really is no excuse for the gore being so poorly done. Peter Jackson made the equally low budget 'Bad Taste' at about the same time and he somehow was able to make much more convincing guts and gore than was shown in this film.<br /><br />A failure on just about every level, I can't recommend this film to anybody. Steer clear of it.<br /><br /> <br /><br />

I think it's incredibly hard to write any kind of full-scale review to Giorgino, merely because it's one of those viewer-dependent, complex, poetical and philosophical movies that are brain-wearing if, while watching them, you're trying to enjoy their shell and get to their core simultaneously, yet there are several things which are certain and beyond any doubt for any man of art (which, I hope, I am). The first thing: it's a certain masterpiece, even of that kind of art which remains through a long long time; the second: it's one of those rare "dark" movies in which darkness is poetic, even romantic, attractive and much more sad than depressing, like the art of Pieter Brueghel or Caspar David Friedrich. As to the core of the movie, someone called it Kafkian, though I don't agree with that because actually it's far beyond Kafka's misanthropic logic and much more like Edgar Poe's parables: dark and scary but through that touching the most gentle strings of our souls. Actually, on the poetic side (which is much more important than the narrative), Giorgino is a tale about eternal peace and love which can be achieved only through eternal childhood of soul. Those who have such souls are usually branded as crazy by our society, but from another point of view, they all have the virtue all the others lost when become "grown": the virtue of God's love. Indeed, Giorgino is a very Christian movie, "Be like children" (Mt 18:3) is it's real hidden tag-line, though the movie never deals with any kind of moral and concentrates only on the Christian philosophy for, dare to suppose, true God is beyond any human moral. Yet I think that Boutonnat is too harsh portraying "grown" people as a sort of demons trying to steal childhood from rare survived souls, but it's his point of view and he has a right to think so. While watching Giorgino don't try to look for some hidden symbols (though there are some), better look for thoughts expressed through characters and their behavior, and do learn from them. Also I cannot mention that the movie looks astonishingly through excellent photography, especially through rational use of color filters, incredibly apposite editing, wonderful acting of all the cast and, of course, due to the atmospheric beauty of winter mountains that reminded me of the Brueghel's "Hunters in the Snow". Also, interestingly enough, the scene with Death in the form of an old woman with sunken black-ringed eyes riding a cart, instantly reminded me of Pesta (Plague) from the series of drawings by the Norwegian painter Theodor Kittelsen, depicting how a black plague is sweeping out the population of a small town in the mountain valley. Is it a coincidence?

I stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.

Extremely interesting and intriguing movie. The similarities to David Lynch (who is even quoted literally by the presence of red curtains in the film) and the novels of Franz Kafka (the house keeper in this film is called Mrs. Grubach, as is the one in Der Prozess...) are clearly present but in this case are accompanied by clear references to the colonial past of Belgium in Africa. The exact content of the movie I can not clearly describe: this colonialism is an important part, as is the inability to cope with such a past, but the personal memories of the main character are a central issue as well, and his quest for social contact and love. These are the symbolic themes I deduced from the movie, but in fact they're no more than impressions.<br /><br />But even if you just try to follow the linear story without these symbolic backgrounds, you still will discover an extremely fascinating movie filled with splendid imagery (beautiful close ups of beatles, larvas and other nasty insects are alternated with great dream sequences and also the dark atmosphere lends the film extra style). Maybe you can say that I didn't quite 'get' the film, but I have been watching like hypnothised for 1.5 hour, deeply impressed by the visual quality and the fascinating mysteriosity.

I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?

The cast of "All That" returns for good humor in the "Good Burger" a place similar to an old fashioned fast food restaurant. The comedy is terrific, the fun is non-stop, and though cliché, is a passer for kid and family comedy.<br /><br />A movie for all ages, this movie is meant to enjoy, laugh, and pretty much a lazy movie for a rainy day, as that's what I'd save this movie for, a rainy day. USA aired it today, and since I know that the cast of "All That" is in it, I thought that it might be a bit of a chuckle burner, but in good fun, as Keenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell (probably one of the best young duos of that time) were terrific together, the pieces came together, and everything worked out, and it made it into good family fun together with some lazy day work to get off the bad day.<br /><br />May I take your order?

Why oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.

I rented this film from Blockbust because of the Cover and Title! Sounded intriguing!! This movie suffered because of the writing, it needed more suspense. The "monsters" needed more face time. We needed them to have some sort of special power and definitely more "Oh Sh--" moments. The photography didn't bother me except for the scene where a re-breather blows up. There were too many close ups. But other than that the movie seemed to drag and the heroes didn't really work for their freedom. Overall, I would say everyone put in a lot of time even the writers. But this movie is definitely a below average rent.<br /><br />There are definitely better picks. I would recommend Anacondas 1 or 2 over this pick.

I last read a Nancy Drew book about 20 years ago, so much of my memory of the fictional character is probably faulty. From what I gathered, the books were introduced to me at an era when teenage sleuths were popular to children growing up at the time (for my case, the 80s and early 90s), with Hardy Boys, Famous Five, and of course, "Carolyn Keene"'s Nancy Drew amongst the more famous ones. I still remember those hardcover books with very dated cover illustrations, usually quite heavy (for a kid) to lug around, and the thickness of the book perhaps attributed to the fact that the words are printed in large fonts.<br /><br />Well, the character has been given some updates along the way, as I recall my sister's subsequent Nancy Drew books becoming less thick, of softcover, with updated and a more chic Nancy illustrated on the cover. I can't remember if those stories were the same as the old hardcover ones, but I guess these books, being ghostwritten, have their fair share of updating itself for the times.<br /><br />In this Warner Brothers release of Nancy Drew, the character no doubt gets its update to suit the times, but somehow the writers Andrew Fleming and Tiffany Paulsen maintained her 50s- ish small town sensibilities, thereby retaining some charm and flavour that erm, folks like me, would appreciate. Her fashion sense, her prim and properness, even some quirky little behaviour traits that makes her, well, Nancy Drew.<br /><br />Her family background remains more or less the same, living with her single parent father Carson Drew (Tate Donovan), who is moving his daughter and himself to the big city for a better job opportunity, and to wean his daughter off sleuthing in the town of River Heights. Mom is but a distant memory, and the housemaid makes a cameo. But what made Nancy Drew work, is the casting of Emma Roberts in the lead role. Niece of her famous aunt Julia, she too possess that sprightly demeanour, that unmistakable red hair and that megawatt smile. Her Nancy Drew, while in the beginning does seem to rub you the wrong way, actually will grow on you. And in almost what I thought could be a discarded scene from Pretty Woman, it had the characters walk into a classy shop with almost opposite reactions.<br /><br />While Dad Carson Drew tries hard to bring Nancy out of her sleuthing environment and to assimilate into normal teenage life, trust Nancy to find themselves living in a house whose owner, a Hollywood type has been, was found murdered under suspicious circumstances. Mystery solving is her comfort food when she finds herself an outcast of the local fraternity, and not before long we're whisked off along with her on her big screen adventure.<br /><br />There's nothing too Black Dahlia about the crime and mystery, and instead it's a pretty straightforward piece for Nancy to solve, in between befriending Corky (Josh Flitter) a chubby friend from school, and pacifying jealous boyfriend Ned (Max Thieriot), while hiding the truth of her extra curriculum activities from her dad. The story's laced with cheesy fun and an oldie sentimentality which charms, and together, it becomes somewhat scooby-doo like. With minimal violence and no big bag gunfights or explosions, this is seriously a genre which is labelled clearly with "chick flick" alert.<br /><br />I guess the movie will generate a new generation of fans, rekindle the memories of old ones, and probably, just probably, might spark a new fashion trend of sporting penny loafers.

Brit director Chrstopher Nolan now has a career in America, and a reputation for making movies both popular and critically acclaimed; but this small film was where he started. And it certainly showcased his talent, with its striking black-and-white cinematography and achronological storytelling that prefigures his later 'Momento', albeit in a less extreme way. Thematically and mechanistically, the plot reminded me of David Mamet's 'House of Games', but the film still feels fresh and sharp, right up to the final twist of the ending whose flavour was expected, but whose pointedness is unexpectedly delicious. The acting, on the other hand, is not quite in the same class - the film has a stylised quality, and possibly to a greater extent than the director intended. But it's still a fine debut, simultaneously claustrophobic and beguiling.

Steven Spielberg produced, wrote, came up with ideas for and even directed episodes of Amazing Stories, so naturally this would have to be the greatest anthology ever right? Unfortunately wrong. Some episodes are just fantastic, but all too often it was a mixed bag. In fact, that might have been it's downfall is it was way too mixed. Some episodes were light comedies, some were dramas, some were horror, and one was even animated, which made this a similar, but not as good 80s version of the Twilight Zone (which also was around).<br /><br />Normally I'd like having a mixture of stories in an anthology show, but they just didn't fully work here. Some of the more fantastical dramatic episodes felt like they would be better being shown late on night on the Lifetime network, like the episode "Ghost Train", which was directed by Spielberg himself. In that episode, it gave the message of hope, and gave us a fantasy story, but overall it was just a build up to the ending which didn't blow me away anyways. The horror episodes tended to work better than the drama, but there were far more dramatic ones, and they grow tiring to watch. Acting wise, this anthology got some big stars, similar to the original Twilight Zone. Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, Milton Berle, Dom Deluise, Harvey Keitel, Beau Bridges, Charlie Sheen, Forrest Whitaker, Tim Robbins, John Lithgow, Rhea Perlman, Danny Devito, Patrick Swayze, Christopher Lloyd, June Lockhart, Kathy Baker, Weird Al Yankovich and many other well knowns have been in episodes of the show. It's fun to see well known actors in almost every episode of the series. Great directors have also had part in episodes including Spielberg himself, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Bob Clark, Joe Dante, Mick Garris, Paul Bartel, Joe Dante, Robert Zemeckis, Danny Devito and even Martin Scorsese. I'd actually recommend this more to fans of the directors and/or the 80s than anyone else.<br /><br />Amazing Stories was sometimes amazing, usually good, occasionally mediocre, and every once in a while a real stinker came out. But, this show has nostalgic value to me, and it's sort of fun to sit on boring afternoons and watch some episodes. John Williams' theme music for the show is sure to be caught in anyone's head who watches this, too.<br /><br />My rating: Good show. 30 mins. per episode. TVPG

The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.<br /><br />A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.<br /><br />Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.<br /><br />If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.

"Why did they make them so big? Why didn't they just give the money to the poor?" The question about cathedrals was asked by a student to Mr. Harvey during a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. "That's a good question," he replied. "Partly to inspire them - to get them to look up with awe." I'm not sure that cathedrals have that impact on everyone, but this movie certainly had that impact on me. It was awesome! <br /><br />It didn't start out that way. For a while it seemed to be little more than a depiction of - well - a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. If you've ever been on a high school field trip to anywhere this is basically it. You have a group of largely disinterested kids just happy to be out of school for a day, the bus driver who's driven crazy by them and some teachers trying desperately to keep it all under control. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt was my initial reaction. I figured that in the end this was going to be a typical story of a teacher managing to inspire a group of disinterested students. YAWN! But it turns out to be so much more! Timothy Spall was brilliant as Mr. Harvey - a sombre, unsmiling teacher with a strange fascination for cathedrals. Over the course of the movie, his story slowly comes out and becomes the focal point of the story. We also get introduced to some of the troubled students - most notably Helen, also brilliantly played by Nathalie Press, who's into self-mutilation.<br /><br />This isn't a religious movie, but it includes some powerful reflections on religious themes. When Harvey's colleague Jonathon (played by Ben Miles) says "I don't care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else" Harvey replies, "that isn't tolerance - it's indifference!" - which is, in fact (in my opinion) what often passes for religious tolerance in our society. There are scenes of reconciliation between various characters, and the final scene of the movie was brilliant. As Harvey climbs back on the bus, director Susanna White has the camera slowly pan upwards, so that the final shot is simply of the sky - hearkening back to Harvey's comment that the purpose of the cathedral is to get people to look up in awe. The cathedral accomplishes its goal. We look up into the universe in awe, seeking something greater than ourselves, however we choose to define it. This is a very powerful and very inspiring movie. 9/10

I will probably always go to see a Woody Alleb movie, as one never knows when he just might make a real return to his past greatness. Just one or two great moments or lines could make it worthwhile. sadly however this film just does'nt make it on any score. Saying thar actually makes me sad and even a little guilty. I'm sure my reaction is much like a lot of other fans of Woody, but what can one say? It's probably time for him to concentrate on his Clarinett, which in my opinion, he is rather quite good. Saying all of this, I'll still probably go to any new film Woody may come out with in the future. There's always hope and I'll continue to love and respect The WOODY!!

I really liked this movie, and went back to see it two times more within a week.<br /><br />Ms. Detmers nailed the performance - she was like a hungry cat on the prowl, toying with her prey. She lashes out in rage and lust, taking a "too young" lover, and crashing hundreds of her terrorist fiancé's mother's pieces of fine china to the floor. <br /><br />The film was full of beautiful touches. The Maserati, the wonderful wardrobe, the flower boxes along the rooftops. I particularly enjoyed the ancient Greek class and the recitation of 'Antigone'.<br /><br />It had a feeling of 'Story of O' - that is, where people of means indulge in unrestrained sexual adventure. As she walks around the fantastic apartment in the buff, she is at ease - and why not, what is to restrain a "Devil in the Flesh"?<br /><br />The whole movie is a real treat!

If I write a review about a movie, maybe it will stick with me... but generally I expect that I will have forgotten I've seen this one a mere two weeks from now. So why bother? Because again I find myself watching a low-rated movie that was fun to watch. I didn't expect I'd to be able to stay in the room while it was on.<br /><br />It wasn't great, but at least it was not unbearable... not a comedy of errors which always makes me cringe. It was just sweet fluff... and if you can't take it, stay in the locker room boys. I agree with those who defend this movie because it is sure to please its targeted demographic, and won't be a total bore to an adult.<br /><br />It offers a few good chuckles here and there, but nary a side splitter. Sure it is silly and only mildly entertaining, but at least it doesn't suck (as so many have said it does). Maybe those folks are afraid of their sensitive sides? <br /><br />I have a tendency to grade on the bell curve, so a 4,5 or 6 is actually an okay all-around rating in my book. Giving it a 4 makes sense and will bolster its rating at the time of this writing. Giving it a 1 or a 10, as most have done thus far, makes the rating numbers meaningless. I cannot believe how strongly people feel one way or the other about this forgettable fluff (or that I am even bothering to write about it). Am I missing something? <br /><br />Anyway, it should be noted that Emma Roberts performs her role as Clairedycat quite convincingly. Ariell Kebbel often written into b*ch roles does not disappoint when her character gets her due. You might also recognize Bruce Spence playing Leonard, though his role is ancillary.<br /><br />Surely you can miss this one if you are an adult. But, if there is a pre-teen girl in your life, rent this movie for her... and be prepared NOT to hate it (you might even enjoy it).

Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'<br /><br />'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.<br /><br />The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.<br /><br />'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.<br /><br />This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.<br /><br />Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.<br /><br />Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.<br /><br />As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.<br /><br />** out of 4<br /><br />Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr

Splendid film that in just eight minutes displays an unusual genre mix: mystery, thriller, musical. Briefly, we are allowed to tell about the story: a girl comes into a European Cafeteria and then... Soft transit from nonsense mystery to narrative logic. In a no time, no place way Vigalondo managed a delight in B/W by means of imagination and despite (thanks to) the tightest of budgets.<br /><br />Because of the unity of time-space the film reaches the intensity of a short poem (almost a haiku). Spain, land of quick poetry in B/W (¿remember the early Buñuel?).<br /><br />A must see for reassuring our belief in young cinema outside the States.

How is it possible to like and dislike the same movie?<br /><br />The plot is very much like that Jody Foster thing, Sommersby, only not as good. Nicole was great....Jude was adequate. They didn't give him many lines...is there a reason for that? Generally, he's a pretty good actor. She's so elegant, his character is so country bumpkin. It makes one wonder what they see in each other.<br /><br />Romance between two such was only successful in Lady Chatterly's Lover.<br /><br />I think the dislike comes about because the movie is too long. They could have told the story in two hours.<br /><br />The story is good. Good locations, good filming. The character actors were great.

Famous movies are subject to Freudian analysis: Possessed, The Matrix, The Birds, Psycho, Vertigo, Duck Soup, Monkey Business, The Exorcist, The Testament of Dr Mabuse, Alien, Alien Resurrection, The Great Dictator, City Lights, The Tramp, Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, Dr Strangelove, The Red Shoes, Fight Club, Dead of Night, The Conversation, Blue Velvet, Solaris, Stalker, Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway, Persona, In The Cut, Eyes Wide Shut, The Piano Teacher, Three Colours: Blue, Dogville, Frankenstein, The Ten Commandments, Saboteur, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief, North by Northwest, Star Wars, Dune, Kubanskie Kazaki, Ivan The Terrible, Pluto's Judgment Day (Walt Disney), Wild at Heart.<br /><br />You may wonder how the Marx Brothers come into play. According To Slavoj Zizek, the host and analyst of this intellectually tickling tour de force, Groucho is the superego, Chico the ego, and Harpo the id.<br /><br />Scenes from the above listed films are used to illustrate concepts: the role of fantasy in shaping reality and vice-versa, the father figure, male and female libido, death drive, etc. Here are some of Slavoj utterances (most as paraphrases): "desire is a wound on reality", "fantasy realized is a nightmare", "music is the opium of the people" (borrowing from K. Marx), "of all human emotions, anxiety is the only one that is not deceiving". The whole is bracketed by an intro that declares "you don't look for your desires in movies, instead cinema tells you what you should desire" and concludes with the cineaste view that "cinema is needed today so that we can understand our current reality" -- I say, as long as censorship doesn't derail it.<br /><br />The three part subdivision is merely mechanical, possibly with TV screening in mind. For the theater goer it is irrelevant.

I don't know what this movie is about, really. It's like a student's art school project. They never say why the world is dark, but it is always darkness except for seconds a day. There are long, interrupting shots of insects of all sorts for no reason. What little dialogue there is in the movie is as inane and nonsensical as the images. A black woman enters the main character's apartment. Somehow she becomes pregnant overnight, then gets shot in the head. The main character takes care of the body until it becomes a cocoon after which a white naked woman emerges. I have never been so blown away by how bad and pointless a movie can be. Honestly, I would like someone to watch it so they can tell me what they think it's about. But I wouldn't wish this level of hell on anybody else.

I came in in the middle of this film so I had no idea about any credits or even its title till I looked it up here, where I see that it has received a mixed reception by your commentators. I'm on the positive side regarding this film but one thing really caught my attention as I watched: the beautiful and sensitive score written in a Coplandesque Americana style. My surprise was great when I discovered the score to have been written by none other than John Williams himself. True he has written sensitive and poignant scores such as Schindler's List but one usually associates his name with such bombasticities as Star Wars. But in my opinion what Williams has written for this movie surpasses anything I've ever heard of his for tenderness, sensitivity and beauty, fully in keeping with the tender and lovely plot of the movie. And another recent score of his, for Catch Me if You Can, shows still more wit and sophistication. As to Stanley and Iris, I like education movies like How Green was my Valley and Konrack, that one with John Voigt and his young African American charges in South Carolina, and Danny deVito's Renaissance Man, etc. They tell a necessary story of intellectual and spiritual awakening, a story which can't be told often enough. This one is an excellent addition to that genre.

A failure. The movie was just not good. It has humor that 5 year olds that will not even giggle at. I mean, sure, some parts were amusing, but most of it is not. Lindsey Lohan is a great actress (and a bad singer,) and she should be working on better movies. The movie should have been aired as a Disney Channel original movie, that is FREE.<br /><br />The only thing that was well done about this movie was the music. Nothing like a remade rock soundtrack to brighten up your day. These songs are so good. Especially Alyson and Amanda's Walking On Sunshine and Caleigh Peter's, Beach Boy song, Fun Fun Fun.<br /><br />4 out of 10. If I gave it a ten, 9 of that would be the music and 1 will be the movie. Not worth your money, but the soundtrack is.

As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, "I came for the science." This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming "The Birds" but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.<br /><br />The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of "B" movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.<br /><br />This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.<br /><br />If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.<br /><br />One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, "wait for Tom" as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.<br /><br />As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, "my goal is to evolve the human species" - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about.

Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.<br /><br />If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.

this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.<br /><br />transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.<br /><br />its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.

Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.

Sean Bean is great, as are the photography, locations and costumes. However, the plot is somewhat muddled, and the conclusion flat. The plot has been SUBSTANTIALLY altered from Cornwell's novel, and not to the better. Unfortunately, this adventure is much better read than watched. Sharpe was too narrowly drawn here, in contrast with his literary alter ego, who seems more intelligent and determined despite his apprehension in his new role as an officer promoted from the ranks. I really enjoyed the brief scene in which Sharpe is tripped by a "real" officer, and after a quick pause and piercing stare, pushes the surprised and cowed officer right back. It sets the tone for his later trials as a commanding officer.<br /><br />Rating: "4" of "10."

I appreciate movies like this: smart and well-crafted, entertaining, absorbing, well-acted and nicely directed. Nobody -- even Pacino -- is chewing the scenery*, trying to stand out; one of the film's most effective moments (Aielo pulling over at his beloved off ramp) is chilling precisely because of its restraint.<br /><br />Not as good as, say, QUIZ SHOW, CITY HALL is of a similar cloth: engaging the mind as well as eye, ear, and heart. Why such well-hewn entertainment flops at the box office is anybody's guess.<br /><br />*You know, Pacino does chew it up in one particular scene, but precisely because it's required. Great scene, too.

Hal Hartley has been likened to a modern day William Shakespeare, by virtue of the fact that he gets his actors to deliver their lines in an iambic pentameter. He certainly knows how to assemble a cast and once again Martin Donovan is sensational, whilst Thomas Jay Ryan plays his role with an intensity that is unforgettable. Although the film is only 1 hour, the time frame works wonderfully and keeps the audience on a fast tracked race right till the very end. Without a doubt Hal Hartley is one of the best directors to come out of America in the last 20 years, with a vision that is unique, funny and heart warming.

This movie is a blatant attempt by the left in Hollywood to portray Reagan's administration as incompetent and bungling. Some mistakes may have been made at the time of the crisis, but I'm sure not to the extent portrayed in this lame movie. My first reaction was that this movie had to have been directed by Oliver Stone, but I was wrong this time. There are apparently many others.

Okay, I like to give the benefit of the doubt. I watched his show.<br /><br />It isn't funny to me. All I remember was a lot of "weird" noises and yelling. I don't think I even cracked a smile. The only thing that somewhat resembled humour was his Anjelina Jolie/Jennifer Aniston bit. I think you can get dumber by the minute watching it though.<br /><br />Also, what's with the "Ask Whitey?" section? Is that a ripoff of "Ask a Gay Dude?/Black Man?" from Chappelle's Show? Isn't it that obvious? But when Chappelle did it, he was exposing the ignorance of the subject. Like Borat. But what's up with picking random white people and yelling stuff at them? That's not funny, its just plain dumb.<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure I heard certain "jokes" of his somewhere else... it seems abit like he's 'plagerising' bits & pieces, throwing in some "loud" yelling.<br /><br />Anyway, it wasn't funny. Seriously. Don't even waste your time.

If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.

It is 1969. Phoebe(Camilla Belle) is an 11 year old girl growing up with an idealized vision of her 19 year old sister Faith(Cameron Diaz). Faith is the doer, the truth-seeker, the fixer of all the wrongs in the world. Then one day, Phoebe and her mother Gail(Blythe Danner) receive word that Faith is dead. Faith has killed herself. Both Phoebe and Gail are overwhelmed by this news and, although saddened, Gail mourns. Phoebe can't let it go. Phoebe decides to go to Europe and find out what happened.<br /><br />It is now 1977. Phoebe(Jordana Brewster) is 18 and decides to go to Europe over the objections of her mother to discover the truth. When alive, Faith was inseparable from a man she called "Wolf"(Christopher Eccleston). Though Wolf claimed not to know anything about Faith's last days, Phoebe convinces him to tell her everything. Within days, Wolf realizes that he hadn't let go of the past either and he joins Phoebe on her pilgrimage to Portugal.<br /><br />In the end, Wolf is able to tell of Faith's decent into drug abuse and his own guilt at not preventing the suicide. Although angry, Phoebe realizes in the end how human and fragile Faith really was.<br /><br />I liked this movie. I'm old enough to remember the bank robberies of the Red Army and I was 10 in 1969. This story was familiar ground for me. I can still remember young men trying to decide if they should go to Canada or not to avoid the draft.<br /><br />The story is simple, but probably occurred several times in real life during that period. Camilla Belle was enjoyable and fun to watch as she portrayed the young adoring sister excited by what was happening around her. Jordana Brewster slid easily into the role of the older Phoebe. Blythe Danner was the ever supportive mother, a role she is all too familiar with on American TV, unfortunately. I would have liked to see her with stronger material to work with. Cameron Diaz played the immature anarchist perfectly. Though at times, her performance of a 1960s activist seemed to come off a news reel. Of all the characters, it was Christopher Eccleston's Wolf, that made the most growth. When we are introduced to the character at the beginning of the movie, we can see he is a worldly man. He is a patient and kind man filled with anger at the world's injustices. In the end, he realizes the direction he and Faith are headed is wrong and begins to "grow up" deciding he should fight against injustice in his own way. Faith refuses to join him in this and it eventually leads to her death. Eccleston's Wolf is the most real of all the characters.<br /><br />I recommend this movie. It was enjoyable and thought provoking. "The Invisible Circus" is rated TV-MA, but there is very little cursing, sex or violence in it. The subject of the movie is the reason for the rating.

As a grownup in my mid-40s, I am not even close to any of "Nancy Drew"'s key demographics, but I was pleasantly surprised by the film this afternoon; so, I could tell, were the pair of sixtyish silver-haired ladies down the row from me. The older man who left the theater just ahead of me specifically praised the film to the 20-ish female usher (who said she'd seen the film the previous evening and quite liked it).<br /><br />More to the point, however: In the row just ahead of me, there were nine -- count them, nine -- ten-year-old girls lined up next to each other, passing popcorn and hot dogs and candy back and forth and giggling through the previews.<br /><br />Once the film began, they promptly settled down to watch....<br /><br />....and didn't so much as peep till the closing credits began to roll.<br /><br />This is not a perfect film; it doesn't quite pay off its high school subplots, it's not quite confident enough of its own tone, and its thugs are just a hair too far over toward critically inept at times. But the adaptation of the source material is essentially respectful, the plot hangs together fairly well, and it treads deftly between the sins of excessive cheesiness and excessive modernization. Last but not least, Emma Roberts carries the movie with startling grace -- Josh Flitter's superb timing notwithstanding, this is Roberts' movie, and she pulls it off beautifully. Her Nancy Drew is very much the direct ancestor of Kristen Bell's Veronica Mars, and the film is also a lineal descendant of Jodie Foster's early and underrated "Candleshoe".<br /><br />In today's marketplace, it's a rarity: a family movie that respects its viewers' intelligence. As such, it won't be to everyone's taste -- but for what it is, it is the best movie of its kind in decades.

> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle.

Although I generally do not like remakes believing that remakes are waste of time; this film is an exception. I didn't actually know so far until reading the previous comment that this was a remake, so my opinion is purely about the actual film and not a comparison.<br /><br />The story and the way it is written is no question: it is Capote. There is no need for more words.<br /><br />The play of Anthony Edwards and Eric Roberts is superb. I have seen some movies with them, each in one or the other. I was certain that they are good actors and in case of Eric I always wondered why his sister is the number 1 famous star and not her brother. This time this certainty is raised to fact, no question. His play, just as well as the play of Mr. Edwards is clearly the top of all their profession.<br /><br />I recommend this film to be on your top 50 films to see and keep on your DVD shelves.

What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.<br /><br />The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.

I was very moved by the gentle power of this movie and by the mood it created. I think it should have gotten a great deal more credit than it did. I agree that Michelle Pfeiffer should have been nominated, but I think all the performances were outstanding, and that Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange portrayed the deep affinity and conflicts of sisters with great emotional depth and sensitivity. Although I didn't read the book, I found the modern concept of King Lear very cool. I certainly will never look at the play quite the same way again!

Last evening I had the remarkable pleasure of seeing the movie Hitch. I was stunned and amazed. Will Smith did a phenomenal job in a role that he isn't always associated with. He proved once and for all that he does not need to be holding a gun to be a great actor in a movie. Kevin James was also very impressive. I admit that I've always like him on "The King of Queens" but this role really brought him into the light more, and i hope to see him on the big screen a lot more in the near future. The movie was funny and adorable and I recommend it to any guy as the best date movie you could ever imagine. The mix of comedy, romance, and drama left me feeling complete. It's nothing like most "chick flicks" in the sense of tears and sadness, but holds its own and i think can be equally enjoyed by males as well as females. I encourage all couples especially to see this movie but even if you aren't involved with someone you may pick up some great ideas from Hitch. <br /><br />TWO WAY BIG THUMBS UP!!!

Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush. <br /><br />Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. "Homo-erotic" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what? <br /><br />Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from "Lives of the Saints," "A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified." The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here. <br /><br />Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: "Mother and Son" (1997); "The Return" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); "Little Odessa" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov."<br /><br />Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess. <br /><br />This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, "Russian Ark" (2003).<br /><br />As in his "Mother and Son," an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.<br /><br />An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as "themes based on Tchaikovsky." The presence of a "sound designer" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are "designed." <br /><br />It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.<br /><br />Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?

The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema.

I have yet to watch the first entry in this series, however, fortunately, I was still able to follow the complex and intricate plot, with all its unexpected twists and turns, and I applaud them for the utter originality of the concepts herein. In case there is any confusion, let me leave no doubt as to the fact that everything I've just said is coated in pure, carefully nurtured sarcasm, the kind that flourishes and grows exponentially when exposed to crap like this flick. A clear sign that this is unimpressive is that it was directed by a visual effects creator, whose only other credit in that field is a Henry Rooker film that wasn't well received. The acting is average at best, and I defy anyone to not find... Scottish computer-woman(come on, seriously, what is with that last name?)'s Russian accent laughable and/or irritating. There is an attempt or two at stylization in this, and they are reasonable. The action isn't terrible. Cinematography and editing are fine. The music is cool enough. Language is infrequent, if even that. Violence is fairly bloody. I recommend this solely to fans of B-movies, and I will say that you can do worse than this. 1/10

Also titled--> The Magical Castle--> This one is a stretch. Why bother? Why create another rockbart and then add another story line that has nearly nothing to do with the play nor swan lake. Only some girlfriend of rockbart, the stolen book of forbidden arts and the original characters (not voices remain). Stripped to to its bares this is a continuation by a thread. Next thing you know some bird will have memorized the "forbidden arts" and Swan Princess 4: the magical bird will be born. Thankfully though the chapters are supposedly closed and this will beginning but bad ended trilogy will come to a close.

This is an odd movie. On the surface it's no different to many other d-grade gore movies but in at least a few ways it stands out. Firstly, the main killer character is really weird. How the heck a guy who only ever clucks like a chicken got paroled is totally beyond me. What was that female parole board member thinking: "he's totally reformed and rehabilitated". He clucks! Another problem with Luther the Geek is the script/direction for the women. The daughter is so pathetic and seemingly stupid that if she was mine I'ld slap her. In attempting to untie her mother off the bed she struggles with knots and just doesn't seem to think, "I'll get scissors, or a knife". Later on, in a similar attempt to untie her mother she wanders down stairs and starts searching in a box of scrap-booking stuff for some scissors, eventually she gets a knife. By the way, this is after the killer has obviously left in the car and just returned. Bizarre. On the plus side the daughter did get her kit off for the shower scene, so that was nice, although again unusual. It seems that in many of these d-grade gore movies they happily show throats being bitten open with gushing blood but the sight of a female breast is somehow too strong for the audience. In general, it worked but it was annoying and nasty, although the bare breasts made up for some of that.

The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit together comprise the two best episodes of the 'new' Doctor Who's second season. Having said that, it should be obvious that much of the story basically transposes the plot of Quatermass and the Pit (1967) to an outer space setting, with the history of the universe intertwined with that of the Beast 666. These episodes cement the emotional ties between Rose and the Doctor, whilst also highlighting Rose's increasing self-confidence, establishing her as a not-quite-equal-yet-but-getting-there partner with our beloved Time Lord. Also of note is Matt Jones elegant screenplay, which decreases the occasional over-reliance on one-liners for the Doctor, and the performances of the entire cast, most notably the excellent Shaun Parkes as acting Captain Zachary Cross Flane.

My wife and I both agree that this is one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly in the top ten of those I've watched all the way through. At least "Plan 9" was enjoyable.<br /><br />I DID really enjoy "Christine", "The Dead Zone", "Firestarter", "Carrie", and some of his other films. I didn't care much for "Cujo" (only because the sound was so bad on versions I've seen and I often couldn't tell what people were saying), or "Pet Sematary (Pet Cemetery)".<br /><br />But this mess was a total mistake in every way possible. The "creatures" themselves seemed designed by a 9-year-old. (No offense to 9-year-olds.)<br /><br />Even the "one-liners" made us groan and weren't remotely amusing.

Lost is one of a kind...its so enchanting and full of suspense, thrill and emotions all at the same time.I have never seen any TV series like this before. It is full of jungle thrills and has a good screenplay. The actors have emoted life on an island in such a natural way that I feel lost in the island myself while watching it.It is an excellent piece of work narrated in a very intelligent form.The series is like a movie depicting the life of the survivors lost on a deserted island.I am tempted to watch one episode after the other and I highly recommend this series for all the TV show lovers.Watch it to see the magic of being lost in nowhere.

After Racism, Rural exodus -also known as migration from the country side- is another socio-political issue of the 1960s. WestSide Story had dealt with Racism by a love feast in an artistic view. Now, Midnight Cowboy deals with rural exodus by a friendship tragedy in a psychological view. It has a deeply grievous ending that we witness one of the two companions of fate passing away.<br /><br />Director John Schlesinger skillfully deliver us the deepest secret thoughts, dreams, fantasies, fears and evaluations of two New York City scums. While the handsome Joe Buck(Voight) dreams of all the beautiful women of the world begging him to share a wild love fantasy, the poor Ratso Rizzo(Hoffman) dreams of a better and healthier life in clean and sunny Florida. Accordingly, Joe becomes a hustler to turn his fantasies into reality; and Ratso becomes a snatcher to collect enough money to migrate into Florida. Besides Ratso helps Joe to find his way to do whatever he can. They begin sharing everything in life. They share food, they share medicine, they share an uninhabited home, they share their earnings and thus they share a destiny. Regrettably as the story progresses, Joe realizes that being handsome is not the only thing to make all the beautiful women begging him to have fun; and moreover Ratso cannot see Florida since his heart fails defeated to his disease whilst he was on the bus taking him there.<br /><br />The Might is always right, and the Feeble has no right in the daylight. Thence, "Midnight" gives the factual sight.<br /><br />Despite the tragedy, there is no melodrama in Midnight Cowboy. Every aspect of each character is the reality of the poor who bear their inevitable fate. Thanks to this, Midnight Cowboy is a provocative view of a socio-political issue, the rural exodus.

I saw Arthur(the TV series and the books)years ago and never was fond of the show very much(if you're a fan of this cartoon,sorry if I'm spoiling it for you,but this is actually what I think).Lots of people liked it,but I didn't.<br /><br />The school kids characters seemed to fought all the time(especially Arther and DW),they were nice to each other frequently,but gradually I got tired of Arthur's complaining attitude towards everyone and his sister DW(however the name was spelled),and DW was an ADHD(or ADD)-like 4-year-old sister of Arthur who was sometimes demanding(which could be why Arthur got annoyed with what her routines were,like her imaginary friend and her stuffed animal collection etc.),Arthur's friends acted like teenagers instead of what they were like in the Arthur books,and the parents,well,they didn't care very much.<br /><br />The greatest cartoon was Rocko's Modern Life,not Arthur(no offense).

What can I say? I got up this morning and turned on sci-fi and watched half of the first season and figured it all out. Strange, unusual, and brilliant. It gives all potential, and to think at first I said this looks stupid. This has got to be the next best thing since X-Files, but as always nothing will ever take down that show in my opinion. I am telling you, it's scary and then suspenseful and then mellow. Towards the end you have Miles as a love puppy with a weird pet that is a new species. You have two people on the run from authorities. And a killer tsunami about to strike! Wow! And did I mention Miles pet is a potential killer(well the rest of his species is). Surface is a brilliant show with spins and twists that delivers it all.

I don't pretend to be a huge Asterix fan, having only seen one other movie adaption and read only two of the comics, but this was a superb movie, all the same. I only saw the English version, and found the voices to go perfectly with the characters - Brad Garret as Obelix and Sean Astin as Justforkix especially. The story itself was both interesting and truly funny (especially the contradicting name endings - all the viking names end in "af", while all the Gaulish names, of course, end in "ix"), with a little romance thrown in that (I though) enhanced the story, even though it weighed down the overall production with unnecessary clichés. <br /><br />The plot is this - the Viking chief, Timandahaf, is sick and tired of going to raid villages and then finding them emptied. So, he consults his "wise man", Cryptograf, whose entire repertoire consists of old proverbs, and Cryptograf tells him that "fear lends the villagers wings". Taking this literally, Timandahaf believes that fear actually allows people to fly, and sets out on an expedition to retrieve the "Champion of Fear", an expedition that, of course, leads him to the Gaulish village where Asterix and Obelix live. <br /><br />The pair are currently very frustrated - Chief Vitalstatistix's cowardly, pacifist nephew, Justforkix, has been entrusted to them so they can train him to be a man, and the boy is making little to no progress. When Justforkix unwittingly confesses to being "afraid of everything" in the presence of the brainless viking Olaf, he is believed to be the "Champion of Fear", and is kidnapped. Asterix and Obelix are sent by Vitalstatistix to go rescue Justforkix before his father returns to the village to bring his son back home.<br /><br />Ultimately, this is a great movie with few flaws besides the clichés and, at times, defective dialogs. I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the fact that it wasn't true to the comic.

To be brutally honest... I LOVED watching Severed. That's why I<br /><br />gave it a 1/10 stars because of its starkly unimaginative<br /><br />story/filming/acting/everything. This film was a RIOT to watch. If<br /><br />you enjoy watching bad films in order to poke fun at them, you will<br /><br />really get a kick out of Severed.<br /><br />The story really doesn't matter, it involves some guy who's bald<br /><br />and has a sword and goes around beheading random people. <br /><br />But he has a supernatural twist... nobody ever sees him do it. <br /><br />Even when, in one very memorable scene, he walks into a<br /><br />jampacked night club and whacks off some girl's noodle and<br /><br />nobody sees it. <br /><br />Severed doesn't merely look like it was filmed on video- it WAS<br /><br />filmed on someone's home camcorder. The filmmakers had<br /><br />knowledge of lighting (very thin knowledge) and composition<br /><br />actually holds together in some scenes. But mostly you can't hear<br /><br />the actors... you can't understand what they're doing, and you laugh<br /><br />when the next vicitm gets his pumpkin detatched from his body.<br /><br />Go and rent this movie. Support films like this- they are a hoot and<br /><br />a hollar!

Valley Girl is an exceptionally well made film with an all-around great cast. Even though the dialogue is a bit dated now, when the movie was released it was very hip. To this day, I know many people (teenagers included) that cannot form a sentence without using the word "like". That is without a doubt the legacy this movie will leave. A rating of 8 was given for this, like, most excellent movie.

Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.

From the late teens to the 1920s, Stan Laurel was a solo act in films. During this time period, Laurel was definitely NOT among the upper echelons of talent and his humor isn't nearly as good as contemporaries such as Lloyd or Keaton. However, for second-tier short comedies, he did create a decent niche. As far as the quality of the films go, they varied wildly. Some, such as DR. PYCKLE AND MR. PRYDE, were terrific, whereas most were of average to below average in quality.<br /><br />FROZEN HEARTS is an odd film. Like many of the films he made for Hal Roach and distributed by Pathé during this period, the costumes were absolutely first-rate and the film looked very nice. However, despite this and having support from the likes of James Finlayson, one thing they forgot to include in this film was humor. None of the jokes seem to work and the film looks almost like a drama, not a comedy. Only the really silly intertitle cards betray the type film it's supposed to be.<br /><br />My advice is try to see all his Laurel and Hardy films and then see the solo films. In addition to DR. PYCKLE, try seeing THE SOILERS and MUD AND SAND--two of his more tolerable solo shorts.

After watching the trailer I was surprised this movie never made it into theaters, so I ordered the BluRay. I had a great time watching it and have to say that this movie is better than some major animation movies out there. Of course, it has its flaws but I can still really recommend it. The animation is well done, very entertaining and unique and the story kept me watching it all the way to the end. Some of the backdrops are just drop-dead gorgeous and you can see the French talent behind it. I thought that Forest Whitaker's performance feels a bit lifeless but that is how the character Lian-Chu is depicted in this movie. So overall, thumbs up, I liked it a lot and I hope it is successful enough for all the studios involved to continue making great movies like this. I would recommend to give it a chance and be surprised how great a movie can be with such a small budget. Hektor alone is worth watching the movie since some of his moments are Stitch-like hilarious.

I expected this movie was originally supposed to show before the election. CBS's last shot at throwing a dig at Bush. This movie was just awful yet I'm still watching it. **Minor Spoiler** I think CBS got the same people who "provided" the memo's to do the semi cut in half sequence. What is with the bad boyfriend storyline? Can the acting be more contrived or the dialog more like a Ed Wood movie. Who ever came up with this script please do us a favor stop writing. If you want to see decent B grade disaster movies then see Earthquake, Flood etc. Avoid this mess of a movie. Hint to CBS avoid showing us this crap. Give us re-runs of CSI instead. Better acting and more believable.

Navy Seals is an ignorant, racist and complacent movie which thoughtlessly uses the Middle East conflict as the backdrop for an action flick concocted for a comfortably sheltered American Mid-West audience. The conflict, as well as those involved, is used simply as cannon fodder to glorify the photogenic young Americans who proudly kill Arabs for the good of 'freedom'. But what is worse is that the film's action scenes are sloppily handled and unexciting, which prevents Navy Seals from working even as a mindless shoot-'em-up.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen's character (Hawkins) is disgusting, obnoxious, ignorant, reckless and, above all, racist. He refers to the Middle East as a 's**t-hole' and to its inhabitants as 'rag-heads'. Throughout the film, the Navy Seals' characters are glorified through the use of the Lebanese natives as cannon fodder. They indiscriminately massacre these people with a consequence-free attitude. There is even the tasteless murder of a young Lebanese boy who is shot by Hawkins; Hawkins makes fun of his language before shooting him whilst making another humorous quip. Besides being tasteless, this should be unacceptable. The film's extreme (though predictable)pro-American stance is also revolting. This can be seen when the Lebanese-American female journalist informs Hawkins that terrorists cant be made to talk because 'they are religious zealots.' Hawkins then retorts with 'yeah, and we are the Navy Seals!' The implication is obviously that zealots are meaningless next to American military might. Moreover, even after insulting this journalist's racial heritage and treating her like a sex object, the script demands her inability to resist this disgusting thug and she still ends up sleeping with him - because he is an All-American Navy Seal. This marginalizes the journalist's character by making her submissive to the 'superior' pro-American attitude of Hawkins despite his insulting behaviour toward her. Beyond ethics, this plot twist also has little credence as drama. <br /><br />The screenplay is also amateurish. Most scenes are simply strung together without any thought for mood, plot or character development. The 'music video' scene at the golf course, for example is just shoddily edited eye candy. And the two scenes where Charlie Sheen plays the reckless hero are also pointless. In one he jumps off a bridge from moving car just to show his mates how tough he is, and in the other he chases down a tow truck on a push bike and drives his car-off it. Neither scene has a follow-up anti-climax, both are highly improbable, and neither has any bearing on the plot as a whole. They are just candy designed as a vehicle to showcase Hawkins' cheap all-American heroics, and are poor substitutes for character development. Most of the other plot development scenes are also badly filmed and poorly scripted as - in fact this affliction affects the entire movie. Apart from the African American Navy Seal and his wife as well as the characters of Michael Biehn and Charlie Sheen, every other member of the team seems unknown to the audience, so that when the climatic scenes roll around there seems to nobody to root for and anybody's death to lament.<br /><br />In such a film, the action sequences can potentially rescue the production. But here they don't. These are badly directed, badly lit, and showcase badly performed stunts. In fact, their direction is so poor that they are almost incoherent to the viewer, resulting in not only the scenes being incomprehensibly hard to follow, but also in a complete lack of fear and suspense. Poor lighting only adds to their impotence. The explosions look fake, gunshot wounds unconvincing and one of the more daring stunts, involving crashing a Mercedes over a tank, looks just like a stunt which has been staged on a backlot and then poorly edited.<br /><br />The ending of Navy Seals places the coins firmly on the eyes of this production. First there is the obligatory slow-motion 'running-away-from-the-big-explosion-that-should-have-killed-me' scene with Sheen carrying Biehn on his back. This was obviously the default scene intended to be the star of the movie's trailers. Then there is the ending itself when the remaineder of the Seal team, wounded and floating in the ocean, are rescued by a submarine. This submarine had in fact turned for home long before, but of course it had miraculously returned in the nick of time. Topping it all of, despite the Seals' violent and stressful ordeal, and despite the fact that numerous of their colleagues had just been killed, with a number of them still bleeding acutely, they all manage to laugh heartily while blessing America vociferously. Predictable? You can just imagine this ending while watching the opening credits.<br /><br />This movie indulgently uses the Middle Eastern conflict as a vehicle for the macho All-American tendencies of the movies' photogenic young leads. Arabs are treated condescendingly and dismissively, and their slaughter in the movie is used as a fulcrum to glorify the use of American military might against an 'inferior' minority group in a consequence-free environment. The events of 2001 have pointed out that such smug and overconfident trivialising of the conflicts of such minority groups is certainly not a consequence free passtime. The Middle East can no longer be written off as a s**t-hole full of rag heads knocking each other off (to quote Charlie Sheen here); it is now a place in which involvement can lead to severe consequences. Today we are reminded that the consequences of such arrogance can manifest themselves quite close to home. Therefore, in the very least Navy Seals looks pretty foolish these days; but this is to be kind. This is a highly ignorant movie, whose production values and professionalism are equally suspect. Navy Seals is, ideologically and artistically, a complete insult to the intelligence of its audience.

This is a bit of a first for me, the first time I have ever been disappointed in a Tim Burton film. POTA isn't a bad film (great sets, costumes and the odd great performance) but it could have been made by any off-the-shelf hollywood director. The pacing was very odd, the last third was just spent waiting for the film to end, by myself and the cast. Tim Roth was excellent, probably the only pleasure in the film. Come back Tim.

This movie was really funny. The people that were expecting to see an Oscar worthy comedy, should get over themselves. This was a fun movie to see with interesting and funny characters, plot lines, dialog quotes and catch phrases. I rate a movie a 10 if I have bought the DVD, or in this case, the videotape, and have watched it many times, and in this case, still laugh out loud. I have about 12 movies in my collection with a rating of 10 and about half don't have anything do do with the Oscars. Again, this was just a fun, light-hearted movie. I hope this comes out on DVD. I highly suggest checking this movie out, if you are in the mood for a wacky comedy.

I would think that this was one of those films whose director hadn't read the book it was based on, were it not for the fact that they are just slightly similar. It is certainly possible for a great film to be "based" very loosely on a book and this was certainly the latter but not the former.<br /><br />There were a number of flaws. One was that it tried to be too much like the Railway Children, probably because adults would expect this, being from the same author. Another is that it also sought to be too like Harry Potter, down to the music and in overemphasizing the setting. I have nothing against J K Rowling or the films but the book is just nothing like the Harry Potter ones. I thought the Psammead, though very well voiced by Eddie Izzard and in character too, was almost gratuitously in a totally inappropriate environment. I may have missed something here, as the comments made about one of the characters' own books may have been a reference to the inaccuracy of the adaptation. There was also no need for the extra characters, and today's special effects could easily have been used to tell the story as it was written, but they weren't.<br /><br />I saw this film with my two children, one of whom knows the book and the other of whom doesn't. The one who does know it thought it was all right but wasn't as enthusiastic as the one who doesn't. I'm not sure what this means.

I own this movie. I am actually from the same town as the brother directors. But that doesn't make the film any better. But, if one night you wanna watch something not serious, and don't have and high expectations, I strongly recommend Demon Summer. Yes, the lines are cheesy and the plot is corny. But it contains key elements of a horror/comedy. I just wanna see some small-town kids make a movie full of effects. And I say "bravo" to the Campell brothers. They are now making more movies and continuing a long dream. Demon Summer was one of the movies that are gonna help them start a great career with a great future. Speed Freak Productions and Compound Pictures described in one word: POTENTIAL

I've seen soap operas more intelligent than this movie. Bad characters, bad story and bad acting. It would be a love story between a man and a mermaid. Really awful.

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

Okay, first off, Seagal's voice is dubbed over for like 50% of the film... Why? Because apparently there were rewriting the script and story as they were shooting and they need to change his dialogue for story continuity as they have multiple versions. From the very beginning, you just scratch your head because the overdubs are not only distracting, but they make no sense.<br /><br />That said, the story still sucked and doesn't make any sense at all. When I got the the end, I was just scratching my head cause the movie was so pointless and the ending didn't even make sense.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague. This movie made me stop watching Seagal straight to video movies cause they just get worse and worse.

Like 'First Blood', this attempts to make a point about the treatment of Vietnam vets, but there really isn't much time for that in between the monotonous gunfire, burnings, stabbings, torture and explosions as an impossibly indestructible Rambo takes out half of Asia, a ton of Vietnamese soldiers, most of the Russian army, various vehicles and anything else he can point a rocket launcher at. The only woman in the middle of all these boys toys is soon bumped off, allowing the testosterone to reach dangerous levels and the script to degenerate into a succession of loud noises. Helpfully supplying a few hackneyed musical cues is Jerry Goldsmith, who carefully checks off all the clichéd themes from Russian rat-a-tat to Chinese ching-chang-chong just in case we don't quite understand who we're looking at. Stallone has a brain in his head; this empty nonsense is beneath him.

A Walt Disney MICKEY MOUSE Cartoon.<br /><br />STEAMBOAT WILLIE, a mischievous little rodent, neglects his pilothouse and frolics his way into cinematic history.<br /><br />On 18 November 1928, a struggling young genius debuted the world's first successful cartoon with synchronous sound. There would be no looking back for either Walt Disney or his alter ego Mickey Mouse. Financial struggles would remain, but essentially the world was their oyster bed and Mickey would eventually rival Chaplin as the most recognizable cultural icon of the century.<br /><br />As entertainment, STEAMBOAT WILLIE is still fun to watch, featuring fine work by animator Ub Iwerks and showing a Mickey with all the passions & indifference of a small child. He must deal with a tyrannical skipper (Pete, without his peg leg; he had been appearing in Disney cartoons since February of 1925), a wisecracking parrot (in a few years it would be a Duck) and a cute little Mouse named Minnie. Together the two rodents rather callously make music on the live bodies of a goat, cat, goose, piglets & cow (a precursor of Clarabelle) - all of whom happened to be conveniently on board the steamship. Audiences howled for more and the pattern was set for the subsequent Mouse cartoons of the next few years.<br /><br />******************************<br /><br />Walt Disney (1901-1966) was always intrigued by pictures & drawings. As a lad in Marceline, Missouri, he sketched farm animals on scraps of paper; later, as an ambulance driver in France during the First World War, he drew comic figures on the sides of his vehicle. Back in Kansas City, along with artist Ub Iwerks, Walt developed a primitive animation studio that provided animated commercials and tiny cartoons for the local movie theaters. Always the innovator, his ALICE IN CARTOONLAND series broke ground in placing a live figure in a cartoon universe. Business reversals sent Disney & Iwerks to Hollywood in 1923, where Walt's older brother Roy became his lifelong business manager & counselor. When a mildly successful series with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit was snatched away by the distributor, the character of Mickey Mouse sprung into Walt's imagination, ensuring Disney's immortality. The happy arrival of sound technology made Mickey's screen debut, STEAMBOAT WILLIE (1928), a tremendous audience success with its use of synchronized music. The SILLY SYMPHONIES soon appeared, and Walt's growing crew of marvelously talented animators were quickly conquering new territory with full color, illusions of depth and radical advancements in personality development, an arena in which Walt's genius was unbeatable. Mickey's feisty, naughty behavior had captured millions of fans, but he was soon to be joined by other animated companions: temperamental Donald Duck, intellectually-challenged Goofy and energetic Pluto. All this was in preparation for Walt's grandest dream - feature length animated films. Against a blizzard of doomsayers, Walt persevered and over the next decades delighted children of all ages with the adventures of Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi & Peter Pan. Walt never forgot that his fortunes were all started by a mouse, or that childlike simplicity of message and lots of hard work always pay off.

"Gandhi as a husband and father?" has always been discussed by people in India. 'Gandhi...my father' is a story that only a few would have known to such details. Surely an insight into Gandhi's personal life.<br /><br />Overall, I liked the movie for story and cinematography. Jariwala, Akshay Khanna, and Shefali Shah have all done a good job. Most scenes of the movie would be nice desktop wallpapers...commendable job. Traditional Indian folk music as background score during certain parts of the movie gives a good feel of the happenings.<br /><br />However, what I didn't quite like was the narration style. At several points, I found the tone over-dramatized.<br /><br />Overall, good work by Anil Kapoor Productions. I would recommend it as "must-watch-once". 8/10

My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.

Some might say something like "Baby Geniuses" with its giant robot infants or "Dumbo" with its psychedelic drug-addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. You might say that too, but you'd be wrong. Lo and behold, for I bring to you: Santa Claus, the most helplessly messed up family film since ... well, ever. <br /><br />From the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously, this segment is nearly 20 freakin' minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot!) to the thrilling conclusion in which Merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (don't mind him, he's from Barcelona), this is childhood trauma at its finest. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how many different therapists I visit, I just... can't... get... those... reindeer's...laughter...out... of... my ... head! <br /><br />Avoid this mind-bending piece of trash like you'd avoid a sex-starved whale during mating season. Still, if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you, I guess you should give it a try. But really, this movie isn't worth your time and mental health.

I have seen this movie many times and each time i watch it i can't help but be entertained by it. Gunga Din is one of those Classic movies made in Hollywoods Golden Years when the actors themselves had to draw the audience into a movie without relying on fantastic special effects and man made "monsters" to carry a scene. The onscreen charisma and comraderie demonstrated by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is suberb and very entertaining to watch. The tongue and cheek attitude in which the three actors play their roles works beutifully and flawlessly. Some might consider it "corny" but i consider it "classic" filmaking and acting at its best. One must remember when watching this film that Europe was involved in a War with Germany and audiences went to the movies to escape from the horrors of war and to be entertained and taken away to a place where people were larger than life and did heroic deeds and good would always conquer over evil. Gunga Din accomplishes this perfectly by letting the audience laugh at and with the actors during their harrowing escapades. In short, its a classic film that doesnt take itself too seriously and doesnt want the audience to either.

Kudos to the writers of this film for creating a supremely engaging drama. The curious character development is indicative of a nuanced and well schooled writing team. The audience member cannot but help but to feel that (s)he must make wrenching emotional decisions pitting the cerebral against the libidinal. The viewer has an opportunity to develop the character herself, though her predictions are rarely validated.<br /><br />Credit is also due to the filmmakers for breathing life into the setting. The wood-shop is transformed into a unique persona as the film unfolds, with its own traits, faults, a variety of highly charged relationships, and of course a fate inexorably tied to that of the other principals.<br /><br />Make sure to catch this one at your local art-house.

It took me a while to find this movie since they don't have it yet on DVD (and my VCR is not worth hooking up again). I guess all the referencing to drug use is too much for some folks. But I found a decent bootleg on Ebay and I must say that anyone who takes this movie too seriously is just retarded. It is a slap stick spoof in the vein of "Airplane." I must say that when I watched it on Showtime or Spotlight growing up in the 80s, I enjoyed the humor a whole lot more then, than I do now. But it's definitely worth watching just to see what they(i.e., movie makers) were able to get away with before the "Just Say No" hypocrites unleashed their propaganda. sing..."We are all on drugs" hahaha It's a silly film and worth the $10 I paid off of Ebay to get it on DVD just don't even think about comparing it to the original - that's just plain stupid. What are you high?

The cult of personality has elevated the status of Roger Corman, Sam Arkoff, Lloyd Kaufman etc. as kings of the B's. Because the folks at Crown International were so key, they haven't been elevated to the status they richly deserve. A film like THE VAN may now seem like a disposable piece of Drive-in esoteria, but it was a sizable hit when it was released (not to mention subsequent re-releases as a double feature with other Crown hits).<br /><br />THE VAN was a perfect example of Crown's hit strategy of seizing upon the mood of movie-goers at the time of a film's release. Here, it was sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and the brief "Custom Van" fad. As others have noted, it is ironic that the "hit" song in the film refers to a Chevy when the title vehicle is a Dodge in the film itself. I had a town Selectman where I was at the time even declare these vans to be "dens of sin on wheels!" A perfect ad line for the film!<br /><br />There are the usual assortment of "good" and "bad" girls, muscle-heads and low-brow hijinks (including a supporting bit by Danny DeVito). In many ways this isn't much different from the old Beach Party movies of the 60's, but now spiced up with Nudity and Drug use. Obviously done on a limited budget and a limited schedule, the film coasts along pleasantly enough with a breezy charm that compensates for some, by today's standards certainly, un-PC views of women.<br /><br />The classic touch is a Toaster for Bobby's den of sin on wheels. Yes, a Toaster! Hey, you gotta have something hot for those munchies!<br /><br />Grindhouse Fest.

This short, a formative cartoon featuring Pepe Le Pew, concerns a cat who thinks he'll solve all his problems by pretending to be a skunk. Trouble is, he attracts the most unwelcome attention of an honest and for truly skunk (our hero, Pepe, entering stage left) being decidedly more attentive, shall we say, than M. Cat would like. Every great plan has its drawbacks, but this one's a corker! I wonder if Jack Warner got a call from the Hays Office over the fact that Pepe and the object of his adoration were both male. After all, Betty Boop was in part responsible for the Production Code coming into existance. Subsequent "conquests" were clearly and most definitely female. Very good cartoon, but Pepe is a character who works better as the focal point, rather than supporting. Well worth watching. Recommended.

Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable

Wirey's journey through the final days of bachelorhood, liberally sprinkled with flashbacks to a sexually active and diverse childhood.<br /><br />It's definitely not a feel-good romance movie. It is a romance movie, but one without illusions. Everyone's an adult here, not your cup of tea if you want another Sleepless in Seattle or Notting Hill.

The Leap Years stars some heavy hitters in the local and regional film and television scene. And yet, they cannot save this movie. It has so many things going against it - over acting, overly melodramatic, poor script, inconsistent direction; and too few things going for it - decent music , good cinematography. This comment is mainly for anyone who throws all local movies into one basket after watching this film and says all local movies are bad. Please do not judge the rest based on this one film. This is a television soap opera masquerading as a romantic feature film. My hopes were high when I bought my ticket and my hopes were dashed five minutes into the film.

"While traveling in the mountains, a man is attached by a mysterious creature that promptly departs, leaving no trace of its presence. Unbeknownst to the man, he has been attacked by a werewolf and now he's inherited the curse associated with such creatures. Now our hero must race against time to rid himself of this dreadful affliction before the next full moon," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Horrifically re-produced from the original Spanish, "The Fury of the Wolf Man" loses whatever charms it may have possessed in its original form. Lycanthropic Paul Naschy's werewolf characterization is uneven and ineffectual. Dominatrix scientist Perla Cristal and sexy assistant Verónica Luján never get close enough to truly titillate. The often incoherent storyline isn't even ghoulishly amusing.

This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.