Datasets:

KMaly

/

ait526_sentiment

like 0

Almost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.<br /><br />There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either.

Bottom-of-the-barrel stinker is so bad it's beyond funny. The "plot" is about an American mercenary, played by Reb Brown (in the film he's called a "military adviser" but it's not really clear if he's in the American military or not), helping the army of a Latin-American country fight guerrillas who winds up joining the guerrillas when the government turns on him, imprisons and tortures him. Shannon Tweed is a "sports equipment saleswoman" he picks up in a bar who gets caught up in all the intrigue. That description actually makes the movie sound better than it is, because it's really a stinker of almost Biblical proportions. How bad is it? Well, Shannon Tweed turns in the movie's most professional acting job. If that isn't an indication of just what a 12th-rate piece of junk this turkey is, nothing is From mismatched sound effects to a music score that sounds like it's from a 1940s "Z"-grade horror flick (and may very well be) to the same footage (i.e., armored personnel carriers going down the same jungle trail) reused constantly to some of the most ineptly staged "action" scenes in recent memory, this laugh-a-minute sludgefest has to be seen to be disbelieved. Tweed looks bored, Brown looks hung over, and by the time this thing is finished--if you can last that long; I couldn't--you'll know just how they feel.<br /><br />Although there are a lot of explosions and gunfights, this can't be considered an "action" picture by any stretch of the imagination. It's boring (there's a scene in the back of a truck where everybody just stares at each other for three or four minutes), repetitive (the same "rebels" and "soldiers" being killed over and over), illogical (when a group of rebels is caught in an open field by a government helicopter gunship, instead of breaking for cover they just stand there staring up at it), inept (soldiers and rebels falling "dead" when no gunshots are heard, a gun battle inside a house where combatants standing against walls are machine-gunned but miraculously the walls escape undamaged) predictable (when the "Governor" says to offer a reward for Brown's capture because "someone" might turn him in, you know exactly who that "someone" will be, and it turns out to be exactly who you thought it was) and just downright stupid (pretty much everything else in the picture). Inept, brainless and stupid beyond belief. Don't waste your time.

The film is really good, it doesn't use violence or sex etc to sell itself like other films but instead just uses a really decent plot(based on the original by Michael Caine) and some great actors to make a fun, action packed film which i thoroughly enjoyed. One thing which made me enjoy this film even more was that it had some actors which i really like such as Edward Norton(who i last saw in 26th hour, which i enjoyed also), Jason Statham(transporter, enjoyed that also) and Seth Green who i think is great, his role as Shawn Fanning's roommate dubbed "The Napster" is hilarious and his hacking skills play a great part in the main heist which centres around a large traffic jam in LA. The car chases are really decent and the high tech equipment used by the thieves is interesting and very impressive. I haven't seen the original so i can't really compare the too but i liked this a lot and would highly recommend this film to everyone, it isn't a film where you need to like that specific genre, it will suit everyone, i felt good after this movie, it had a really good ending and was overall really fun to watch. I give it 8/10. Go watch it!

*** May contain spoilers. *** <br /><br />If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.<br /><br />As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as "near sleep."<br /><br />Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.<br /><br />And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.<br /><br />Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not.

"Back in the Day" is an interesting, but flawed effort. Ja Rule stars as Reggie Cooper, a honest but sad man trying to cope with the death of his father. He meets his old friend J-Bone (Ving Rhames) who tries to force Reggie into a life of crime. Reggie also falls in love with Alica (Tatyana Ali) who is the preacher's daughter. Now he has to choose: Love Or Crime.<br /><br />Ja Rule does a competent job as Reggie. At least he's trying to act. Ving Rhames is perfect as J-Bone. He brings a lot of energy and menace into the role. Joe Morton as the preacher is his usual excellent self, but he doesn't do much. The same problem for Giancarlo Esposito as Reggie's Dad. He needed more screen time. I don't want to say this, but Pam Grier is pretty awful as Mrs. Cooper. She overacts every scene and brings the movie down. Tia Carrere and Frank Langella are in it but don't do anything substantial for the plot.<br /><br />In the end: You should see it for the skilled performances of Ving Rhames and Joe Morton and the grittiness of the writing and directing.

This game was one of the main reasons I actually got a PS2. I remember playing Soul Edge (Sometimes called Soul Blade) back in the day and I was hooked on it.<br /><br />I did play the original Soul Calibur but I never got a chance to play it for a huge amount of time. I did however buy the Gamecube version of Soul Calibur II and that was what truly got me hooked on the series and I was ecstatic when I heard of Soul Calibur III. This game still gives us the classic characters such as Mitsurugi, Cervantes, Nightmare and Taki. However, it also adds several new characters such as Zasalamel, Tira and the unplayable Night Terror. (The TRUE boss of Tales of Souls) The strategy based "Chronicles of thes Sword" mode is a new feature which I really like, it can be quite challenging in the later chronicles but it's a good addition to the series.<br /><br />The Soul Arena mode has several missions in which you must fight a certain enemy under certain circumstances. (The exception is "Final Battle" in which you simply must defeat Night Terror) It's another fine touch that makes the game all the more fun.<br /><br />In some scenes in Tales of Should you will be made to press certain buttons in order to get a different result, this can be in order to dodge/block an attack or to get a better ending. (Every character has two endings) All in all, this is an excellent game and I'd recommend it if you're a fan of fighting games.

This movie "Vampires: The Turning" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to "non-existent" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy

By far this is the worst Halloween movie ever made. The acting is bad, except for Paul Rudd, and Donald Pleasence. The girl who played Kara (forgot her name) was ok, but overall this movie was basically a big letdown. Nothing moved the story forward, it lacked substance, and the scares that made Halloween and H20 so good. All and all, skip this movie, it's not worth the price of rental.

It's hard to say which comes out on top, James Cagney's charm and energy or the mouth- opening excesses of Busby Berkeley's three grand showstoppers at the close. I give it a tie, with Footlight Parade one of the funniest and quickest of the early Thirties musicals. Although the movie clearly belongs to Cagney, Joan Blondell adds immeasurably to the good-natured story line. <br /><br />And what's the story line? It's about Chester Kent (Cagney) who produces musicals, and who now is just about out of business as the talkies take over. He starts doing Prologues, live musical entertainment offered on stage before a movie starts. He gets the idea to do bigger ones and more of them, moving them around the country. He's a ball of fire and ideas, and he needs all the ideas he can get to keep relentlessly producing these things. But a rival is spying on him and stealing his ideas; Nan Prescott (Blondell), his wise-cracking secretary, loves him but he's too busy too notice; an office girl in black-rimmed, round glasses (Ruby Keeler) wants a chance to dance; his wife turns up saying she didn't divorce him after all; a blonde gold-digger is setting her hooks in him; his partners are cheating him...my gosh, what's next? This may all sound like a lot to digest, but everything happens fast, with Cagney bouncing, strutting, striding, finger-snapping, barking orders and occasionally - until the big last number when he goes all out singing and dancing -- doing a step or two just to show how it's done. <br /><br />Instead of "Let's put on a show, gang" we have "We need to build three shows in three days, so lock the doors and let's start rehearsing." These three super Prologues are going to feature 40 chorines, spectacular effects and will mean a rich contract, with forty Kent units in deluxe movie houses...the whole Apollo movie house circuit! Exhaustion threatens, feet ache, but all those unbilled chorines in skimpy costumes (which include Ann Sothern and Dorothy Lamour; you can quickly spot Sothern but Lamour is more generic) stay the course, dancing their hearts out, giggling and chattering and looking remarkably unsweaty. <br /><br />And then the curtains go up as each Prologue is presented in separate movie houses, one after the other on the same night, with the owner of the Apollo circuit going to determine that night whether he'll save Chester's skin or not. <br /><br />First up is "Honeymoon Hotel" with Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler in a 9 minute production number that features a lot of wholesome lasciviousness, with brides and grooms (some might even be married), bedrooms and beds, and doors with "Do not disturb" signs. <br /><br />Then on to the next theater and 11 minutes of "By a Waterfall" that probably had the Warner Brothers accountants worrying about bankruptcy. This number is so excessive -- dozens of swimming girls, trees, fountains, a huge grotto with waterslides, a giant pool -- you'd never think there was a Depression on. Berkeley pulls out all his tricks -- synchronization, human patterns, legs and arms doing all sorts of precision things -- and he does it in the water, with a lot of underwater photography looking up. The girls are sure game. They come up smiling with water in their eyes and still hit their marks. The whole thing must have been incredibly difficult and exhausting. Ruby Keeler, who has a couple of quick shots in the water, is the only one who looks a bit cautious. <br /><br />And finally, the smash finale...11 minutes of Cagney dancing and singing with Keeler to "Shanghai Lil," with all sorts of bar girls and their customers, unusual in that the races are mixed up. There's Cagney and Keeler dancing on the bar, dancing on a table, Cagney fighting. There are what looks like fifty or sixty marching marines, hupping back and forth, rifles tossed and caught. Then...this is true...a human picture forms of Franklin Roosevelt and the NRA eagle. This may be the only Hollywood musical production that has ever featured Roosevelt, a big federal agency and a bevy of sexy Chinese prostitutes. <br /><br />That's entertainment, folks. It's great! <br /><br />Of course, Chester's Prologues get the big contract and Nan gets Chester. The movie is full of juicy clichés that make us smile. Ruby Keeler is so endearing as she earnestly stomps out her taps with her arms flying that you want to help her along. Joan Blondell makes us forget about a lot of Hollywood females who might have been more beautiful but who had a lot less wit and personality. The movie, however, belongs to Cagney, who grabs and shakes it, and to Berkeley, a man for whom too much was never too much.

Canadian filmmaker Mary Harron is a cultural gadfly whose previous films laid bare some the artistic excess of the Sixties and the hollow avaricious Eighties. With "The Notorious Bettie Page" she points her unswerving eye at Fifties America, an era cloaked in the moral righteousness of Joe McCarthy, while experiencing the beginnings of a sexual awakening that would result in the free love of the next decade. Harron and her co-writer Guinevere Turner, are clearly not interested in the standard biopic of a sex symbol. This is a film about the underground icon of an era and how her pure unashamed sexuality revealed both the predatory instincts and impure thoughts of a culture untouched by the beauty of a nude body. If the details of Bettie's life were all the film was concerned about, then why end it before her most tragic period was about to begin. Clearly, Harron is more interested in America's attitudes towards sexual imagery then and now. Together with a fearless lead performance by Gretchen Mol and the stunningly atmospheric cinematography of W.Mott Hupfel III, she accomplishes this goal admirably, holding up a mirror to the past while making the audience examine their own "enlightened" 21st Century attitudes towards so-called pornography. As America suffocates under a new conservatism, this is a film needed more than ever.

So I turned on the TV today at 1:00 PM on a Sunday, expecting to see crap and infomercials, and this great movie was just starting, didn't know what it was but drew me in almost immediately. The movie was excellent.<br /><br />there were a couple of things that didn't make sense for one I don't get why the dead guy was talking about doing stuff to get yourself out of your bad situation, but then Jimmy doesn't really do anything except the basic stuff to survive that anyone would do in his situation, in other words it wasn't his initiative that got him out of his bad situation it was just luck, second I don't get the thing about the girl killing the the gangsters at the end, because the whole thing was partly casued by the thief people stealing Panda's money, and then the other thief kills Panda at the end, so they steal his money twice, and kill him how is that good?

According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a "B" or "C" movie. It is a "Z" movie - but an enjoyable and fun "Z" movie!

The 221 episodes of "The Lone Ranger" were originally broadcast on ABC from 1949 to 1957; and then for many years they played in local syndication. For most of the original broadcast years the series was ABC's most watched piece of programming. <br /><br />The new DVD set from Pop Flix contains the first 16 episodes (15 Sept-29 Dec 1949) and for some reason unknown to me episode 22 from the fifth season, for a total of 17 episodes (the same 17 available on last year's Mill Creek Entertainment release so these are probably in the public domain). These sets pretty much render "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" movie superfluous as all three episodes that were combined in 1952 to form the movie are included in these releases. <br /><br />The early episodes hark back to radio as there is considerably more voice-over narration used as an introduction and to introduce key plot moments. <br /><br />The series itself was pure kiddie western with clear-cut good and evil distinctions and no romance. The title character (played by Clayton Moore) started out Texas Ranger John Reid. The first three episodes provide the background for his transformation to Lone Ranger status, his partnering with the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels), and the taming of his horse "Silver". <br /><br />There is an unambiguous code of positive morality infusing each episode. The Lone Ranger is totally good but he adopts the guise of evil. While a masked man in the west was normally feared by the good citizens and an Indian was distrusted, the Lone Ranger is feared by those who would do evil. One persistent theme is that when the Lone Ranger and Tonto first encounter an average citizen they are greeted with suspicion, and by the end of the episode the citizen has been convinced of their value. The trademark ending was a secondary character asking the question: "who was that masked man?". <br /><br />To really enjoy the series you must accept it for the simplistic morality tale it was intended to be. If you don't take it seriously and keep wishing for some self-reflexive campy parody elements you will only get frustrated. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I'm sorry but I just honestly cannot see why anyone would actually like this. It's stereotypical and REAL homeschoolers are NOTHING like they were on this show!! Personally I'm glad it got canceled after the first few episodes. I mean, this kind of show would certainly be alright if everyone knew that homeschoolers weren't really like this, and the whole story was just for the show, but unfortunately not everyone is aware of this. If anyone out there that watched this actually believed this is what goes on in the life of a homeschooler, then I honestly feel sorry for them. This reminds me of the kind of portrayal they have of homeschooled kids in "Mean Girls". It's sad, really, that people think this way. This is complete garbage, IMHO.

SPOILER WARNING<br /><br />I got this dino-documentarie on DVD at Christmas 2004. I had longed to see it and was by no means disappointed. The score is memorable ( my<br /><br />favourites were the "Sauropod" theme song and the "Winters Coming" song ). The effects were dazzling, you could almost believe they were there. You actually learn something too ; Stegosaurs MAY have been able to pump their plates with blood. Female T-Rexes MIGHT have gone on a killing spree before laying their eggs. I know there's a lot of people who thought this was based too much on speculation, but there will always be questions that we can only guess at. And there is a lot of hard-core, undeniable FACT as well. We KNOW that some dinosaurs travelled in herds, we KNOW that Diplodocus swallowed stones to grind up vegetation in their stomaches. Despite this "speculation" the series did extremely well. So well in fact, that it spawned a followup, a prequel and several specials. If you're a dino-fan, then this IS for you. It makes Jurassic Park look small and weedy.

The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle almost seamlessly picks up where The Egg and I left off. For the first solo adventure of the Kettles a new writing team and director is introduced. Leonard Goldstein, associate producer of The Egg and I, was producer of The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle. With many of the characters played by the same actors and actresses the focus from the MacDonalds to the Kettles works very well. There is a reference to Ma beating Birdie Hicks for first prize at the fair for her quilt, an import scene in The Egg and I. The prize money from the quilt contest was to be used to send Tom Kettle to college. In this movie Tom is returning home as a college graduate.<br /><br />There are two plots intertwined in this movie. One is the comedy of the simple mountain family moving into a state of the art modern house. The other is a light morality play on how environment affects children as they grow up.<br /><br />Pa Kettle (Percy Kilbride) wanted a free tobacco pouch for entering a contest, and ended up winning a house. His disappointment at not getting the free tobacco pouch is played for laughs quite a bit. When Pa plays with dynamite he is totally oblivious to the explosion. Kilbride never flinched in the scene as the debris from the explosion fell around him. He played the part to perfection. In his autobiography, Jack Benny mentioned how impressed he was with Percy Kilbride's deadpan delivery. Kilbride took that comedic device to a high level of perfection.<br /><br />Ma (Marjorie Main) and Pa move into the new house with modern conveniences that confuse Ma and Pa almost as much as they help them. Ma adapts far more quickly than Pa. Included with the modern conveniences is a television, a very new household item in 1949. Moving walls, hidden beds, and plumbing fixtures are used as comic props, but the attention is on Ma and Pa, never the props themselves.<br /><br />Tom Kettle (Richard Long) meets Kim Parker (Meg Randall), a magazine writer who feels that hygiene and environment are essential for children to realize success as adults. Tom is a bright, self-made man who contradicts the theory that success can only come from a pristine environment. This subject is briefly discussed in a couple of scenes, but left to subside. It was also the only serious discussion in this otherwise whimsical movie.<br /><br />Seeing the Kettles moving out of their run-down old house to move to a new house would almost be a disaster if it were not for the characters staying true to themselves. Ma was the practical one, just as she had been in the The Egg and I. Pa was the fish out of water that provided the best comedy. He never felt at home in the new house, but the actual location of a comfortable bed would never be of concern to him.

I enjoyed Oceans 11, I thought it was quite enjoyable, helped by the performances and the direction. However, I was disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it is not a complete dud, thanks to the stellar performances from Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Clooney and Matt Damon especially and the efficient direction from Steven Soderbergh. However, the film really does suffer from truly lethargic pacing, some of the film was so slow I almost fell asleep between one key twist. Second, the plot is very convoluted and there are many twists and turns that makes it hard to keep up. The camera work wasn't as innovative as it was in the first movie either. Whereas in the first movie, it was smooth and professional, it was jerky and awkward here, and the music wasn't particularly memorable. The screenplay also wasn't as witty or as fun, and the film felt anti-climatic. At the end of the day it all felt a bit too lazy, despite the expert playing and direction. So much potential, but really a missed opportunity. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Although Bullet In The Brain is, without question, superior amongst short films, it largely seems more like a short piece of writing than a film. And it is a little hard to feel too sorry for the teacher when his smart ass remarks get him shot. But after the bullet enters his brain we begin to understand a little bit about why he became so jaded with life in the first place. There is an awful amount of detail packed into this reasonably short film and this is what makes me feel that it should have been extended a little bit - it seems like there's almost too much to take in at once as the details come flying at you so fast. A slightly more relaxed pace and a less po-faced narrator in the final section would have benefitted this film a little bit. Despite these complaints, there is no denying that Bullet In The Brain is a quite stupendous work compared to many short, and even full length films. The makers should be applauded for trying to make such a basically emotional and literate film in the current climate of quick jokes and Hollywood action.

This animation TV series is simply the best way for children to learn how the human body works. Yes, this is biology but they will never tell it is.<br /><br />I truly think this is the best part of this stream of "educational cartoons". I do remember you can find little books and a plastic body in several parts: skin, skeleton, and of course: organs.<br /><br /> In the same stream, you'll find: "Il était une fois l'homme" which relate the human History from the big bang to the 20th century. There is: "Il était une fois l'espace" as well (about the space and its exploration) but that one is more a fiction than a description of the reality since it takes place in the future.

This film is an absolute disgrace! I thoroughly enjoyed the original Airport, and I can't believe how the same people could produce this twaddle nine years on. First of all, the acting is bad. The original had actors who had done quality (non-disaster) films before, but this one uses actors who have done the disaster movie circuit already (Blakely, Kennedy, Wagner). Also, George Kennedy's character Patroni seems to get promoted very quickly. He is now the lead in the film, but his character isn't strong enough to carry it off: he has lost the charm and humour of Airport (1970), and the character is now just boring. Have I mentioned the plot? Is it at all believable that someone would send a missile after the Concorde?? NO!!! There are also too many loose ends; scenes that have no relevance whatsoever to the plot. The scene where the hot air balloon lands on the runway, the chase of the thief in Charles De Gaulle airport are two such scenes. Both would be interesting - if only they had something to do with the actual story. There also many unanswered questions: Why does Patroni open the window and fire a flare at the other plane? Why does Robert Wagner's character kill himself? (He must have another stupid and costly way of Why is there no enquiry after the missile almost blows up the Concorde? Why are the back projections so bad? (It looks as though a cartoon missile is following the Concorde; although it does work well when the plane lands in Paris) Why does Patroni think that he is in a flight simulator? (when he turns the Concorde over) Why does he get a hero's welcome in the cabin of the plane after having terrified the passengers? And why is the ending so poor, if it can be called an ending at all? Given their one-dimensional-ness, no-one seems to notice this. The blessing given to the young couple on the plane by the girl's coach is shmaltzy, the man who plays the saxophone is annoying, and the woman with the bladder problem is just plain silly. The scenes where Susan Blakely is lying on the roof of her conservatory, and the when she tells Wagner that she still loves him are quite awful. In conclusion, this film should have been the climax of the previous three Airport films: instead it is a diabolical, sub-moronic, complete and utter waste of time, money, energy, celluloid and "talent"!!!!!!! Remember when Patroni asks the French pilot if he has "ever landed on his belly?" This film certainly does the belly flop, and lands flat on its pointy nose...

It's too bad these guys, the so-called judges, are such jerks, even the nominally "sensitive" ones. It's the self-congratulatory tone that really makes me sick though; these guys don't have any perspective on their behaviour. I think the real problem, though, is the quality of the contestants. Not a single smooth or truly charming one in the lot. They pick the most pathetic girls out of the crowd because they're the only ones these guys have a chance with. Let's see some real players trying for a truly unattainable girl, and maybe you have a show. Otherwise, you have a revolting half-hour of self-love. And real sexual tension takes two.

I've given 'Kôhî jikô' a low score not because it was a bad movie, but because it doesn't do anything worth praising.<br /><br />I've not seen any of Hsiao-hsien Hou's work before, but for the uninitiated (me included) 'Kôhî jikô' is advertised as a homage to Yasujiro Ozu. (A Japanese director whose last film was way, way in 1962) The film is an extremely sparse work...containing very little dialogue, story, music or emotion.<br /><br />Yo Hitoto plays 'Yoko' a jobless, wandering character who spends her time in her local coffee shop or loosely investigating a Taiwanese composer she likes. Tadanobu Asano plays her friend, who works in a cd shop and occasionally indulges his otaku interest in trains. And that's about all it.<br /><br />We watch as Yoko drinks coffee alone...walks around...waits for a train...catches a train...falls asleep on the train. The kind of mundane reality anybody in Japan can see on a daily basis. Hou captures these ordinary moments of these characters life, but without any meaning to these vignettes it's an entirely pointless film to make or watch.

National Velvet (1944) The movie that put Taylor on the map. Costarring the then number one box office champ, Mickey Rooney. Taylor plays a girl in love with her horse and when jockey Mickey Rooney is unable to ride in the Grand National race, spunky Liz cuts her hair, pretends to be a boy and races the horse to...well I won't spoil the end for you. It's quality melodrama that MGM was famous for putting out. And it's another early color picture to boot!

I finally received my DVD today, viewed it and I'm pleased to announce this is the original theatrical version of the film. As you may have read in previous reviews of "Rich and Famous" that the edited for TV version of the film that somehow made it onto VHS sometime in the late 90's but, now WB has corrected the error and released it on DVD complete with the airplane restroom scene, Matt Lattanzi's bare butt, and the scene in the Hotel room where Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) calls Merry (Candice Bergen) a C**t! It's all there and looks better than ever! A crisp clear digital transfer, widescreen, and special features that include original theatrical trailer and a vintage 1981 featurette called "On Location with Rich and Famous" with cast and director interviews. If you love this film as I do you won't be disappointed with purchasing this DVD. Glad to finally have this on DVD… Well worth the wait! Thank you Warner Bros!

Ugh. Pretty awful.<br /><br />Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.<br /><br />Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.<br /><br />Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.<br /><br />Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.<br /><br />There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.<br /><br />The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.<br /><br />Not recommended, not even for Halloween.

Just caught "The Rain People" on Turner Classic Movies late one night. The film was released in 1969. Shirley Knight stars as Natalie, a Long Island housewife who -- exact reasons unknown -- leaves her husband and embarks on a road trip, not knowing exactly where she is going. Natalie is also newly pregnant, which complicates things. Along the way, she picks up a brain-damaged ex-football player "Jimmy" (James Caan), who has been kicked out of his college and is hitchhiking. There are many twists and turns along the way between these two, as Natalie struggles to take care of Jimmy and she begins to realize he is mentally limited and cannot take care of himself. She is going through her own struggles, needless to say, and in no position to care for him. Natalie appears to be a woman on the edge of a nervous breakdown at times; she makes some odd phone calls to her husband, who begs her to come home. Natalie tries to dump Jimmy several times, only to have him re-enter her life through circumstances. A young Robert Duvall plays a strange and troubled cop who befriends Natalie. You get the sense all along that this film is going to end badly, and it does. This film is certainly uneven at times, and the script is somewhat lacking. Francis Ford Coppola directed this, and of course he would soon become immensely famous in the next few years for directing "The Godfather." The actors are good ones, needless to say, as they all would have futures ahead of them in film. Shirley Knight is the least known of the three, although she is also underrated as an actor. James Caan is especially effective here and he seems to just inhabit this character. This film remains little more than a curiosity now, no doubt because it is an early movie of Coppola's, and I confess I had never heard of it. So God bless Turner Classic Movies for bringing it to a new audience.

First, I should mention that I really enjoyed ISHII Katsuhito's previous film "Samehada Otoko to Momojiri Onna" ("Shark Skin Man and Peach Hip Girl"). Although it owed a debt to Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction", Ishii's cast was up to the task of carrying the story, and the entire film crackled with energy. The scenes between ASANO Tadanobu and GASHUIN Tatsuya were particularly engaging. There was action, intrigue, bizarre characterizations, enough sex to keep things interesting, and an utterly unpredictable story line.<br /><br />So it was with a certain amount of anticipation and optimism that I began to watch "Party 7". And my enthusiasm was certainly piqued with the opening credits, which left my wife and I actually stunned by how dynamic and exciting they were; the mix of anime and live-action work was brilliant! Then, the actual movie started. Actually, it didn't so much "start" as sort of shuffle in the side door and stand there, fumbling through its pockets, looking uncomfortable.<br /><br />The entire film takes place in three rooms. One is a futuristic voyeur's paradise (borrowed a bit from "Shark Skin Man..."), another is a travel agent's office, and the third (and far the most used) is a seedy hotel room. In that room, a cast of seven characters meets and...does approximately nothing. Really. I'm no stranger to "talking" films. One of my all-time favorites is "My Dinner with Andre", the talkiest of all talking films. "My Dinner with Andre" is far more exciting, and it just has two middle-aged men discussing their lives over dinner. The key is that Andre Gregory and Wallace Shawn tell interesting stories. The cast of "Party 7" literally just whine at each other for the entire film. "No, you don't!" "Yes, I do!" "No, you really don't!" "Yes, I really do!" "No, you really, really don't!" Yes, I really..." you get the idea, I hope. I wish the directer had.<br /><br />"Party 7 is an unbelievably unengaging film. There is only the flimsiest of plots (money stolen from the Yakuza, just like in "Shark Skin Man..."), accompanied by almost no action. There is no interesting dialog. The characters are largely uninteresting. It was as if Ishii took the throwaway conversational moments from Tarentino's films and built an entire film around them. But Tarentino's conversations always have their own internal logic and wit ("They call it a 'Royale, with cheese'"). Not so with the dialog here, which is duller than you can imagine. If it weren't for the brief, hilarious cameo from Gashuin (who is always marvelous) and a low-key performance from the awesome ASANO Tadanobu, I would've given "Party 7" a single star. It really was chore to make it all the way through.

I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.<br /><br />"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.<br /><br />Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.<br /><br />In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.<br /><br />Avoid this steaming pile.

Like most people, I was interested in "More" solely because of the Pink Floyd soundtrack, which has turned out to be the only Pink Floyd album that I still listen to after all these years. It was quite a surprise to run across the film in a local video store, in a digitally remastered version. It was an even bigger surprise to find that it is a pretty good movie.<br /><br />Visually it is quite beautiful, especially when the two main characters are cavorting on the rocks on the Spanish island of Ibiza. And the use of the soundtrack music, which as far as I can tell is exclusively by Pink Floyd, is excellent. It was a joy to watch the film with my copy of the album alongside me, mentally ticking off each track as it was used in the film. Dave Gilmour's brief "A Spanish Piece" was the only one I didn't hear, and several tracks are used quite prominently, especially "Cymbaline," "Main Theme," and "Quicksilver." That latter track is tedious on the soundtrack album but works very well during the title sequence of the film, resurfacing at least once later on. Maybe now I can appreciate it on the album, now that I have some visuals to accompany it in my mind.<br /><br />The plot of "More" is a little hard to take at times, especially in the early going, when the film appears to be merely a vehicle to demonstrate the hipness of those involved in making it. But eventually the film proves that it has much more than that to offer, as the plot becomes more focused. Why does Stefan take heroin? Why does ANYBODY take heroin, fully knowing the possible consequences? The film does not attempt to answer that question directly, but Stefan's heroin use seems a logical extension of his single-minded pursuit of pure pleasure.<br /><br />I strongly recommend this film to any Pink Floyd fan who has an appreciation of the vastly underrated "More" soundtrack. I also recommend it to anyone who has an interest in sixties counterculture and how it was portrayed in the media. I have no idea how realistic this movie is, since I am too young to have experienced the sixties firsthand, but it does seem to capture the spirit of the times in a way that no other movie does.

Seven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.<br /><br />According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.<br /><br />Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.

Tight script, good direction, excellent performances, strong cast, effective use of locations....<br /><br />Paul McGann gives a detailed, subtle performance as the man in the centre of a new murder investigation who may just have committed a similar murder previously.<br /><br />There is an interesting moral & emotional journey happening with his character (Ben Turner) and it intersects with the journey undertaken by Amanda Burton. Inevitably they cross over... Who has done what?<br /><br />The examination of WHY, both in the past and in the present, rather than WHO might have yielded a more interesting, Dostoyevskian story, but hey, who's complaining?<br /><br />

Otto Preminger was one of the great maverick film directors.Like John Huston he was a character from one of his own movies,like Mr Huston he was a wonderful ham who slipped in and out of performance at random but the final product of his labours was unmistakably his own. With a few exceptions films are now made by corporations,not individuals,and as a result are usually highly-polished "packages",a product in much the same way as a golf ball,a tin of dog food or a motor car is a product.The involvement of human beings in the process is almost incidental.Such is the appetite for the product that there appears no end to the line of well-finished,glossy,superficially entertaining but ultimately empty films that flood the countless TV channels and movie outlets.There is no time for a man like Mr Preminger to stand a little apart from the torrent of "product" and craft a personal work of art. Of course there has always been the "Art for art's sake - money for Christ's sake" ethos in film-making,but now "Ars Gratia Artis" has,in all but name ,been consigned to history's cutting-room floor. Today Otto Preminger would be lucky to get a job delivering pizzas in Hollywood. Half a century ago,having made the hugely influential,"Laura","Where the sidewalk ends" and "The moon is blue",he set about filming Nelson Algren's controversial novel "The man with the golden arm" in his eccentric and individualistic manner.Rather than take his camera out onto the streets he stayed in the studio and used stylised almost Expressionistic sets,quirky casting(Mr Frank Sinatra - hot from his success in "From here to eternity",the young,inexperienced but breathtakingly beautiful Miss Kim Novak and Mr Arnold Stang,a man whose oddities were after his own heart)and a remarkable era - defining score by Elmer Bernstein featuring the cream of West Coast jazzmen. An Otto Preminger film was always an all-round experience ,to be considered as a whole rather than breaking it down into acting,directing,photography.What appeared on the screen was Preminger's vision,his creation and his interpretation of Algren's novel ,not a film of Algren's novel,any one of twenty competent Hollywood hacks coud have produced that. From the first hi-hat cymbal beat that accompanies Saul Bass's iconic title sequence we are drawn into Preminger's take on what is nowadays called "The Life",in truth a murky area occupied by hustlers,junkies,cops,drug dealers,stone gamblers,jazz musicians,their women and hangers-on.The lines are blurred in "The Life",and it's dog eats dog down there. The inhabitants circle each other like sharks,looking for a sign of weakness to be exploited.Frankie Machine(Mr Sinatra)a professional card dealer,ex-junkie and aspiring jazz drummer is a born victim.When things get tough he goes back to the needle.Although he kicks the habit by going cold turkey there are absolutely no guarantees that he won't go straight back on it further down the line. Mr Sinatra's depiction of an addict in the throes of withdrawal has divided the critics,but the fact of the matter is that even fifty years later most of us have probably never seen such a thing in real life so we don't know how accurate the portrayal is.When I first saw the film in the late 50s I was very impressed,watching it recently on video,it seemed ,to put it unkindly,hammy.Perhaps he is a victim of his own success as many actors subsequently "doing" cold turkey have,with the passing of the years,taken his performance and refined it somewhat. Arnold Stang is outstanding as Machine's pal Sparrow,a performance he exceeded only in "It's a mad,mad,mad,mad world". Try and watch it on the big screen and view it as the cinematic vision of a true auteur,a giant amongst today's pygmies - Otto Preminger.

An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.

Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller "The Sixth Day" (a.k.a. "The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger"). However, "Air America" has to be one of his most inept projects.<br /><br />It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.<br /><br />Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.<br /><br />The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic "Love Me Two Times" for the soundtrack.<br /><br />The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film.

If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.<br /><br />The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.<br /><br />The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.<br /><br />The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending.

I liked most of the dialogue, I liked the cast, I thought it was well acted. I particularly enjoyed Ellen DeGeneres' perfect deadpan performance.<br /><br />What didn't work for me was: (1) the drawn-out affair with the younger man (too long, too seemingly out of character for Helen), (2) the seemingly endless cinematic cliches, mostly visual but including interminable voiced over re-readings of the love letter itself (its contents should have a mystery); (3) a young woman feminist-scholar and, ironically, a fireworks scene (no wonder this reminded me of that horrid How to Make an American Quilt movie); (4) the bumbling "gotcha" cop who smells "dope" everywhere (no cliche there either!); and (5) a nauseatingly romanticized small town setting.<br /><br />I would have preferred the film to more persuasively explore the source of (or even glorify) Helen's bitterness, to have included much more of DeGeneres' character, to have eliminated or reduced the various intergenerational artifices, and to be a little less uncritical of small town life.<br /><br />Had it been developed as a play first, those criticisms might have been addressed before committing the material to this film, which unfortunately is decidedly mediocre.

I have neither read the book on which the movie is based, nor the letters between Vita and Violet. If I came to this movie with any expectations whatsoever, it was maybe that the Bloomsbury group (including among others Virginia Woolf, and which the Nicolsons were part of) would be depicted. It wasn't, which however wasn't a problem for me. What I am wondering about is how the people behind this movie managed to make it, in my opinion, so very uninteresting and repetitive and most of the characters flat, in spite of great material and some very good actors. The script is simply not good enough. I agree with the criticism of my Finnish neighbor - too many pointless sex scenes (but only between the women, while there is nothing explicit whatsoever concerning Harold's numerous love affairs), too many pointless scenes in general, too little information about the background of characters. It seems odd considering the quality of the production - on the surface it seems a really ambitious piece of work, but the script holds of course the most weight and that is where this movie fails.<br /><br />Vita's relationship with Harold struck me as unconvincing, although both of them act really well, especially her. The way they kept declaring their unconditional love for each other in a rather sappy manner I thought, well, simply unconvincing. It makes a lot more sense that it should have happened through letters, as tmmvds points out I would also have liked to know where the nicknames came from - the Russian ones* as well as Mar - why ever is someone called Vita given the nickname Mar? It might be small stuff, but it matters in contributing to the bigger picture.<br /><br />*I watched the movie with English subtitles on, and where it should apparently have said Mitya, it said instead Medea. That might explain my frustration with the nicknames to some extent - I could not understand why Vita's should be Greek while Violet's was Russian!

This movie was not that good at all. Here is the first clue and that it is not gonna be a strong movie, Harrison Ford's name not only appears first but it is also bigger than the title. The music was nominated for an Oscar, What the heck was that? That music was probably the most annoying thing in the movie. The acting was sub par at best, except the Amish boy he did a decent job for being so young. Then you have the story which was weak and a little over the place, and it won for adapted! The music was horrid, I know I already said something but it was really bad. The premises was real good and it should be remade. Well that's all I really have on that.<br /><br />Your Average Movie Guy,<br /><br />-Trever

i was enjoying this movie most of the time, but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children's movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then, while filming, decided to add in some blood, nudity and language. it was a big let down. there's that believe the children magic that exists in movies like "babe" (the pig) or "angels in the outfield" that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie, i thought it would be a b-film response to the dreadful darkness falls; somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money, but they don't. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.

I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other?

This is a collection of documentaries that last 11 minutes 9 seconds and 1 frame from artists all over the world. The documentaries are varied and deal with all sorts of concepts, the only thing being shared is 9/11 as a theme (very minor in some cases). Some of the segements are weak while others are very strong; some are political, some are not; some are solely about 9/11, some simply use 9/11 as a theme to touch on human feelings, emotions and tragedies that are universal; some are mainstream while others are abstract and artistic). This film has not been censored in any fashion by anyone so the thoughts that you see are very raw and powerful.<br /><br />This is a very controversial film, especially for conservative Americans. I think two segments might really tick off the right wingers (one from Egypt where a dead American soldier and a dead Palestinian bomber come back as spirits; another from UK which recounts the US-backed overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973, which resulted in 50,000 deaths and horrible atrocities). The segment from Mexico was the most powerful, recounting the fall of the towers and the resulting death in vivid fashion (you have to see it to believe it).<br /><br />Even though the final product is uneven, with some segments being almost "pointless", I still recommend this. It's very difficult to rank this film because the segments vary all over the place (some weak, some very powerful; ). I'm giving this a rating of 9 out of 10 simply because some segments were excellent and covered issues that usually get censored (Mexico segment, UK segment, Japan segment, Egypt segment).

Lame, cliched superhero action movie drivel. I had high hopes for this movie, and the genre of HK buddy cop actioneers is one that i don't despise, but very rarely do i see a storyline as trite and ludicrous as this one was. This would have been forgivable, as it always is in these kinds of movies, when the action compensates, unfortunately, it did not. The action does carry the trademark surreality and over the top nature of HK action, but it's not very involving, obscenely gory, and in fact often completely incoherent (perhaps this is due to re-editing for american release, it does show signs in many places of patchwork). I was very disappointed.

A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.<br /><br />Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.

An unforgettable masterpiece from the creator of The Secret of Nimh and The Land Before Time, this was a very touching bittersweet cartoon. I remember this very well from my childhood, it was funny and sad and very beautiful. Well it starts out a bit dark, a dog who escaped the pound, and gets killed by an old friend, ends up in Heaven, and comes back. But it becomes sweet when he befriends an orphaned girl who can talk to animals. Some scenes were a bit scary contrary to other cartoons, like the dream sequence of Charlie, but everything else was okay,and the songs were fair. A memorable role of Burt Reynolds and Dom DeLuise, I just love that guy, ahehehe. And Judith Barsi of Jaws The Revenge, may God rest her soul, poor girl, she didn't deserve to die, but she is in Heaven now, all good people go to Heaven. Overall this is a very good animated movie, a Don Bluth classic enough to put anime and Disney to shame. Recommended for the whole family. And know this, if you have the original video of this, you'll find after the movie, Dom DeLuise has a very important and special message, gotta love that guy, ahehehe.

The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.<br /><br />On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle?

Abe Zwick perfected the one-off, beautifully. He never made another film, but created a brilliant portrait of homosexual self-hatred in this film that is both caustic and affecting. He commands the screen, presenting the crumbling debris of a man breaking down under the strain of an increasingly meaningless life. <br /><br />Paul (Zwick) is an aging queen who's somehow convinced Stanley (Wayne Crawford), a doe-eyed idiot with no sense of the future, to follow his star. He's a petty thief who's seething hatred has escalated recently. He's been forced to skip town and move to a suburb in Miami. As a disguise, he dresses up like a dried up old blue-stocking with as much seething sexual torment as the Church Lady. He tells Stanley to tell his friends that he lives with his "Aunt Martha". Paul himself has no friends, spends far too much time alone in the house, and has to deal with Stanley's dissolute lifestyle. It would be enough to make any man cross the line into transgendered homicidal mania. <br /><br />Again, Zwick portrays Paul as a tragic figure who has utterly lost any understanding of how to relate to other people. Nevertheless, there is a certain poetry in his anguish, which burns slowly over the course of the film. He's tragic, but also elegant. This is, ultimately, a very sad film. It certainly has many hilarious moments, but there is such an undercurrent of hopelessness and despair, that the humour is bittersweet. This film is worth watching for the performance of Abe Zwick. He could have really built his career on Martha. She's quite a gas, once you get to know her. Just make sure you cut your hair and stop your horsing around. She really hates that!

I have to say that this is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I was bored and looked through the t.v. and found "Home Room" and it was already in about 5 min., but I got hooked. It was so interesting and moving. It shows what can happen in anyone's life. I give it a 10, more if possible. The director/ writer and actors did an amazing job. I think teens should watch this movie and will learn from it. It was great, drama, mystery, and more. I cried for hours! I think that the director/ writer should write more movies like this one. I loved it! I didn't even know about this movie, which is sad because it was so good. I wish it could go in the movies for more people to see.

This is an astonishing film: a romantic thriller with a convoluted but perfectly constructed and devastatingly symmetrical plot, brilliantly buttressed by the use of recurring visual motifs. Everything in it is beautifully filmed: the women, the apartments; but more amazing is the devastating juxtapositioning of images, almost every scene has echoes of another. This is a story told in light, in colour, in many almost-parallels. Every time I watch it, it fills me with delight.<br /><br />The acting is great too. Romane Bohringer is stunning as a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown: everything about her changes with her mood. Vincent Cassel plays a very different role to his part in La Haine; but no less excellently: shifty and sympathetic at the same time. And Monica Bellucci - ah!, Monica Bellucci, well, put simply, she plays (is?) the world's most perfect woman. There's one small scene about three quarters of the way through where she does nothing more than smile; yet in that instant, says more than hours of Hollywood junk.<br /><br />One cannot do justice to this film without at least mentioning the superb, sequential climax: sad, shocking, ironic and subtle in turn. But if one moment captures the brilliance of this work, it's the scene at the start of this fabulous denouement, the prospect of which has been teasingly laid before us throughout the entire story. Yet when the moment comes, it is handled so delicately, so briefly, so deftly, that on reflection it makes you gasp. Only a director of staggering confidence would dare to underplay this vital point. But the confidence is justified. Cinema doesn't come much better than this.

A very early Oliver Stone (associate-)produced film, and one of the first films in the impressive career of Lloyd Kaufman (co-founder and president of the world's only real independent film studio Troma, creator of the Toxic Avenger and, at the prestigious Amsterdam Fantastic Filmfestival, lifetime-achievement awarded filmmaker for over 30 years). Having raised the money for this film on his own, Lloyd wrote this script together with Theodore Gershuni in 1970 and in hindsight regrets having listened to advice to have Gershuni else direct the film instead of doing it himself. But back then he was still inexperienced in the business and it is probably because of decisions like these that he takes no nonsense from anyone anymore. Indeed it would have been interesting to see Lloyd's version of his own script - as one of the world's most original, daring, experimental and non-compromising directors he probably would have given it even more edge than it already has. But as it is we have the Gershuni-directed film. And weather it is due to the strong script, or the fact that he too is indeed quite a director of his own, SUGAR COOKIES is a very intelligent, highly suspenseful and well-crafted motion picture that deserves a lot more attention than it receives. The shoestring budget the small studio (this was even before Kaufman and his friend and partner for over 30 years now, Michael Herz, formed Troma) had to work with is so well handled that the film looks a lot more expensive, indeed does not have a "low budget" look at all. The story revolves around lesbian Camilla Stone (played by enigmatic Mary Woronow) and her lover who winds up dead through circumstances I won't reveal not to spoil a delightful story. This leads to a succession of plot-twists, mind games and personality reform that is loosely inspired by Hitchcock's Vertigo and at least as inventive. The atmosphere is a lot grimmer, though, and some comparisons to Nicholas Roeg's and Donald Cammell's PERFORMANCE come to mind. In this mix is a very original and inventive erotic laden thriller that keeps it quite unclear as to how it is all going to end, which, along with a splendidly interwoven sub-plot with a nod to Kaufman's earlier and unfortunately unavailable BIG GUSS WHAT'S THE FUSS, makes for a very exciting one-and-a-half-hour. Certainly one of the best films in Troma's library, and yet again one of those films that defy the curious fantasy that their catalog is one of bad taste. The DVD includes some recent interviews Kaufman conducts with Woronov and the other leading lady Lynn Lowry (later seen in George Romero's THE CRAZIES), thus giving some interesting insight in what went on during the making of this cult-favorite and a few hints of what would be different had Lloyd directed it himself. Highly recommended.

This is only a response to the yahoo who says this movie is more realistic than the classic, genre defining MASTERPIECE, Jaws. Yes, brainiac, great whites(and other species of shark, bull, black-tip, oceanic white-tip, tiger)have been known to populate areas where easy prey is found. Humans don't often make it onto that menu, granted, but the shark in the film was repeatedly pointed out to be exhibiting abnormal behavior. It's not like it's never happened. The odds of a killer whale destroying nearly a whole town, singling out a human nemesis, sinking several dozen thick hulled North Atlantic fishing boats and knowing when certain people, all friends of the aforementioned "nemesis", are close enough to the water for it to reach, are so slim as to be laughable. Much like this turd of a Jaws knock-off. Laughable. Great white sharks are also known to frequently chew on boats, protective underwater cages and people on rafts and surfboards, as they look like seals from below. A shark the size of Bruce(if you don't know, look it up)would be more than capable of sinking a boat like The Orca(hey! that's the name of the blatant rip-off we're discussing!), as it would weigh upwards of 6,000 lbs. I could go on, but I don't need to. Jaws is amazing(better acting, better effects, better music, better writing), Orca is crap(BLATANT rip-off of Jaws, lousy writing, abominable effects, most ridiculous plot this side of an Olson Twins flick). It doesn't take a masters from Columbia University to see that. Watch better movies.

"Fame" is a very well done portrait of the students who inhabit New York City's High School of the Arts. The film focuses on a group of students who dream of making it big while they perfect their craft at the now famous school. Director Alan Parker allows each of the highlighted students to mature on screen, allowing you to feel a connection with each one. The music here is infectious and fun. The dancing is exciting and fresh. The film eventually became the basis for an Emmy-winning television series starring Debbie Allen and some of the other actors from the film. One of the more enjoyable "dance" films of the 1980's. Received Oscars for music. 8/10

Even after all these years, this remain "a perfect movie" for me. I still remember sitting for a long time in the theater after it was over, stunned by the experience, overcome by emotion. I own the DVD (of course!) is see at least once a year. It's incomparable and I cannot add much to has already been written about its excellence and beauty. So glad others love it as much as I do! A note: the author of the book on which it's based - Michael Ondatje - was enchanted with the film and is quoted as saying he wished he had thought of some of the lovely scenes written purely for the movie...the way Kip "invites" Hana to his side with a trail of small candles, and the way he arranges for Hana to view the frescoes in the ruined medieval church.

An obsessive love story, where the characters have been extremely convincing. I think this film highlights the talent of professional actors. Specially for Vincent Cassel who wouldn't (at the time it was filmed) be the first character you think of for such a role. And yes he did succeed to seduce the beautiful Monica Belluci, beyond the film, during this creation. I can only say, that this film should have been released at it is in the USA, instead of thinking of doing a remake. It is simply so french, almost perverted....and yet so true...this film should stay untouched...<br /><br />A director that should definitely get more projects as this kind of subject requires the right amount of ingredients to not make it a flop..

According to the book The Last of the Cowboy Heroes which is about Joel McCrea, Audie Murphy, and Randolph Scott, the author says that Albuquerque was the only film he personally did not review because he claimed it was lost. Hadn't been seen in years.<br /><br />Good thing for western fans somebody was doing some spring cleaning at Paramount because a print was apparently found and now it's out on the open market. Albuquerque is a pretty good western too with Scott involved in a family feud with Uncle George Cleveland.<br /><br />George Cleveland sends for his nephew Randolph Scott with the intention of making him part of his freighting business, headquartered in the fast growing settlement of Albuquerque. Cleveland is more than just a business owner, he's the town boss which he runs from a wheelchair. He even has the sheriff in his pocket. <br /><br />Randolph Scott is not a cowboy hero for nothing. That includes not backing relatives up when they're villains. He goes to work for a rival outfit headed by brother and sister Russell Hayden and Catherine Craig.<br /><br />Cleveland is full of all kinds of tricks and he even sends for a western Mata Hari in the person of Barbara Britton to worm her way into the confidence of his rivals. Barbara's great as the homespun vixen who develops her own agenda.<br /><br />Randolph Scott's original home studio was Paramount, it was where his first studio contract was with. Albuquerque marked the last film he ever did for Paramount and they gave him a good one.<br /><br />Note also Lon Chaney, Jr., who is George Cleveland's chief henchman, a rather loathsome bully of a man and Gabby Hayes, who is just Gabby Hayes.<br /><br />Albuquerque must have been loved by Republicans across the nation in 1948 with its chief villain as a town boss who rules from a wheelchair. A certain Democrat from a wheelchair had made hash of them for four straight presidential elections and he was gone. They had high hopes of winning the White House that year too, but things went awry and they had to settle for an ersatz boss getting his comeuppance in Albuquerque. I'm not sure why Cleveland was in a wheelchair since nothing was really made of it in the plot. My guess is he was injured and played the part that way because he had to.<br /><br />Still Albuquerque must have had great appeal to the GOP market.

I really liked this movie...it was cute. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, that is your fault. Emma Roberts played a good Nancy Drew, even though she isn't quite like the books. The old fashion outfits are weird when you see them in modern times, but she looks good on them. To me, the rich girls didn't have outfits that made them look rich. I mean, it looks like they got all the clothes -blindfolded- at a garage sale and just decided to put it on all together. All of the outfits were tacky, especially when they wore the penny loafers with their regular outfits. I do not want to make the movie look bad, because it definitely wasn't! Just go to the theater and watch it!!! You will enjoy it!

This is the ultimate of horror movies this year. "House of Wax" is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. This version really puts the Vincent Price version of the movie to shame. I only know a few of the young cast in the movie. The ever troublesome Paris Hilton; the pain in the you know what seems to be more seductive than ever. At least, she didn't try to copy her infamy. Well if she likes to do horror, she's better than "Wheel of Fortune's" Vanna White. She beats Vanna HANDS DOWN! And the scene of where "House of Wax" was made was no joke. The house was made of wax, and the victims were able to get out of there before the get waxed like their friends. Those two twins Bo and Vincent(the deformed twins) were maniacs from the get-go. The parents raised them well, except for Vincent. And I think they became equally warped. How come the the one in the other pick-up happen to be creepy, but not as bad as the other two. That's another story in the book. I guess he had to follow his heart, and not the other twins who turned Ambrose into a tourist "trap" for unsuspecting victims. This movie is like "The Phantom of the Opera" meets "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". And this movie is one of the scariest one in 2005! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

Other commentators have detailed the plot and the social parables and commentary as well (or better) that I could, but I would like to join in my admiration for this little jewel of a film. It holds up very well indeed more that 50 years later in every category - screenplay, acting, photography, set design, sound design...it really is a classic of sorts. This was my first exposure to the "young" Alec Guinness, and it's obvious from the first frames what made him so special as to eventually receive a knighthood. <br /><br />I only rate it an "8" because it's essentially a rather lightweight parable that examines human nature but doesn't really skewer it; and because the plot takes the easy way out at the end, rather than actually resolving conflict between the inventor and the mill workers and industrialists who are chasing him all over town. Also, a couple minutes of thought reveals the basic flaw in the logic of the screenplay - wear and tear is hardly ever the determining factor in buying new clothes (especially dress clothes); children grow up, people change sizes, gain and lose weight, and go with the latest fashions all the time, and have as long as looms have woven cloth. And if nothing else, the manufacturer would make a fortune providing indestructible material for military uniforms (especially BDUs). <br /><br />Still, this is a great film. If you get a chance to see it on a classic movie channel, you should.

I love John's work as a singer, but the movie was dull and 'no worth the time' to view. <br /><br />I thought he did an 'ok' job at acting his part. When he says, "your having an affair with the ol' man", to his co-star, I kinda chuckled at his facial movements... or lack thereof. <br /><br />I would suggest the movie if you like John's music but not as a Saturday night video. <br /><br />If you love his music, then the video has a little music from him in it, but not much. <br /><br />So so.. at best

Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me.<br /><br />It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.<br /><br />The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.<br /><br />For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think "originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.<br /><br />Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an "encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).<br /><br />All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.<br /><br />There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.<br /><br />But (you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.<br /><br />Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.<br /><br />The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.<br /><br />The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.<br /><br />That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, "Okay, get on with the story already".

This film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, "how much longer?" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.<br /><br />Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.<br /><br />The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)<br /><br />There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.<br /><br />Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.

I enjoyed every moment of this movie, even though I knew they could never really be together. With the life expectancy of a Bomber pilot being only six weeks, It made me feel for all of those women and men back in the 1940's who must have lived this story.

Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City.

Of course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, one of my friends told me about this. I was really excited.<br /><br />I watched the first 3 episodes... What a piece of rubbish! Teenage girl drama fest. There is no science fiction... well, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.<br /><br />It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over...

I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!

Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the "different" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.<br /><br />For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.<br /><br />With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I really enjoyed myself as I viewed it. However, the last scene at Johnny's birthday party was cut way too short. I, myself, was an extra in that scene and was upset with the results. But other than that, (and the weird casting), the movie was superb.

If The Man in the White Suit had been done in America, can't you see either Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis trying on Alec Guinness's Sidney Stratton on for size?<br /><br />This is one of the best of Alec Guinness's films and certainly one of the best that Ealing Studios in the United Kingdom ever turned out. It's so perfectly fits within the time frame of the new Labour government and the society it was trying to build. It's amazing how in times of crisis capital and labor can agree.<br /><br />Alec Guinness this meek little schnook of a man is obsessed with the idea that he can invent clothing that will never need cleaning, that in fact repels all kinds of foreign matter the minute it touches the garment. <br /><br />He's a persistent cuss and he does succeed. Of course the implications haven't really been thought through about the kind of impact clothing like that will have on society. In the end everyone is chasing him down like they would a fugitive, almost like Peter Lorre from M or Orson Welles in The Stranger or even Robert Newton in Oliver Twist. <br /><br />It's the mark of a great comedy film that a potentially serious situation like that chase as described in some of the serious films I've mentioned can be played for laughs. Poor Guinness's suit is not only white and stain repellent, but it glows like a neon sign.<br /><br />Other than Guinness the best performances are from Cecil Parker as yet another pompous oaf, Joan Greenwood as his siren daughter and Ernest Thesiger the biggest clothing manufacturer in the UK> <br /><br />Come to think of it, did Paramount borrow that suit from Ealing and give it to John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever?

This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.<br /><br />What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.<br /><br />Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.<br /><br />Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.<br /><br />However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch.

when i watched this crap, it reminded me of the the title of the movie FIRE, Which is where this garbage belongs, in a fire. I don't even know what to say the acting blew, the fire looked really fake, Andy the chicks are'nt exactly supermodels. And lastly i don't know what you people are complaining i own this damn movie, yeah happy birthday to me Well i guess it could be worse i could be watching left behind 2. And to make things worse i have the whole set on DVD fire,volcano,earthquake,avalanche. All i'm missing is the awesome tornado movie which i hear sucks balls.<br /><br />Well until my next crap movie peace

1- Stephen Baldwin doesn't care about his involvement in Stephen Baldwin vehicles.<br /><br />2- The acting in any Stephen Baldwin vehicle ranges from horrible to mildly passable.<br /><br />3- Writers don't write Stephen Baldwin vehicles, children do.<br /><br />4- Most of the Stephen Baldwin vehicles revolve around one genre- the Actionless Action genre. It basically consists of crappy action sequences made with little to no effort whatsoever. <br /><br />5- The director doesn't care about Stephen Baldwin vehicles; he passes his job to an orangutan from time to time.<br /><br />And now you know.

Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then? <br /><br />That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?<br /><br />Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.<br /><br />As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.<br /><br />But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:<br /><br />- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body, <br /><br />- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death), <br /><br />- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother, <br /><br />- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators, <br /><br />- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"<br /><br />All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all.

Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson.

Yeah i bought camp blood and it wasted about 86 minutes of my life and 5 pounds of my money on this crap, I mean i didn't expect an amazing movie, judging by the front cover i wasn't really expecting anything great but at least not boobies in the first 3 seconds (I'm not complaining about the boobies..) I'm complaining about what the hell that has to do with anything? this film should have been kept on there hand cam at home as a joke....they suck..why was the blood more brown and turd like that real blood?...cheap i tells ya i mean everyone wasn't in colour they were just tinted yellow, And another thing that made me die laughing at this sad excuse for a film was the fact that they tried to pretend the clown was a woman all the time, although its clearly a flat chested black short haired man...did anyone else notice that the only special effect in this film was a slowed down jump..that was also poor oh and the dissolve effect that you can find on many basic p.c programs such as...powerpoint....this film blows

Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.<br /><br />I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.<br /><br />The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.<br /><br />This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.<br /><br />Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.<br /><br />He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.<br /><br />I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.<br /><br />I give it 0 / 10.

The acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's "Fairhaven" episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the film.

What starts out as generational conflict in this movie, ends in understanding, solemnity and grace. The movie meanders through Europe with the father and the young son cramped in a car over 3000 miles. The cramping forces lifestyles, beliefs and life skills to collide. There's really no clear winner. It all adds up in the end as experience, experience of multiple layers of life. For those interested in understanding Islam, this movie offers a generous and gentle outlook, without being pushy about the agenda. It's a coming of age story for the young son, his dismissive and rebellious nature turning to openness for receiving more ways of life.

Here it is.. the first EVER episode of Friends, Where we get introduced to Control Freak Monica Gellar (Courtney Cox), Newly divorced Ross Gellar (David Schimmer), Hippy Pheobe Buffay (Lisa Kudrow), unknown actor and ladies man (Matt Le Blanc and very sarcastic Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry). This is how the scene starts off until we introduced to the 6th and final friend Spoilt kid Rachel Green (Jennifer Aniston).<br /><br />The Episode is better than most people give credit for, like any new sitcom the first episode isn't always fantastic. The acting in this episode isn't great because the cast cannot identify and arnt really believable in their new characters (apart from Kudrow and Perry- who shine).<br /><br />Matt Le Blanc- Man, his acting was down right dreadful because until later, he gets more confident, but i think he tries to be funny but at most fails.<br /><br />David Schimmer- Why does he over pronounce EVERY word? he cannot speak normally! but he became one of the funniest characters in later seasons, but he isn't confident. and i cannot sympathise with him Jennifer Aniston- Looks hot, and does a good job as Rachel Green, but we only see the real Rachel later in the 1st season, Courtney Cox- Looks quite anorexic in this episode, its worrying, she looks totally different now, (more healthily), she acting is a little sketchy but everyones is in this 20 minute pilot! Lisa Kudrow and Matthew Perry- I'm doing these two together because their comic timing and acting quality was superb, and for Lisa this was one of her first roles and she is so natural as Pheobe (Pheebs) and Matthew Perry is just Matthew Perry playing himself basically! The episode quality does improve later,,, such as the Sets, they looks dark and creepy in this episode and makes them seem unfriendly, the acting is OK, the characters gain confidence with each new scene and i am proud this is the pilot! I hope we see the Friends reunite! cause they will always be there for us!

Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.<br /><br />Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.

Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.

I bought this a while back, during a massive martial arts movie phase. Although this certainly ain't the best, I do love this kind of film making, and there was a lot to keep me entertained in this one. Leung Kar Yan is one of my favorite martial arts stars, I always appreciate the fact that, whilst he lacked formal martial arts training, he usually gave a more than capable fighting performance. He also has a good beard. This movie has him in a good, heroic role and although he doesn't kick as much ass as in some of his other movies, he still acquits himself well. Early appearances from Cherie Chung and Chow Yun Fat are also nice too see, especially for the fact that Chow Yun Fat takes on the bad guys without his trademark gun play. He may not be a great fighter but he does OK. Eddy Ko is as great a bad guy as ever, he performs the same villainry as in many of his other films and does it great, as per usual. The fellow who plays Bu is good too, I don't recall his name, but he's in Magnificent Butcher too. Although the fighting isn't as good as other movies of the era, The postman fights back makes up for it with a lot of imagination, quality cinematography and a nicely quirky ambiance. There are some very nifty scenes, good characters and a good eclectic mixture of Hong Kong talents all coming together to decent effect. All in all, I would recommend this to kung fu and general Hong Kong action fans. It may not be a stylised classic like the Shaw Brothers films, or as crowd pleasing as Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, but it is rock solid entertainment.

The thing that stands out in my mind in this film (sadly) is the introduction, where John Berlin (Andy Garcia) is driving into town. You see his Mercedes pass on a winding road through a forest that looks like its loaded with Redwood trees. It's quite beautiful. <br /><br />As to Andy Garcia playing a character with the last name of Berlin, well...Andy is just too hispanic/Latin for it to be passable. Maybe a caucasian father married his Spanish mother for this story? Who knows. But I can tell you that when you put him in a town of farm folks and hicks, he stands out like a sore thumb, especially with his accent that flares up when he gets angry. Yeah, I know, big deal right? He's still a good actor.<br /><br />The title concerns a serial killer who nicknames his victims Jennifer. All of the victims are blind and he dismembers them. The killer has taken a hiatus but suddenly resurfaces when a blind witness (don't ask) appears, Helena Robertson (Uma Thurman). Thurman does a good job of playing a blind person, to my surprise. When I saw Lance Henriksen playing Sgt. Freddy Ross I got worried. Henriksen's played in some pretty strange films, especially of late. I still can't forget him in the bloodbath movie, Pumpkinhead. <br /><br />Berlin movies into a small town from L.A. as a detective. He begins investigating the Jennifer murders after finding body parts in the local landfill. His brilliance in discovering one of the victims was blind seemed far-fetched. So did the irony of *SPOILER* Freddy's murder, with the recording and name similarities. I got very confused as to the logic of how there came to be eight "Jennifers". And the motive of the killer as simply deranged didn't pack much of a punch. In retrospect, this film is probably more true to life in showing an unsuspecting individual as capable of murder simply because they became a little wacko over time or maybe were born looney toons.<br /><br />John Malkovich does a stupendous job in his interrogation of Garcia! Albeit no cop would legally be allowed to press someone that hard and egg them on without rightfully get knocked out. As to the ending, it is a bit of a surprise, but is highly arguable, much like Sgt. Ross' murder. The killer chooses to walk after his running victim, opting instead to frolick I guess.<br /><br />And there are so many opportunities he has in killing her that it's ridiculous. I won't ruin the very end because despite it's shakiness, it's a good surprise. Afterward though, you'll probably say, as I did, "boy was she lucky!" 4/10

Would it surprise you that my ears and eyes almost bled from watching and listening to this awful movie? My eyes almost bled from watching the awful animation and insipid, plotless, empty story. My ears almost bled from listening to the songs that sounded like they were sung by a chorus of howler monkeys. Then my brain almost melted because of this film's complete lack of intelligence. It's formulaic every step of the way. Talking animals are one thing, but a penguin who can fly just to keep with the "dreams can come true" schtick? Show some more faith in the children's intelligence please. Next to Rock-A-Doodle, this is one of Bluth's worst.

Now I myself had previously seen a few episodes of the Leauge Of Gentleman which I found hilarious. When I brought the film I was not sure if I knew enough about the series to get it, boy was I wrong. This is one of the best comedy films I have seen ever and the clever acting of the Leauge makes the film. It has a very good and funny plot as well as using only a few characters at any one time helps because it doesn't make it too confusing which would have wrecked the film. Even If you have never seen The Leauge Of Gentleman get this film it will make you laugh and this is a film that can be watched more then once and is an excellent film to watch with your mates. It truly deserves it review a definite 10 out of 10.

Princess Tam Tam is without the trappings of racism, in the way we think of racism in the United States, but there are more subtle (to the American viewer) assertions about ethnic identity during the time. Pay attention to Alwina's (Baker) placement within shots, how she is addressed by the other characters, the settings around her that all depict her as a "savage" African, and ask yourself if Alwina has any shred of agency throughout the film. I don't want to ruin anything but at the end pay very careful attention, the dichotomy between "Eastern" and "Western" culture is to say the least offensive, such diction is thankfully disavowed these days. The French have a checkered past as an imperial force throughout the areas depicted (see Chris Marker's Les Statues Meurent Aussi- 1953), and pay attention to the places the European travelers visit while they are in Africa, and what does that reflect about their attitudes towards the "other". I give this film a 7 because I am a sucker for Baker, much of what she did in her professional career, like Princes Tam Tam, that is regressive is certainly overshadowed by her efforts towards integration, her work as a freaking spy (I am gushing, sorry.) However the film for me is captivating because of her performance, besides that it is a telling relic of bygone mentalities.

This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.

Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.<br /><br />Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.<br /><br />Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it.

Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed

Part of the enjoyment that I took from this film stemmed from the fact that I knew nothing more about it than that it starred John Turturro and Emily Watson (2 reasons enough to watch), was a period piece and involved chess. Everything that evolved before me was completely unexpected. I shan't, therefore, give away much more. Suffice to say that Turturro is magnificent as an eccentric, obsessive and deeply vulnerable chess genius and Em matches him step for step as the strong-minded woman who is drawn to him. It's about love and obsession, rather than the venerated board game and after drawing me in gradually over the first half hour, became totally compelling. And I defy anyone to second-guess the ending.

Okay, let me start off by saying that, on the whole, I don't like anime very much. I've enjoyed a couple of the oft-cited "classic" series, but regard the medium as a whole in exactly the same way that I do American television: namely, that a good 90-95% of it is utter tripe, with the remainder falling anywhere from "watchable" to "decent." This being the case, it's no wonder that I don't like the self-deprecating anime parodies out there. I don't get most of the jokes, and the medium itself enforces a certain style of humor that doesn't appeal to me at all - loud, hyperactive, lowbrow, and completely over the top.<br /><br />So, when I started watching this series at the behest of a friend, I was primed for disappointment after the first couple of episodes. I figured that the characters were supposed to represent cliché characters from shopworn story outlines, and that their actions were supposed to be similarly satirical. I could kind of see where it was coming from, but didn't think that it was all that clever - lots of "wacky, fun-filled high-school shenanigans and goings-on, only now we're being ironic about it." At about the third episode, my opinion drastically changed.<br /><br />It was at that point that the strengths of this series started to manifest themselves. The quirks of the non-chronological episode order, its snarky sense of self-awareness, and, above all, clever humor with (gasp) a well-executed straight man.<br /><br />In what I consider to be a rarity in any medium, this show presents well-thought out, witty interactions between diametrically opposed characters. Protagonist Kyon's perpetual sense of vaguely annoyed resignation provides the perfect foil to the actions of title character Haruhi's generic "anime-like" exploits. It's a break from formula, and it works incredibly well.<br /><br />Based on that strong foundation, the series further succeeds with a truly phenomenal level of attention to detail. As previously stated, the episodes air out of chronological order. I considered this to be a gimmick at first, but it works surprisingly well. The chronological sequence of events makes sense logically, but the aired order of the episodes more closely follows the traditional structure of Aristotelian drama. The order chosen leaves no narrative gaps that cannot be filled by simple inference (but while it is possible to guess what happened in an unaired "preceding" episode, one still feels compelled to watch exactly how those events unfold), and superb planning prevents any plot holes or contradictions. I watched this series a second time immediately upon completing it the first time, and I was amazed at how well even seemingly inconsequential events were all tied together.<br /><br />The last point is indicative of the extreme attention to detail in every area of the series. While the stock "anime" character designs grate a bit, the background art is exquisite, realistically rendered based upon actual photographic references. Animation quality is also excellent at important points. For example there is a musical performance late on in the series in which the characters are shown actually playing a song - this may sound trivial, but the subconscious effect of watching (film-quality) animation which actually corresponds to the soundtrack is incredible.<br /><br />In short, I love this series for some reason. By its very nature it is something that I generally dislike, but its execution is so unique and well-carried out that I can't help it.

This is just about the WORST piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story was embarrassingly amateurish, the graphics were horrible, and the acting... I've never seen worse acting in my entire life. A kindergarten class could come up with a scarier, better written, and more entertaining concept than this. I pity anyone who wastes their time on this film, as well as the actors who agreed to doing the job. It was obvious that they were not given appropriate direction. The writers must have spent their time at film school in the "back room" playing peaknuckle. A lot of professors wasted a lot of time on these two. I would be truly embarrassed to admit that I knew them.

"The Bourne Ultimatum" begins recklessly mid-chase and in pulse-pounding fashion explodes from there as Jason Bourne (Matt Damon, absolutely superb) tracks down the masterminds behind the CIA black-ops that turned him into the perfect killer in a final attempt to learn his true identity. A devastatingly icy David Strathairn as the "man behind the curtain" is added to the returning cast of regulars including Joan Allen (excellent) and Julia Stiles (non-existent).<br /><br />Like the second entry in the series, I wished Paul Greengrass' shaky hand-held camera would go static at least for the few minutes of downtime. However, that being said, it's a perfect way to capture the tense, claustrophobic feel of the intimate hand-to-hand-combat scenes and works equally well in the chase scenes which are mostly on foot and across rooftops with the occasional big car pile-up. Part of the fun of the Bourne series is the constant globe-hopping and manipulation of technology and communications that seem to defy the laws of physics and current capabilities. The Bourne films seem to exist in some sort of gritty hyper-reality that is full of technological-based magic. It makes no sense that everyone seems to be just in the right place at the right time, but I'll be damned if it isn't a blast to watch them get there.<br /><br />With the absence of the emotive and involving Franka Potente, the writers attempt to create some emotional connection between Damon and Stiles, but she is so blank-faced an actress it never really leads to anything. Still, this can be forgiven, for unlike the "Identity" and the "Supremacy", this "Ultimatum" reveals all and we finally learn the truth about Bourne's past. It's an entertaining and satisfying conclusion to the series, and if they have any good sense, and Damon gets his wish, this will be the perfect end to it.

As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...

I did not set very high expectations for this movie, which left me pleasantly surprised. The story is a little strange sometimes but overall I think it has an acceptable credibility. The action scenes are rather nice and the accompanying music is used to induce a a bit of patriotic feelings common to US movies. This may not be the best movie ever but it's uncommon for Sweden and I hope to see more similar ones in the future.

Four stories written by Robert Bloch about various people who live in a beautiful, old mansion and what happens to them. The first has Denholm Elliott as a novelist who sees the killer he's writing about come to life. Some spooky moments and the twist at the end was good. The second has Peter Cushing becoming obsessed with a wax figure resembling his dead wife. The third has Christopher Lee who has a child (Chloe Franks) and is scared of her. It all leads up to a pretty scary ending (although the ending in the story was MUCH worse). The last is an out and out comedy with Jon Petwee and Ingrid Pitt (both chewing the scenery) and a cape that turns people into vampires! There's also a cute line about Christopher Lee playing Dracula.<br /><br />This is a good horror anthology--nothing terrifying but the first one and the ending of the third gave me a few pleasurable little chills. Also the fourth one is actually very funny and Pitt makes a VERY sexy vampire! Also the house itself looks beautiful...and very creepy. It's well-directed with some nice atmospheric touches. A very good and unusual movie score too. All in all a good little horror anthology well worth seeking out. Try to see it on DVD--the Lions Gate one looks fantastic with strong colors and great sound.

I've been a fan of Xu Ke (Hark Tsui) for many year since school. This film is the best fantasy movie in years. I dont think "action" is the right genre, though there're lot of action and KongFu scenese. Wait, did I mentioned this is an ORIENTAL fantasy moive? please, keep in mind that DO NOT use hollywood formula to rate this film. And for the guy who "poo" around, I don't blame you, 'cause you still young and need to know more about "culture".

How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.<br /><br />Send it back to sender as soon as possible.

Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."<br /><br />Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.<br /><br />Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.<br /><br />½ out of 10.

I'm doing a thesis on blurring the boundaries: the female cross dresser and am using Tipping the Velvet the book as my main text, any comments on gender and sexual identity, gender and sexual confusion, gender as a performance, gender as a fiction, gender imagery, cross-dressing as an erotic fantasy and as revolution, the effect of the male costume etc etc would be much appreciated! But a bit off the point has anyone seen Sergio Toledo's 1987 film Vera? Its about a young lesbian possibly transsexual cross dresser..I'm dying to see it because I think it'd be really helpful...Does anyone know where I might get a copy of it? I've tried amazon and a few other sites but no luck...

A very courageous attempt to bring one of the most intricate books of literature to the screen. The story manages to get most of Conrad's basic messages across and the acting is superb. The liberties taken by the script often deepen the meaning and do seldom distort it. Compliments to writer and director.

CCCC is the first good film in Bollywood of 2001. When I first saw the trailer of the film I thought It would be a nice family movie. I was right. Salman Khan has given is strongest performance ever. My family weren't too keen on him but after seeing this film my family are very impressed with him. Rani and Preity are wonderful. The film is going to be a huge hit because of the three main stars. <br /><br />It's about Raj (Salman Khan) and Priya meeting and falling in love. They get married and go to Switzerland for their honeymoon. When they come back Raj and Priya find out that Priya is pregnant. Raj's family are full of joy when they find out especially Raj's dada (Amrish Puri). Raj and his family are playing cricket one day and Priya has an accident which causes Priya to have a miscarriage. Raj has a very close family friend who is a doctor, Balraj Chopra (Prem Chopra). He tells Raj and Priya that she can no longer have anymore kids. Raj and Priya keep this quiet from the family. Raj and Priya decide to go for surrogacy. Surrogacy to them is that they will find a girl and Raj and that girl will have a baby together and then hand the baby over to Raj and Priya. Raj finds a girl. Her name is Madhubala (Preity Zinta). She is a dancer and a prostitute. Raj tells her the situation and bribes her with money and she agrees. Raj changes Madhubala completley. Raj tells Priya that he has found a girl. Madhubala and Priya meet and become friends. They go to Switzerland to do this so no one finds out. Priya spends the night in a church and Raj and Madhubala are all alone and they spend the night together. The doctor confirms that Madhubala is pregnant and they are all happy. Raj tells his family that Priya is pregnant. They are happy again. Madhubala comes to love Raj and she wants him. What happens next? Watch CCCC to find out. <br /><br />The one thing I didn't like about the film is their idea of surrogacy. They should have done it the proper way in the film but it didn't ruin the film. It was still excellent.<br /><br />The songs of the film are great. My favourites are "Chori Chori Chupke Chupke", Dekhne Walon Ne", "Deewana Hai Yeh Mann" and "Mehndi". The song "Mehndi" is very colourful. In that song it shows the ghod bharai taking place and it is very colourful. The film deserves 10/10!