Datasets:

KMaly

/

ait526_sentiment

like 0

This film caught me by surprise. My friend told me that this movie was a "chick flick." Boy, was he wrong! This movie has a great family appeal, with no sex scenes like _other_ movies. Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent job in Homer Hickam's shoes. The supporting cast is great, as well.<br /><br />Science, coming-of-age, family quarrels, a great train scene... This film has it all. The soundtrack is good, although the score is presented quite choppily. The 50s music kicks the movie over the edge of greatness.<br /><br />The DVD is definitely worth its weigh in coal. Replay value is great - I've seen it quite a few times already.

Anne (Natalie Portman) tells us about how much she hates her mother, Adele (Susane Sarandon). That's how the movie begins. Adele decided that her and her daughter were moving to California without asking anyone and leaving her husband without any reason. The story is about the relationship between the mother and the daughter. It's really deep and touching, thanks to the great work of the actresses. Natalie was nominated to a Golden Globe for that role. She is one of the most talented actresses I ever saw, and so is Sarandon. They really look like mother daughter. The soundtrack is also great. The movie is incredible. *10 out of 10*

This is a movie that I watched when I was a young girl and never forgot. It is certainly not the best movie ever made, but there is something very special about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I LOVE it. I am the kind of person who likes everything explained to me though and for that reason alone this movie drives me crazy. <br /><br />Exactly what/Who is that mysterious witch-lady and what is her relationship with Tom? WHY and HOW did he become a Water Baby ... why was he raised on the earth? It is questions like these that are just eating at me! I thought if I read the book I would get answers, but I just read an article that the book from which this story is "based" is a lot different. So I guess I'll never know what the writer was thinking! <br /><br />I still love this movie though and I recently watched it with my two year old niece. She loves it too although she insists on calling it "Baby Water" for reasons unknown to me. She loves the part where he jumps in the water and then declares "I'm all clean." (You have to understand that my niece is the cleanest 2 year old in the world!) We watched that scene over and over. <br /><br />I am so glad that we can enjoy this film together! There should be more films like this. (But what is up with the gay seahorse??!!)

Before the WWF became cartoon with Hulk Hoagan leading the way, the events of WWF TV broadcasts of the very early 1980s resembled the wild, wild west with all kinds of grudges and vicious acts of violence performed by some of the wrestlers that are known today to be the WWF's most beloved stars. Some of these seemingly very real moments stand out. A maniacal Sgt. Slaughter whipped then champion Bob Backlund with a riding crop after Backlund showed him up in a fitness test. Welts were all over Backlund! Sarge made the Iron Shiek look like a daycare provider! Slaughter also issued a challenge to anyone who could break his dreaded cobra clutch hold. This led a legendary and bloody alley match with commentator Pat Patterson. Hall of Fame member Blackjack Mulligan with Freddie Blassie came into the WWF with a claw hold that was censored on television. He claimed he was the true giant at 6'7" and challenged Andre long before Big John Studd in 1984. Adrian Adonis used his ominously named "Good Night, Irene" sleeper to take out the competition. A New Yorker clad in black leather, he was an ominous figure. George "the Animal" Steele was far from a crowd pleaser, as well. Even Jimmy Snuka was a fearsome sight as he set out maim opponents until Ray "the Crippler" Stevens delivered a piledriver onto the cement floor leaving Snuka a bloody mess. All these encounters took place a decade before hardcore wrestling was ever spoken of.

Frank Langella steals my heart in everything he has ever been in! I love watching him!! i was 10 yrs old (1979) when i seen him for the first time.i eagerly await each and everything he'll be acting in. hopefully one day i can see him in person. he's very hypnotic and mysterious and that voice is commanding and strong! he is very attractive, even now at 65 he is absolutely stunning!!!! In my opinion he is the greatest actor iv'e ever seen! i adored him in "Dracula" ( along with a lot of other girls out there) and in "god created woman","house of D","Jason and the argonauts" and many more. i thought he was genius!!!!!! can't wait to see him in "good night and good luck"

when i saw commercials for this i was thinking "NO WHAT HAS NICK AT NITE DONE!" because it was taking up "fresh prince" slots. well, i still love the fresh prince. but george lopez is a surprisingly good show. i love how not-stereotypical benny is. carmen is a pretty good character, its really funny to see how stupid and overemotional she can be sometimes. i feel bad for the guy who plays max, he looks much younger then he actually is! but max is a fun character, and acted well. and yeah, angie is a little stereotypical, but she has her funny moments. ha ha george does have a big head! nah but he can be really good too. funny show! it definitely should be on more often then home improvement.

I had read an article about Dan Jansen's Olympic and personal journey before seeing this movie. I'm always intrigued by a story of hope and overcoming life altering events, and this was no exception.<br /><br />The background of the characters that is provided gives you a sense of the family's closeness and how they positively affected each others' lives. I can't speak to the accuracy of specific details in this movie, it is customary to take some creative license when organizing a script. However, the spirit of Dan and his family is what matters here.<br /><br />Its a worthwhile movie of a story that should be told. I felt empathy for the characters and cheered at the end.

THE MATADOR (2005) *** _ Pierce Brosnan, Greg Kinnear, Hope Davis, Philip Baker Hall, Dylan Baker. Brosnan gives one of his best non-Bondian roles as a middle-aged assassin facing a mid-life crisis while on assignment in Mexico where he befriends a square yet likable American businessman (Kinnear at his most affable) and discovers there is more to life than death. Newbie filmmaker Richard Shepard makes a solid big screen debut with a pointedly wicked black comedy with a sharp eye for visual detail and nuanced dialogue and character development that makes him a talent to watch in this breath-of-fresh-air into the 'buddy comedy' formula skewering what is anticipated of his leads and allowing Brosnan to get his ya-yas out with devilish glee. A sleeper gem indie hit.

I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.<br /><br />Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call "assistant" to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.<br /><br />Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors.

If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.<br /><br />In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.<br /><br />The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding "southern accents" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions? <br /><br />Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???<br /><br />They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.

This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.<br /><br />On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.<br /><br />It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is...

<br /><br />This movie is só incredibly unfunny it makes any man want to cry, the cliché are put on thicker than 5-year old peanut butter and in such a way that it actually sucks humour out of your heart, every single joke was badly timed and wouldn't have been funny if it were timed correctly.<br /><br />Don't see this movie, there's a real chance you'll never be able to enjoy going to comedies again...ever.

"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.<br /><br />One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.<br /><br />What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere.

I have seen quite a few action thrillers in my life and this is clearly one of the best ever! There are very few films which I even consider watching several times and this is one of them. Everything in this movie is just right: Clint as the superb leading actor, Rene Russo as his non-stupid female partner(this is a very rare combination - sad,but true!). Of course, John Malkowich deserves a lot of praise for his excellent villain but let us not overlook Eastwood`s initial buddy, played by Dylan Mcdermott, who in my view fits the role perfectly.The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic - but sadly never released on an original soundtrack CD (shame on the producers!). The plot makes sense and there is no loss of pace, the audience is kept in constant excitement of the outcome of the duel between Eastwood and Malkowich. I give this one 10 Stars!

I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now?

This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.<br /><br />Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.<br /><br />Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.<br /><br />This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.

I can't remember exactly where i heard of them first, but i listen to a little of one song and liked it. Went and bought the cd and had finally found the type of music i like. I heard about this video and knew i had to have it. It has a lot of clips from them playing in concert. Let me tell you, watching this video doesn't even compare to them in concert. I've seen them twice in concert and don't want to ever miss a chance to see them again. The other two things it has is some interview, and even a video for one of their biggest songs. couple little side notes...i saw them at ozzfest 2001 and they ruled there, but seeing them in a smaller inside stage was much better (they had some really cool things to do with being able to cut out the lights) the other, in case anyone wonders, votary means a devout follower.

It is hard for a lover of the novel Northanger Abbey to sit through this BBC adaptation and to keep from throwing objects at the TV screen-in fact, if Jane Austen herself were to see this, she would be somewhat amused and possibly put out. Maggie Wadey's adaptation has made Northanger Abbey into what it satirized, the Gothic novel (and the readers of Gothic novels).<br /><br />The role of Catherine Morland in the adaptation is portrayed fairly closely to Austen's Catherine, a open-hearted, generous girl whose imagination simply runs away with her. But the Henry Tilney of the novel is not a snuff-taking, cane-wielding, sappy-line-making hero of a Gothic novel-he is a tease, a nearly-handsome man with a messy room and a living (that's right, Henry Tilney is a clergyman, a charm that is completely dropped from the script). Some of the best scenes from novel, when Henry, completely deadpan, outrageously teases the literally-minded Catherine on diction, journals, Mrs. Radcliffe, etc., are not portrayed in the adaptation. A large section of Henry's personality is lost when those scenes are not adapted. Besides, Peter Firth's appearance is not accurate-Henry Tilney is supposed to be 24 or 25, dark hair and a brown skin, not 35 or 40 and blond.<br /><br />There are so many other absurdities within the adaptation that invoke surprise and disgust-who is the Marchioness, and what is she doing in the story?! Why is John Thorpe less of a dunce and more of a schemer? Why is Northanger Abbey a castle? Catherine of the novel, with her romantic visions, expects hidden passages and dark tapestries, but is very disappointed to discover that Northanger Abbey is actually a comfortable, modern house-another element of satire! Why portray General Tilney as a drunk? Why does Catherine have those strange visions of Mrs. Allen threading her finger, etc.? Catherine's imagination only runs away with her at Northanger, with Henry there to correct her gently. And lastly, why are so many facts concerning the Tilney family and Mrs. Tilney's death altered unnecessarily? To make the story more `horrible?' All of these oddities and more simply are too strange to be overlooked.<br /><br /> >

Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.<br /><br />It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.<br /><br />Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.<br /><br />So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this.

Above-average film and acting partly spoiled by its completely predictable story line. Even the music is chosen so that the words fit the action every time. A scent of "Pleasantville" camp hangs around this flick. As a period piece, it's more accurate than not. Its depiction of the tragedy of company towns and lack of upward mobility is sketchy but moving. Chris Cooper turns in a first-class performance as Howard's coal-miner daddy.

Centered in the downtown and out skirts of Detroit, this comedy I found to be a terrific new comedic duo. 'Noriyuki Pat Morita' is a very funny man, who happens to be a cop from Japan on the trail of an industrial secrets thief, who has stolen a 'proto type' turbo super charger, reluctantly he goes to the United States to follow the thief, after being ordered by his commander. Pat's character collides with 'Jay Leno's' character, a fast talking' but down to business-player type Detroit cop. When they cross paths though, the honorable 'Ways' of Japan meet the all-out old school Detroit police investigative 'Ways'. The two stumble and trip over each other at first, but then develop a 'rythym' that turns into an explosive two layered powerhouse team, that solves the case, cold. After battling a city crime boss for the stolen 'equiptment' and closing the case, these two go from despising each other to being friends and working well together. A little worse for wear and in need of an extended-vacation on top of it all, they manage to come to a victorious closing. I rated this a 9. Lewis's direction makes' this a near perfect comedy. Fun for all ages. I recommend it highly.(***)

Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the "Cape Fear" remake, a small role in "Goldeneye", "Walking Tall"). And I even liked Baker in "Mitchell", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.<br /><br />"Final Justice" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the "cowboy frontier justice" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than "Mitchell". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.<br /><br />That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to "B" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout! <br /><br />This is a guy we are supposed to admire? <br /><br />The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.<br /><br />On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.<br /><br />In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.

Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...<br /><br />Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...<br /><br />Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...<br /><br />But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.<br /><br />Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.<br /><br />3/10

Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.

When you start watching this animation-masterpiece, you quickly notice, that it's a European production. Although the Europeans have (sadly) integrated some of the clichés you would normally find in an American production of this kind, most are missing. One of these is that there is an overwhelming evil that only our (very few and very unlikely) heroes can vanquish. Another is that one of the group is only in the business for the money, is greedy, runs away when the heat is up but somehow gives in to his better nature. This movie would have been better off without both.<br /><br />The movie is based upon a TV-Series that was out four years before the movie. Unlike the movie, the TV-Series is a cartoon and not a computer animation. At first I thought the computer would kill the charm and character of the plot but I was quickliy convinced: Whoever did the animation knew his or her stuff! Although the characters are obviously fictional (in stills they don't even look real), they seem as alive and sentient as the audience following their quest. Making characters who by "normal" standards could be considered deformed (those micro-legs could never carry that giant body let alone make it jump) so alive and lovable is more than "just a highlight"! The creation of the world is another masterpiece. Not so much because of its looks but because of the inventiveness of it. The world our heroes travel is not solid like our own but is made of many pieces of land varying in shape and size that seem to be floating in mid air. When a person steps on a smaller fragment of ground, it nods a little bit as if feathering from the weight. In some cases up and down no longer apply but our heroes still manage to get a foothold somewhere. Although the world of floating islands is completely surreal, in this movie it is absolutely believable and after a short time it doesn't seem any weirder than running into a car somewhere in New York.<br /><br />I wrote that the looks of the world aren't as breathtaking as the idea. As true as that might be to my mind, the quality of the world, the characters and the attention to details is staggering. Although the faces of the characters have relatively few attributes, emotions can be read as clearly as in Sean Connery's or Dustin Hoffman's face. The world around the characters is wonderfully colourful and no two settings are alike. The background is always in motion, something is always going on which makes the world seem even more alive. If you stop the movie and look at the background you will be surprised how many details you can find.<br /><br />The existence of Hector actually puts the cherry on top. Hector is a furry little "thing" (possibly the equivalent of a dog in our world) who is totally lovable and extremely funny. Although he isn't really important for the main plot, he would be missed like Scrat would be in Ice Age. The really cool thing about Hector is that you need to speak Gibberish to understand him.<br /><br />If the movie is so great, why didn't I give it 10 stars? Well, the plot in itself was rather thin. Two hunters are sent out to rescue the world from a really bad dragon who wants to swallow the world, isn't really original. That in itself wouldn't be much of a problem. What I missed was the background information. What kind of a dragon was this and why did it look that way? I love mythical stories but if they get too thin then they seem to be written after the movie is finished in a feeble attempt to give the whole thing some depth.<br /><br />Another thing I didn't like was Zoé. Although a little girl like her could be considered adorable, she was somewhat of a pain in this movie. She seemed pretty resistant to all types of learning about reality, kept dreaming of some hero from a story book and basically slowed the others down. She would have been OK if she had developed a little more and a little earlier in the movie - or had been less of a girly to start with. To me the idea of this girl who was there to twist the story a little backfired on the writers.<br /><br />All in all, this is a really good movie for just about all ages.

I have never seen "American Werewolf in London" but this movie was very entertaining. When renting it I thought it was a horror movie but it turned out to be more of a comedy with some horror aspects. I thought the transformation sequences were nicely done but effects wise, the best scenes were those where the effects and the lighting built off each other, nice. The transformations reminded me a lot of werewolf transformations in other movies, but the werewolves themselves are very beastly and not very dog like. Gore: i do believe there is too much in this movie, which really takes away from the horror, when every frame has blood in it, taking the violence seriously is hard. <br /><br />J.Hurst (8th grade)

I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.<br /><br />Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.<br /><br />More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.<br /><br />A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.<br /><br />By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?

Wow probable the worst movie i have ever seen!! This person should never make another movie!!I cant believe anyone would have produce this in good conscience.YOu have have wasted every cent. No concept of real life. I have wasted 2 hours of my life i will never get back. EVER!!! Everyone who worked on this show should be embarrassed!!!!!! I'm embarrassed for them! All of you should be ashamed. If i was gay i would want to tell the director that they have personally set back gay rights progress by 5 years. Please never watch this movie.I have never written a blogg about a film before but The distaste for this film has compelled me to do so.

I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a "Dog Day Afternoon"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the "hero" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, "no way". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.

A confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.<br /><br />Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.<br /><br />Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least.

Cooley High is such a great film that even with the period's sound track, urban landscape, wardrobe and slang...it still doesn't feel dated. The sound track by the way is a timeless classic in itself.<br /><br />Instead it absorbs you right into it. That is a staple of a good movie. From start to finish it doesn't miss a beat and I never grow tired of watching it.<br /><br />It's ending is unique in the respect that it's one of the saddest and at the same time uplifting of all movie endings. There may have been a few since (Backdraft comes to mind) but Cooley was the first and much more emotional.

I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B-

Having just watched this with my mother (Who got it for Christmas) i was thrilled to find something different to the usual stuff i usually watch. All of the stories were detailed and you are able to feel strong emotion towards each character from the very beginning. Every storyline is followed through brilliantly, making you feel completely different things for every single character. The cast is amazing, my personal favourites being James Read and Lesley-Anne Down, as George Hazard and Madeline Fabray/LaMotte/Main. The whole thing is in depth and wonderful, making very compulsive viewing, i recommend it to almost everyone.

I happened upon this film by accident, and really enjoyed. Timothy Busfield's character is without redeeming qualities, and at one point, Busfield and star Meloni ogle women as they pass by...Meloni's take on the parade is different from Busfield's. Janel Maloney is terrific...She looks very much like Tea Leone, but the major difference here is that Janel can actually ACT. Some very nice things in this film and well worth your attention when it's on cable.

The critics didn't like this film. It bombed in the States and as a result received only a limited showing in Britain. Which was a great shame, because it represents British rather than American humour and should have been shown in Britain first.<br /><br />Nicole Kidman looks stunning and is a totally convincing Russian. Ben Chaplin is the Dustin Hoffman character from 'The Graduate', and 'Birthday Girl' has at least 4 scenes which remind the viewer of that 1960s classic (despite being a totally different story!).<br /><br />Sure it changes tack a number of times from comedy to black comedy to thriller to adventure - but it's memorable, moving and a weclome breath of fresh air compared to the average mega-budget blockbuster.<br /><br />See it with an open mind!

WARNING: I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />This movie was on the shelf at a movie store and since I had seen a handful of very corny horror flicks there I had really low expectations for this one. Well, I put it in, and almost immediately I was sucked right in. While watching, I got deeper and deeper into the story and pretty soon I was staring in complete interest. This movie is surprisingly spectacular and I loved every second. The story is about a boat ride down a river in Australia. It seems safe enough until their boat is ambushed by a croc who's ready for some food. When I looked at the back of the case I thought that this movie was going to have crappy visual effects like in Lake Placid 2 and a lot of others, but when I first saw the crocodile it looked amazingly real! Don't laugh when I say this, for I am being serious, but this is one of the most creepiest films I've ever seen. It really knew how to build up nail-biting tension and suspense with it's intense situation, I mean, think about it; Your stuck, in a tree, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide with a hungry predator in the depths of the water below. You can not tell me that doesn't freak you out just a little. It even managed to give me a few chills down my arms, like when Adam was taken by the croc and Grace and Lee are left baffled. This is a very appealing movie. There were maybe 1 or 2 parts where I found myself SLIGHTLY uninterested but other than that, I would say this is my favorite animal attack film that I have seen.

I posted on IMDb on this series recently, giving a snail mail address at the commercial arm of the BBD where one would write to appeal release. I wrote to that address, mentioning Sam Waterson and his popularity prominently. I just received the following reply: <br /><br />From: emilyfussell@hotmail.com Subject: Oppenheimer Date: May 14, 2006 1:44:00 PM MDT To: kk2840@earthlink.net <br /><br />Dear Kate, <br /><br />I work for the BBFC, the British equivalent to the MPAA, and we classify DVDs and videos as well as films in this country. Anyway, I am currently in the process of giving a certificate to the 1980 miniseries 'Oppenheimer.' While researching the work on the IMDb, I noticed your post and thought you might like to know that the work is about to be released (hence the need for a certificate). <br /><br />I don't know which company is distributing it, but keep your eyes peeled! <br /><br />Kind regards, <br /><br />Emily +++++++++++++++++ <br /><br />hooray! <br /><br />I also want to contact Netflix re purchasing this. <br /><br />Kate Killebrew <br /><br />kk2840@earthlink.net I emailed the BBC recently regarding whether their terrific series Oppenheimer had ever been released on video or DVD. I have not been able to find it. I received the following reply. If you do write the BBC, be sure to mention that Sam Waterston is very popular in the US. You can also enter "Oppenheimer (1980)" on amazon.com, and find a box to check to request release by the owner (BBC) and be notified when it's released. <br /><br />Kate Killebrew kk2840@earthlink.net<br /><br />Here's the reply from the BBC:<br /><br />Dear Kate<br /><br />Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Oppenheimer'.<br /><br />I was interested to read that you would like a copy of this programme which you have enjoyed. I have checked the BBC Shop and on-line retailers and can find no record of it being available. We are unaware of plans at present to release this programme on DVD. However, if you would like to make a suggestion, can I suggest you put it in writing to the commercial arm of the BBC:<br /><br />Commissioning Editor BBC Worldwide Ltd Woodlands 80 Wood Lane London W12 0TT<br /><br />May I thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Elaine Hunter BBC Information ______________________________________<br /><br />-----Original Message-----<br /><br />{Comments:} i am trying to find a copy of the terrific BBC production "Oppenheimer', a six part series made in 1980 with Sam Waterston from a book/script by Peter Prince. I watched parts of it then on PBS American Playhouse, but can't find it on video anywhere.<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.<br /><br />What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.<br /><br />Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.<br /><br />The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.<br /><br />Avoid this show at all costs!

This film is about two horse traders who agree to escort a small group of Mormons across the desert. Along the way, they encounter a murderous family of thugs who menace the peaceful folks and put their pilgrimage in jeopardy.<br /><br />WAGON MASTER is what I would term a "little" John Ford film, as it obviously did not have the budget or scope of some of his other Westerns. In particular, this film lacks the big-name stars like John Wayne but allows some of the usual supporting characters to take center stage. Long-time Ford stock character actors Ben Johnson, Harry Carey, Jr. and Ward Bond have been elevated to starring roles and perhaps the one who came of as "the" lead was probably Johnson--though the other two got nearly as much screen time and focus. This is not a bad thing, as the film worked just fine without the big star--and is well worth seeing.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say I loved the movie. It was very good but certainly not perfect. In particular, as far as the music goes, you'll probably either love it or hate it. I found the Sons of the Pioneers' music a bit schmaltzy at times. It did evoke a nice mood, but seemed to occasionally dominate the scenes. I think a little would have worked much better. Plus, with their incessant singing in the background, I kept expecting Roy Rogers to pop out at any moment. Another minor problem is that the plot was amazingly simple and the ending was pretty much a foregone conclusion.<br /><br />However, and I am glad to say there is a 'however', despite this being rather formulaic and sentimental, the film still worked well. This was primarily due to John Ford's nice, as usual, direction as well as Ben Johnson's exceptional performance. He was able to provide an excellent anchor for the film. Another plus for me is that I saw this in the same week as BRIGHAM YOUNG, another film about the Mormon migration. While BRIGHAM YOUNG was a bit silly and overly "saintly" in its portrayals, here the Mormons were less "perfect" and more like real people--with foibles and personalities. Oh, and speaking of BRIGHAM YOUNG, it seems as if Jane Darwell was the 'go to' girl for Mormon-themed films during this era, as she was a major supporting character in both films. Considering that she died in BRIGHAM YOUNG and it was set about 20 years before WAGON MASTER, this is some stunt!<br /><br />Also, if you'd like to catch a glimpse of the famous Jim Thorpe, he's in a tiny role where he plays the impassive Indian dancing next to Jane Darwell around the camp fire.

Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.<br /><br />Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight.

The film as entertainment is very good and Jimmy Stewart is excellent as Chip Hardesty, with well done co-starring turns by Vera Miles and Murray Hamilton. But the film, directed by legendary director Mervyn Leroy, was constantly vetted and script approval as well as every aspect of the film, down to clothing, was closely watched and controlled by J. Edgar Hoover. Not that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have something to be proud of. His management of the bureau from 1924 to his death crated on of the finest investigative services in the world. But by 1959 Hoover was already beginning to worry about being forced out and had already started to collect dossiers on powerful people to make sure and protect his little kingdom. And he was determined to make sure that no motion picture showed even a single wart about the bureau. The films shows only continued successes and glosses over the failures which occurred, and the bureau's part in the witch hunts of the early 1950's. Enjoy the story, but with tongue firmly in cheek.

First of all, this is an art film and a good one at that. I loved the presentation and way it was shot. Very cool. Certain scenes were some of the more graphic horror sequences I've ever seen. This film did scare me, not because of suspense or shock, but because I was deathly afraid that I'd soon see something REALLY appalling. That did happen in a few places, but mostly at the beginning. This film also dragged and the 74 minutes seemed long. However, if you're into film you have to see this. To date, I've seen nothing like it. 8/10

First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses.

Hitokiri (which translates roughly as "assassination"), a/k/a "Tenchu" which translates roughly as "divine punishment") showcases Hideo Gosha at the top of his form. Do NOT miss this one, or Gosha's other classic, Goyokin! Hitokiri is not only one of Gosha's best films, it's one of the best "samurai/chambara" films ever made, and perhaps one of the best Japanese films ever exported.<br /><br />Be warned, all of the intricate plot details in Hitokiri can be a little hard to follow for those unfamiliar with 19th century Japanese history. Even so, the underlying human drama is obvious and open to all viewers. As per the norm for Gosha, Hitokiri provides yet another variation on his traditional theme of "loyalty to one's lord" vs. "doing the right thing". However, Gosha develops his favorite theme with such sophistication, that it's really _the_ movie to see (along with Goyokin, of course).<br /><br />I suppose it breaks down like this: If you want a simpler, more action-oriented tale, you might want to see Goyokin. However, if you want a more thoughtful, multilayered (albeit grim) drama, see this one.<br /><br />(OK, OK, essentially, the historical backdrop is a massive power grap between many different samurai clans who are either (1) working to reform, yet retain, the Tokugawa Shogunate, and (2) those who are trying to install the Emperor Meiji as the supreme ruler of Japan. Of course, those clans working "for" Emperor Meiji were often less interested in "reforming" Japan than in ensuring their own clan more power in the "new world order". Ironically, the entire feudal system was officially abolished as one of the first reforms of the Meiji government. It's ironic twists like this -- Gosha's big on irony -- that make the entire plot all the more bittersweet.)<br /><br />What distinguishes "Hitokiri" from Gosha's other movies is Gosha's mature sense of cinematography. Every shot is thoughtfully composed, and (much like Kubrick's Barry Lyndon) each frame of the movie could hold its own as a still composition. Of course, this is typical Gosha. Hitokiri really stands out with stunning backdrops, including(as with Goyokin) many riveting seascapes. Just watch the opening sequence, and you're hooked! Make no mistake, this is no English period piece: Hitokiri is extremely violent (don't say you weren't warned).<br /><br />What else, other than cool camera work, makes Hitokiri stand out? The performances seem (to me) a bit more subtle in this one. Katsu Shintaro (of Zatoichi/Hanzo the Razor fame) turns in a star performance as the conflicted protagonist/antihero, Okada Izo. Katsu manages to instill humanity to a character that seems almost more wild animal than villain. Throughout the movie, you're never quite sure if you're engaged or revolted by Okada's character. At the same time, Katsu's portrayal of Okada's ravenous hunger for respect, and his later pathetic attempts at redemption, seem so human that you can't help but feel empathy/sympathy. Of course, after seeing Nakadai Tatsuya play the tortured hero in "Goyokin", it's great to see him play such a ruthless villain in "Hitokiri". He's just perfect, there's nothing more to say!<br /><br />As a final note, perhaps more interesting to buffs than to casual fans, don't miss the last screen appearance of Mishima Yukio (yes, the closeted gay right-wing ultranationalist novelist who committed suicide by seppuku before the crowd of jeering Japanese military personnel he "kidnapped" in 1970, and had a movie on his life and work made by Paul Schrader), who actually does a pretty solid job of portraying the honorable (for an assassin) Shinbei Tanaka.

This is a CGI animated film based upon a French 2D animated series. The series ran briefly on Cartoon Network, but its run was so brief that its inclusion as one of the potential Oscar nominees for best animated film for this year left most people I know going "Huh?" This is the story of Lian-Chu, the kind heart muscle, and Gwizdo, the brains of the operation, who along with Hector their fire farting dragon,he's more like a dog. Travel the world offering up their services as dragon hunters but never getting paid. Into their lives comes Zoe, the fairy tale loving niece of a king who is going blind. It seems the world is being devoured by a huge monster and all of the knights the king has sent out have never returned or if the do return they come back as ashes. In desperation the king hires the dragon hunters to stop the world eater. Zoe of course tags along...<br /><br />What can I say other then why is this film hiding under a rock? This is a really good little film that is completely off the radar except as unlikely Oscar contender. Its a beautifully designed, fantastic looking film (The world it takes place has floating lands and crazy creatures) that constantly had me going "Wow" at it. The English Voice cast with Forrest Whitaker as Lian-Chu (one of the best vocal performances I've ever heard) and Rob Paulson as Gwizdo (think Steve Bucsemi) is first rate. Equally great is the script which doesn't talk down to its audience, using some real expressions not normally heard in animated films (not Disney nor Pixar). Its all really well done.<br /><br />Is it perfect? No, some of the bits go on too long, but at the same time its is damn entertaining.<br /><br />If you get the chance see this. Its one of the better animated films from 2008, and is going on my nice surprise list for 2009.

It's hard to believe a movie can be this bad, but you live and learn. What's more amazing is the fact that the people who put this thing together likely had college educations. Meanwhile, the fruit of their labor bares the appearance of something a group of five eighth graders may have come up with. On the bright side, (if there is one) the soundtrack has some nice moments, which is another reason to question how the rest of the film can be so hideously bad.

This is the greatest show ever made next to south park. I love this show! it is so funny, and Peter's laugh is hilarious. You need to watch this show right away for the few people who have never seen this show before. One of my favorite shows of all time.<br /><br />If you can, try to see some of the later episodes such as I dream of Jesus, or Tales of a third grade nothing. But there's never been an episode I didn't like. All of the episodes are absolutely hilarious. It's got a great satire to it as well. You can find a lot of clips on you tube. If you're somewhere near a computer or a TV see it right away however you can.

It's Bad for Ya really showcases more of George Carlin's talents. He really is still as sharp as a tack. It is a shame that we lost him this past year, but his comedy will forever live on. This stand-up special is literally one of the funniest I have ever heard a comedian perform. Even though he is making fun of small children, it just makes you laugh the way he says some of the stuff. It is true that Carlin can literally make something that seems unfunny and turn it into one of the funniest things you have ever and will ever hear. I really enjoyed this stand-up particularly from Carlin and recommend that those that liked this check out more of George Carlin's stand-up.

In my opinion this is the best Oliver Stone flick -- probably more because of Bogosian's influence than anything else. Riviting stuff -- full of dread from the first moment to its dark ending.

In Luchino Visconti's film Death in Venice, it is not only the beauty in the surrounding world that decays, but in the pursuit of beauty itself Gustav von Aschenbach decays into a mere shell of a man. To understand the decay, we must acknowledge the beauty which enchants us, it is best described, and explained in a quote from Socrates found in Thomas Mann's version of Death in Venice, "beauty alone, is lovely and visible at once… it is the sole aspect of the spiritual which we can perceive through our senses… Else what…if the divine, if reason and virtue and truth were to speak to us through the senses? Should we not perish and become consumed by love?" We see in the film this very thing happen, the man becomes enveloped by a longing for beauty, which turns into a longing for the boy, Tadzio. Even though the levelheaded part of his mind tells him that adoration of beauty can lead to sensuousness and abandon, he cannot contain himself. <br /><br />It would be easy to describe this as a beautiful film; early on we see the extravagance of the parlor, and we are treated to a perfect summarization of turn-of-the century upper class life, all captured on film perfectly by cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis. But Visconti does not indulge in the picturesque aspects of Venice. Instead, the glorious and sensuous artistic achievements of the past are based on materialism and sensuous beauty, and these things are relegated to the past. The city we know to be of incomparable beauty and uniqueness is nothing more than a leisure resort with a nosy hotel staff. The streets become exhausting labyrinths filled with disgusting filth and rot, the city decays in step with the protagonist. Only through the flashbacks are we allowed a glimpse of why this famous composer is a frail and innocuous man. The death of his daughter, and presumably his wife, along with the failure of his music allow us to understand why he is destroying himself. <br /><br />Alfred, with whom Aschenbach has in depth conversations on the meaning of beauty and who can create it; but Alfred is more than a friend, he is Aschenbach's alter-ego, and what Alfred says articulates the composer's own doubts and fears. The scene in which Aschenbach decides to leave Venice is immediately followed by a clip of Alfred telling him that he is weak, alienated and lacks feelings. In the end we might be able to conclude that these flashbacks are not reality at all. It is a decay of memory, rather than objective renderings of the past, these flashbacks become distorted memories. We can say that these are decayed memories because even Aschenbach alludes to it, he declares, "reality distracts and degrades us;" and, following the scene in the travel agent's office we see Aschenbach confront Tadzio and his family and warn them - leave Venice, but directly after the encounter we see him sitting with the clerk again and realize it was all in his imagination, he employs long scenes without dialogue that are framed by the poignant music of Gustav Mahler. He allows the viewer's mind to wander as we watch Aschenbach's life and respectability decay with the beauty around him. <br /><br />Slowly the viewer realizes that our hero is overwhelmed by exhaustion that is mixed with a growing awareness that the town is suffocating in filth. The crumbling city sets the stage for the middle aged man's attraction to Tadzio, it is romantic longing for something so idealized and ambiguous that it can never be consumed, even in fantasy. The beauty of this Polish boy kindles a fire in him that, at first, makes him glow, then consumes him. The film concludes with von Aschenbach sitting feebly in a beach chair watching Tadzio fight with his friend, we see the black dye from his hair running down on his cheek and it looks like rotten blood, it is a vision of his life's expiring moments, though before his last breath. The final decay has happened, all around him the city is soiled, and with it he has become what he detests. As Aschenbach dies he has the same painted face as the old man on the ferry at the beginning of the film, a man that had disturbed him. It was the pursuit of beauty that initiated his decay, in the pursuit of artistic beauty he could not sense his own demise, and that of the city around him; his sensuality is indulged in, while constantly kept in check by the presence of death and decay. It is these three themes that tie The Damned and Death in Venice together, beauty, death, and decay, these themes are Visconti's art, the beauty of his work is in the decay of beauty itself. <br /><br />In this film we are treated to the deliquescence of one great man. We see the honored composer Gustav von Aschenbach in the pursuit of true and pure beauty, and it is in the pursuit of this trait that it decays all around him and leads him to a miserable, lonely death watching the target of his affection. I believe that through these movies Visconti is trying to tell us that what is beautiful cannot last. Decay is intrinsic in the world around us, and when we become distracted, it can destroy the splendor. In Death in Venice, it is because of culture and through the pursuit of beauty that all is deleted. Beauty and deliquescence are woven together like thorns in Visconti's works, at once beautiful and destructive, it is these themes that define his art.

Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character.

I don't see how this show is like the OC at all. <br /><br />First of all, the OC centers around teenagers and their parents trying to get through life. North Shore is about a hotel staff who is trying to run the hotel and have a social life at the same time. Second, The OC takes place in California. North Shore takes place in Hawaii.<br /><br />And why would Fox make a show just like one of its other shows on the same network? I think this is a great show with good actors for the most part. It has a good storyline and plot. I like the events that happen and how the people take care of them and work them out. The most recent episode was surprising how the story worked out. It wasn't predictable like most stories on most shows. <br /><br />I hope Fox keeps it on the air.

I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good!

In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgs—robots with human features—that have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.<br /><br />Only one force can stop Jōb's death march—the Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.<br /><br />In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.<br /><br />Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).

More than just a "kids' movie", "Holes" looks at how past incidents still affect us today, whether we know about them or not. When teenager Stanley Yelnats III (Shia LeBoeuf) gets sent to a prison camp where he is forced to dig all day long, he discovers a number of things about the camp, and his personal connection to it. Through flashbacks, we learn that a number of things are closer than we realize (you'll understand this better when you see the movie). LeBoeuf does a pretty good job, as do the other cast members: Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, Tim Blake Nelson, Henry Winkler, Patricia Arquette, and Eartha Kitt. A very interesting movie.

I have no read the novel on which "The Kite Runner" is based. My wife and daughter, who did, thought the movie fell a long way short of the book, and I'm prepared to take their word for it. But, on its own, the movie is good -- not great but good. How accurately does it portray the havoc created by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? How convincingly does it show the intolerant Taliban regime that followed? I'd rate it C+ on the first and B+ on the second. The human story, the Afghan-American who returned to the country to rescue the son of his childhood playmate, is well done but it is on this count particularly that I'm told the book was far more convincing than the movie. The most exciting part of the film, however -- the kite contests in Kabul and, later, a mini-contest in California -- cannot have been equaled by the book. I'd wager money on that.

I just watched this movie, by mistake. What a little gem. This film made in 1956 looks, and feels, like a late Seventies movie. And is in fact better, more restrained and correct than, say, Blue Soldier. The environmental, anthropological undertones are way ahead of its time. The understated cinematography is superb and terribly realistic. Much more than Dances with Wolves, The Last Hunt manages to convey the look and feel of the buffalo "killing fields" of the late 1800s. Probably because those in the movie were real killing fields. The movie was shot during legal forestry directed buffalo culls, so the animals you see are really being shot, the bones are real. In conclusion, a very under-rated western masterpiece, superbly acted, directed and shot.

Mr. "Uwe Fail" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of "point and shoot". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the "point and shoot" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another "Uwe Fail" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website "petition online" and do a check for one named "Stop Uwe Bowl".<br /><br />That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.<br /><br />Don't waste your time.

Storyline drags. Drug smugglers a Beautiful women and a determined cop. Nothing not already done a hundred times before. The boat sceen will be well worth the wait Amsterdam is the perfect city to pull it off. The canals and waterways put you on the edge of your seat. I would say the same as did the car chase in Bullitt, very intense!.

"Shinobi" is one of those movies that thinks the mere act of killing off a character automatically brings a sense of gravitas or emotion to the story. Unfortunately, for the audience to actually care about the people dying, you have to develop the characters, otherwise all you have is a bunch of random acts of violence. The problem is especially compounded when you have TONS of characters, all of whom die.<br /><br />OK, so if you can't be bothered to make the characters memorable or sympathetic in any way, you can at least make the REASONS for why they die plausible, right? Nope. Here we have a war between two ninja clans, with neither side really knowing WHY they are fighting each other. They kill each other because the emperor says so. Yet even well after it becomes glaringly obvious that the emperor wants ALL of them dead, they still refuse to abandon their meaningless missions. That's not stubbornness... that's just plain dumb.<br /><br />Fine, fine! There is no character development, and the plot provides no reasonable rationale for fighting. At least they die fighting in cool action scenes, right? Yet again, NO! In fact, many of the fights aren't even fights at all: super ninjas that the movie spent so much time and effort introducing die suddenly (and lamely, in my opinion). I'm talking about things like, "Lalala, I'm walking along and I- *neck gets slashed*." THE END for that character. Not even halfway through the film, I threw my hands up in frustration at the ludicrousness of it.

Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.<br /><br />Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!<br /><br />This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)<br /><br />3 out of 10.

Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer "Welcome To L.A.", Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. "Roadie" is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, "Roadie" is one bad trip. NO STARS from ****

The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.<br /><br />A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.<br /><br />The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think.

This movie will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.

The subject matter seems pretty dated today. Adapted for TV from Rona Jaffe's book; we trip and stumble through a fantasy existence. Four college students get deeply involved playing a live version of the board game Mazes and Dragons (based on Dungeons and Dragons). One player, a young Tom Hanks, enters the fantasy world too deep. His co-players must come to his rescue and save him from self inflicted harm.<br /><br />David Wallace, Wendy Crewson and Chris Makepeace round out the game's foursome. Support cast is made up of veteran actors like Murray Hamilton, Vera Miles, Anne Francis and Susan Strasberg.<br /><br />At this date, it seems lumbering and tame. But the highlight of watching is seeing Tom Hanks between his "Bosom Buddies" salad days and his big splash in SPLASH on the silver screen. The youngest of viewer will get most enjoyment.

This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.<br /><br />I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.<br /><br />So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.<br /><br />I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.

Now, I know that Sandra Bullock produced this film, but she needs to learn that sometimes you need to make certain sacrifices in order to advance the story...like not trying to make the whole movie about her character!<br /><br />The story is about two high school students (one rich and popular, the other smart and anti-social) who formulate a plan to commit murder and follow it by the number...just to see if they can get away with it. Enter Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin as detectives trying to solve the case. The boys have planted evidence, created alibis, and cleaned up after themselves so well that the cops fall for the whole act. But Sandra has a feeling that all is not as it appears to be.<br /><br />This movie could have been a great little Hitchcock-style thriller, but the movie spends too much time on getting to know Sandra's character rather than focusing on the actual crime itself. You see, something happened in her past that keeps haunting her throughout the film. And we get to know all about it...ALL about it. It just gets rather tedious after a while, especially when you are right in the middle of an intriguing murder investigation and then have to stop that investigation to hear about what happened to her in the past.<br /><br />Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the real winners in this movie. They play their characters convincingly and with just the right amount of malice. If the script had spent more time focusing on these characters, and kept the detectives there to just do their jobs, this could have been an immensely entertaining thriller. With the way it is, most of the thrill is lost. They should have cut out all the stuff with Sandra's character and made that a separate TV movie for the Lifetime channel. But, I digress. It's still an entertaining movie, nonetheless. I do recommend this movie...but wait for the video/DVD.

I found this movie at a XXX store for $1 on VHS. The interesting thing about it is that Camp Video bought up the rights to it and slapped on a 1986 copywrite date in the credits. Anyways, enough of odd facts.<br /><br />This film is absolutely not scary. To even call this horror or a "thriller" is laughable. There were only maybe 5 minutes at most of what you would call horror in this 80+ minute film, and that consisted of the acting, because it was HORRORible! All puns aside, the writing for this film was absolute garbage as well, just as the special effects and makeup was laughable. No wonder this is such an obscure film, probably the director has spent the last 35 years scouring the country for all existing copies of it and burning them in one big pile so no one else could be subjected to it.

"Are You in the House Alone?" belongs to the pre-cable TV days when the networks were eager to offer an alternative to popular TV shows. It is well-made thriller with a talented cast and credible situations. Kathleen Beller plays a High School student who gets a series of threatening letters. Everyone seems to think that it is nothing more than a prank but Beller is really scared. Tony Bill and Blythe Danner play Beller's parents, Ellen Travolta (John's sister) is the High School Principal and Dennis Quaid has one of his earliest roles as a cocky rich kid. It's a competent chiller with a still relevant social message. Beller is lovely - if you are 30 or older, you will remember that she was very popular among youngsters. Blythe Danner, who I usually don't like, gives a truly moving performance. Nice little film.

This is a hard movie to come by in the US, but if you can find it -- and you're interested in the life and music of Percy Aldridge Grainger, you're in for a treat. It's quite historically accurate. Richard Roxborough's Grainger looks astoundingly like Grainger at this period in time. Emily Woof's Karen Holten is quite a bit prettier than the real Karen, but that was an inaccuracy I was happy to discover (!). I think what really struck me though, was how well Roxborough captured Grainger's outrageous personality. Barbara Hershey's Rose was also a treasure. If she looks considerably younger than Rose did at that period, it is more than made up for in how well she captured Rose's obsession with Percy. It's an easy film to recommend. (I should note that when she saw "Passion" my wife had no particular affinity for (or knowledge of) Grainger and his music, but she was totally captivated by the film.

There was such a hype about a game show with Bill Shatner...and especially right in the wake of Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100. So, of course everyone had to tune in to see what all the fuss was about on the new game show. What a disappointment! As Ben Stein so stoically and nasally says, "wooww".<br /><br />The only thing likable about this show was the fact that you knew it would eventually be over. Sitting through a full hour of it was like going to the dentist...you find yourself looking at the clock in what you think are 10 minute intervals, only to find out that only a minute has passed (but seemed like an eternity) since you last glanced at the clock. So, why didn't I just switch the channel? Well, probably for the same reason most other people didn't...out of sheer optimism. I mean, no one really *wants* to think that a show with Bill Shatner could actually be SO BAD.<br /><br />Personally, from the first 15 minutes, I never thought this was the kind of vehicle that would showcase the talents of William Shatner. My chief complaint was that the set was so dark. Watching it left me feeling depressed. You kept on wanting to get ahold of a little excitement, but there was just none to be had. There was not even enough light on the set to get a feel of energy from the audience (who you couldn't even see).<br /><br />Dear Network: People do not watch game shows to cure their insomnia...they watch game shows to be excited and have a good time. Please do us all a favor and lose this in the vault.

This movie is widely admonished as being a copy of the Will Smith feature Hitch. That movie was dull.<br /><br />This movie isn't so much dull as unbearable. Govinda looks way past his prime. He is not at his best doing roles like this. It is similarly unconvincing as his performance in Deewana Mastana.<br /><br />Salman Khan is at his eye-aching "best". And that's in the few scenes where he remembers to put clothes on. It could only have been through nepotism that this eye-sore's scenes could be saved from the trash bin of any movie's cutting floor.<br /><br />Another case of Bollywood embarrassing itself with it's shameless cloning. Another case of the Bollywood audience majority embarrassing themselves by making this a hit.

I saw the episode about living on minimum wage. It went as far as an Oprah Winfrey's appearance for the said episode. It's bad enough people struggle making ends meet week to week. Then having this hypocrite exploiting the problem. I didn't appreciate the constant complaining from him or his significant other, throughout. Queston is how any people have the power to pay their medical bills from the ER? sure he shows that the bill is high, but he paid the remaining balance(from his own pocket) after-wards from his "harrowing" experience. How many poor people have that type of privilege after 30 days to pay off their bills. Instead they are starving and "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Complaining throughout the episode isn't a humbling thing for him. The movie and restaurant scene is appalling. Another privilege he has that poor people don't.

this film really tries to hard. if your going to make a horror film, at least give it a reason to believe in to hook the viewer. <br /><br />you wait and wait through the film expecting for some grand explanation but it doesn't. instead it tries to be too clever ending and not revealing anything. <br /><br />what was the point of the movie ? where it's actually going ? and more importantly what the hell was going on . . . <br /><br />why were they there and how does it tie into anything? just another weak sci-fi horror. i love the fake reviews on IMDb saying how great it is by related press releases to bump the movie (either that or people have low horizons). it's not worth your 2hrs at all.<br /><br />i'm not saying the film is better than the fragile, but at least that gave you reasoning and why things happened and has an end result. this doesn't and it just waffle's on with tons of padding to make everything feel scary. this film is about as low as when a stranger calls. god that was lame too. <br /><br />big tip, if your gonna make a horror, make it believable with reasoning and explain to the viewer what's going on, so they have a hook into your story. because if there's no reasoning or believability then there's no firm hold on anything and it can't be scary. no disrespect to the cast or crew cause they did a good job. it's just the poor writing.

Ed Harris and Cuba Gooding Jr. where cast perfectly in this film. It's a heart-warming story that reaffirms the belief that we can all make a difference if we just care. I think there was a lot of realism with the characters. The screenwriter didn't incorporate racism in the film in a way that most films do, which I thought created a more realistic story line.<br /><br />Writers tend to inject incidents of racism in an attempt to create realism but usually go overboard. <br /><br />There are so many towns like this one where people of different races live harmoniously. Ed Harris should have been nominated for an Academy Award because he was great as a leader and coach, realistic as a father and showed a warm caring side when helping Radio.

Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.<br /><br />Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.<br /><br />Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.<br /><br />The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.<br /><br />The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.

This is real character and story driven drama at a level that shames most of what we see on TV at the mo.<br /><br />I was impressed right from the start. Don't be put off if your not a sci fi nut (like me...) This could be happening on earth, the fact that its in another galaxy just makes the show more interesting. there are no space ships or laser guns (None yet anyway) So far I've seen up to s01 e04 and I'm gripped and wondering whats going to happen next as there are so many possibilities.<br /><br />The cast play there roles with pasion. Eric stoltz is especially strong.<br /><br />This show really stands alone well, it doesn't matter if you watched BSG or not, in fact they are quite different. I've read some negative reviews from sci fi geeks who expected less drama and more aliens and ray guns etc but I would say ignore them.<br /><br />This is a really positive start to a show. Lets hope they don't cann it after 1 or 2 seasons like they normally do with good shows these days.

A terrific, fast-paced screwball-like comic strip/drama/farce set against France's 1939 implosion. Played with wide-eyed, straight-faced intensity by a talented cast and chockablock with action, satire, social commentary and authentic period details, from slick brillantined hairdos and marcelled hairdos to a fleet of Citroen "Tractions," a rollicking soundtrack and brief but credible impersonations of Charles de Gaulle and Marshal Petain. <br /><br />It's simply some of the best entertainment recently shown on screen, devoid of presumption and "message." If movies were trains (and there is a creative recreation of a trip on a steam-driven train that works despite there being no steam locomotive --an expensive prop, no doubt) this would be a TGV.

First time I saw this great movie and Alyssa, my star*, playing Frances Ella Fitz, was so great in this movie! It was just so real and her little dog so cute! I saw it the first time when I was like 11 years old and it was the best movie i had ever seen, and you know what? I still think so! 10/10 ********** = greatest ever!

I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.<br /><br />The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.

I still liked it though. Warren Beatty is only fair as the comic book hero. What saves this movie is the set, the incredible cast and it offshoots a mediocre script. I really expected something more substantial in the terms of action, or plot but I got very little. The main reason to watch this movie is to watch some of the biggest stars in Hollywood at the time in such an unusual film. <br /><br />The one person who did a terrible job and did not even belong in this film was Madonna. She did not belong in this movie and her acting job was pretty bad. The movie at some points just stood still. You expected something more and you got nothing. Al Pacino plays a really bad dude and he does pretty good. He and Beatty do make an excellent good guy and bad guy. <br /><br />It is also interesting to see Dustin Hoffman, and Warren Beatty in a film other than Isthar. I did not see Ishtar but I heard bad things. The thing about this movie is it is good, but it could have been so much better. I liked it as a child because I thought it looked cool, and visually the movie is amazing, the sets are incredible, the writing is only fair, and with such a cast in the movie I would expect a little better anyway. <br /><br />SPOILER<br /><br />I especially thought the finale was not big enough. It was interesting but for such a grand scale film I just thought it could have ended with a little more of a bang. The reason to watch this movie is the atmosphere. The movie only uses the 7 comic book colors making it all that more excellent visually anyway.<br /><br />The costumes and makeup were flawless as well. The facial makeup for the villains was great. Beatty is just not up to such a bigger than life character. Still, this is a good movie that could have been much much more. It is to me better than Batman, the other comic book adaptation that came out close to the same time. Of course that movie was much bigger in terms of gross.

Why on earth is Colin Firth in this pointless film? Has he really been that strapped for cash?<br /><br />The film isn't clear on what it wants to be about, grief?, exotic places?, ghosts?, a vehicle for Mr Darcy? It's a muddled, muddy mess.<br /><br />There seems to be some sort of idea that Italy must be good, in itself, and that Italian has something to offer as a language - but in the end the girls just want to go back to yankland.<br /><br />There are pointless episodes on the beach, in churches, on busy roads - but what it is all about, or why anybody should care simply isn't clear.<br /><br />There was also a yank woman in the film. It wasn't clear what here job was, but she seemed only to be there to make vapid, inappropriate and maudlin comments to the girl. Was it supposed to be about paedophillia??<br /><br />A pretty dreadful mess, all in all. I gave it 2 rather than 1 because it doesn't have the charm of an utterly ghastly film.

So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar<br /><br />(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An<br /><br />imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well<br /><br />spent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,<br /><br />something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she<br /><br />commit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that US<br /><br />moviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production it<br /><br />probably would have reached its audience in a much greater<br /><br />extent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by a<br /><br />shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole hearted<br /><br />impression.

I was talked into seeing this by a girlfriend..John was a good guy, sweet, sensitive and looks great with no shirt on!! I thought it was a love story about both of them but it was mainly about his reactions to her letters. Savannah was a likable character at the start of the movie but once she dumped him I lost respect for her. She said it tore her apart being away from him and it was hard - he was the one a million miles away, he was killing people and the only contact he got was through her letters!!! She didn't have it hard, she had family & money and he had a tour of duty!! I was so frustrated at the ending when he forgave her - he was too much of a sweetheart. I would have waited the 3 years and welcomed him home with open arms.

Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.<br /><br />It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.<br /><br />I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.<br /><br />Even "The Making of..." is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess...

This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her "nice guy" is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.<br /><br />In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.<br /><br />Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.<br /><br />FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten.

Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.<br /><br />The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.<br /><br />I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.<br /><br />Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.<br /><br />My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.<br /><br />All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.<br /><br />The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.<br /><br />If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan.

MacArthur is a great movie with a great story about a great man…General Douglas MacArthur. This is of course, the story of one of America's great military figures, and a figure made familiar to me from the earliest moments of my memory. Though there is a continuity issue (there may be others) e.g. MacArthur's speech portrayed in the film as his 1962 address to the U.S. Military Academy on accepting the Thayer award did not contain the phrase "old soldiers never die; they just fade away." (That was in his speech to Congress upon his dismissal by President Truman) in 1951 for his alleged insubordination (these two did not see eye to eye!) Gregory Peck is im-Peck-able as the general who vowed he would return to the Philippines in World War II. The film moves quickly and easily with the General, his family and his staff from the beginning of the Second World War to the end of his service career. This film would be of much greater significance to one familiar with both WW II and the Korean War. Nevertheless, Peck's portrayal of this great man who fought the twin evils of fascism and communism and who hated war as only a soldier can is a memorable one indeed. "In war there is no substitute for victory."

Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. "Sadomania" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.

A single mother(Diane Keaton) finds herself working several minimum-wage jobs. When she gets fired, she finds that she is unable to support her sons(Michael Seater and Colin Roberts), the latter of whom has asthma. Then she goes to her friend and starts selling drugs. Soon enough, she gets addicted to the drugs that she is selling. Her life comes crashing down, especially when her kids, namely her oldest son, find out the truth and threaten to leave her. Then, she struggles to redeem herself with the help of her kids but can she protect her family from the drug lords who she worked for? <br /><br />Wow! This lifetime movie has some of the best acting I have ever seen! Diane Keaton overacts a lot, and her character comes off as crazy but she was extremely convincing. She is much better suited to drama than to comedy. However, the best performance in the movie comes from Michael Seater, who plays her oldest son. He is perfect as the responsible son who is still young but trying to be the adult in the family. His acting was especially great in the scenes where he confronts his mom about the drugs. Colin Roberts, who plays the younger son, also does a great job.<br /><br />A movie well worth watching, especially because of the acting from Michael Seater and Diane Keaton!

I had no idea that Mr. Izzard was so damn funny, It really boggles the mind that he is not more well known! His command over the crowd and his timing is perfect.The monologue about Star Wars will kill ya too! If only all the stand up performers had his wit...

I just watched it for the second time today and I must say with all my heart it is about damn time they made a movie about us as people not as spiritual beings. Such a waste of human life as this story was maybe some good will come out of it. And Eric is hotter than ever. To often in the movies First Nations people are seen as other than everyday people. We are always portrayed as chiefs or medicine people. Hey we are just like everyone else. And this movie showed just that. We hurt when an injustice is done and we can win in quest for justice. It is really to bad that the big movie companies cant see that. I cant wait till this comes out on DVD. Thanks to those who chose to show this story as it really was.

Whack!!! I got this movie because Elizabeth Hartman was in it. I was disappointed to find out she was in like two short scenes towards the end. Other than that I was basically hitting the fast forward button the entire time. Some teenager goes on a trip to Romania with his Dad and gets bitten by a wolf and turns into a werewolf if there's a full moon. He kills his father and friends. About 30 years past but he doesn't age a bit and enrolls in a high school. There he meets a shy teacher whom he ends up biting and then has kids with her. This movie sucked and I don't recommend it to anyone. Read War and Peace instead. Only Ms. Hartman did a great job. Check out a very young Bob Saget in this one!!

A Compelling Thriller!!, 10 December 2005 Author:littlehammer16787 from United States<br /><br />Just Cause<br /><br />Starring:Sean Connery,Laurence Fishburne, and Blair Underwood.<br /><br />A liberal,though good-hearted Harvard law professor Paul Armstrong is convoked to the Flordia Everglades by unjustly convicted black guy Bobby Earl.Confessing that sadistic,cold-hearted cops vilifyied and beat him to a pulp to get the confession of a gruesome murder of an eleven year old girl. As he digs further and further into the mysterious case he realizes that Bobby Earl is a victim of discrimination.That the black police detective Lt.Tanny Brown of the small community is corrupt and villainously mean. When the infamous,psychotic serial killer Blair Sullivan is introduced.He discovers that he knows the location of the murder weapon that butchered the little girl.When Armstrong finds that there are lucid coincidences of Sullivan's road trip through the small town and the letter he personally wrote. Bobby Earl gets a re-trial.Is unfettered from prison and eludes his horrific punishment. All seems swimmingly well until an unexpected phone call from serial killer Sullivan comes into focus.Armstrong discovers a lurid double killing which happens to be Sullivan's parents.Whom he immensely detests.Sullivan divulges to Armstrong the truth of Joanie Shriver's heinous murder and why he was brought here.It turns out that Bobby Earl is a psychopathic murderer and he really did rape and kill Joanie Shriver.He just merely struck a bargain with fiendish psycho Sullivan. To get loose so he could kill again for revenge.Upon Armstrong's beautiful wife and daughter.Now Sullivan is executed to his death. Armstrong and tough good guy Brown chase the malevolent villain to the Everglades in order to thwart him.When they arrive Armstrong learns that the psychotic sicko Bobby Earl plans to kill his wife and daughter for a former rape trial that inevitably made him endure agonizing pain and castration.But good,virtuous cop Brown emerges and thwarts the brutal baddie.Is stabbed and eaten by ruthless,man-eating alligators.Paul Armstrong,Tanny Brown,his wife,and daughter survive and live happily ever after. A good thriller that works.Delivers both mystery and subterfuge.How reluctant blacks are hazed by racist lawmen.Sentenced to unfair penalties.Even though sometimes the wrongfully convicted innocent, friendly black man may in truth be the vicious baddie. Sean Connery is great as the oblivious,holier than thou hero.Laurence Fishburne is watchably amazing as the mean,arrogant,but good guy cop. Underwood and Harris are over the top and invigorating as the malevolent psychos.Capeshaw is okay.Ruby Dee is great as the tenacious grandmother.The rest of the cast is wonderful as well.

I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.<br /><br />This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.

The film disappointed me for many reasons: first of all the depiction of a future which seemed at first realistic to me was well-built but did only feature a marginal role. Then, the story itself was a weak copy of Lost in Translation. The Middle-Eastern setting, man with family meets new girl overseas, karaoke bar, the camera movements and the imagery - all that was a very bad imitation of the excellent Lost in Translation which had also credibility. This movie tries to be something brilliant and cultural: it is not. I wonder why Tim Robbins even considered doing this film!? The female main actress is awful - did she play the precog in Minority Report? And why do you have to show the vagina in a movie like this? Lost in Translation didn't have to show excessive love scenes. R-Rated just for this? This movie isn't even worth watching it from a videostore!

Jean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.

To watch this film from start to finish without bursting into laughter at some point requires almost an act of faith, as one has to keep saying to oneself, "it's old", "it's a classic", "be kind", not because the movie is so bad, but because at its best it's so good. This is one dated movie. It's also a classic, if a tarnished one. I'm not inclined to laugh at people anyway, on principle, and I get more than a little irritated when others do so. To make fun of The Informer to my mind is a little like giggling at an idiot savant when he dribbles his orange juice all over the tablecloth. Yes, one says to oneself, he is an idiot, and yet when he's on top of his game he is also a true savant. The same is true for The Informer, which is on occasion very dreadful indeed, and yet it boasts splendid photography, some fine acting, a wonderful score and a good, decent simple story. In the end, which I won't give away, politics, religion and psychology come together, in a church, in such a way as to make the scene seem corny and over the top, and yet so is life sometimes. Uneducated people of simple faith behave differently from us (presumably brilliant) modern folks, and the scene isn't so much unbelievable (I buy it, but I know the Irish) as embarrassing. Yet people do behave that way, they do say things like that. Not everyone is hip, and it may not even be desirable for everyone to be hip. Are people today so much superior to those of seventy or eighty years ago? And in what way? I don't think so. We're just different. Now go watch the movie.

In the Hollywood west those trail hands were a rough bunch who when they came to town, partied pretty hardy. After all trail driving was a lonely business back in the day before railroads got to all parts of the USA. <br /><br />The drovers who worked for trail boss Gil Favor as played by Eric Fleming were no different. But Fleming was a man of all business, he had a job to do and hired a top crew to do it. <br /><br />With the long run of Rawhide and the fact that the regulars stayed with it for the most part, we got to know all the drovers at some point. A some point story lines were focused around all of them, though the bulk were with Fleming and Clint Eastwood's character Rowdy Yates, the number 2 guy with the herd.<br /><br />Clint Eastwood's western image was molded by Rawhide, it's a shame that these are not shown more often. Probably because they were done in black and white. Had this been an NBC show, this would have been done in color like Bonanza and be running as often as those shows are. We'd get to see a lot more of a man who became a move legend.<br /><br />Ironically enough it was Eric Fleming who left the show before it closed to do films. He did a few them and was hoping the show would give him a bankable movie name. Sadly he was killed on a movie location doing an action film, drowned in a river. Had he lived he might have become a name like Eastwood's.<br /><br />Clint took over as trail boss in the last season and then the show completed its run. And he of course became the icon he is today and not just in the western genre.<br /><br />Rawhide was a tough western who had some tough guys in it. No frills in this one, these were working cowboys just doing a job and battling the elements and whatever situations they were thrown into every year.<br /><br />They really don't make television series like these any more. What a pity.

Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon starts aboard a plane full of American high school teens who are on their way to play a football game in Japan, unfortunately during a fierce thunder storm their plane crashes in the Himalayas. Unlucky really. With some dead & some alive the survivors have to think about themselves & decide to wait it out until help comes. However just when they think their luck couldn't get any worse they soon discover that a huge, hairy Yeti type Abominable Snowman creature wants to kill & eat them all. Trapped, cold, starving & fighting for survival will help reach the stranded teens in time?<br /><br />Yeah, with a title like Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon it can only mean one thing & that is that someone at the Sci-Fi Channel has made yet another 'Creature Feature' although to give these things a bit of variety the Sci-Fi Channel here in the UK are now dubbing them as a 'Beast Feast'! As if that will make any difference. Directed by Paul Ziller one has to say that Yeti: Curse of the Snow Deamon is a terrible film but a somewhat entertaining one at the same time, sure it's bad but it's sort of fun at times too. The basic premise is alright actually, it's a sort of cross between Alive (1993) with it's plane crash & the survivors having to turn cannibal to survive & the excellent gory killer Bigfoot (another legendary hairy monster) exploitation flick Night of the Demon (1980) which I would defend with my last breath & I have to say it's not exactly a marriage made in heaven but as I said it's fun at times if not exactly gripping or well written. The character's are mostly annoying American teens, there's the expected arguing, there's the macho hero, the strong female & the coward who thinks only of himself so there's no prizes for originality. There are some plot holes too, if a plane load of people crash why only send two rangers on foot to search for them? How are you going to dig a large hole & line it with sharpened sticks in the space of ten minutes? Why did the Yeti not kill that bird at the end? It had killed everyone else up to that point so why not her? The 'there are actually two Yeti's running around' twist isn't used to any effect at all either. At least there's a good pace about the film, it certainly moves along at a fair old pace & I never found myself becoming bored with it. There's some moderately gory action & the film does have some fascination in seeing whether the kids are going to survive or not & if they are going to eat their dead mates or not.<br /><br />The one thing you can always say about these Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' or 'Beast Feasts' is that the CGI computer effects will be laugh out loud hilarious & so that proves to be the case yet again. The plane crash at the start looks awful & the Yeti when it's CGI looks simply embarrassing jumping all over the place like it's on a pogo stick. There one or two nice gore scenes including a ripped off arm, a squashed head, a ripped out heart, some dead bodies, some blood splatter & the best bit when the Yeti rips a guy in half & beats him with his own ripped-off legs before biting a big chunk out of them. According to the IMDb the actor playing the Yeti took three & a half hours to get into the suit & the make-up which seems like a long time since it's actually a pretty tatty looking creation. Apparently the original title was Raksha: Curse of the Snow Demon with Raksha meaning demon in Tibetan Sanskrit, so now you know.<br /><br />This has reasonable production values considering the usual Sci-Fi Channel stuff they churn out although the mountain location looks nothing like the harsh, bleak Himalayas & was probably situated near some ski resort somewhere & during a lot of the daytime scenes it actually looks pleasantly warm. The acting isn't that good & I didn't think any of the girls looked that good either which didn't help.<br /><br />Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon is another terrible Sc-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' if I am honest that any sane person will not like but if your looking for a bit of horror themed fun then this isn't too bad & there are one or two entertaining moments that make it somewhat watchable even if it's not very good.