Datasets:

KMaly

/

ait526_sentiment

like 0

David Suchet is Agatha Christie's mustached detective Hercule Poirot in "After the Funeral," produced in 2005. Anyone who has heard David Suchet speak with his own British accent knows what a shock it is, because his accent as Poirot is so perfect and organic to the character. Suchet is the Poirot of Agatha Christie's books, and although I confess a love for Peter Ustinov in the role, his portrayal doesn't have that much to do with what Christie wrote.<br /><br />In this episode, Poirot is asked by a solicitor friend to investigate the possible murder of one of his clients. Enroute on the train, the solicitor recounts the events after the death - a strange will disinheriting the expected heir and the pronouncement of the man's sister that he was murdered. When Poirot meets the family, he discovers adultery, lots of secrets, another will and murder.<br /><br />The story is excellent with rich production values and a wonderful, detailed depiction of the time period. All of the acting is superb, particularly from Monica Dolan, who plays Miss Gilchrist. Poirot here is without Hastings, his beautiful office, or Miss Lemon but he's effective nonetheless.<br /><br />I had the privilege of seeing David Suchet on Broadway in "Amadeus." Breathtaking. What an actor - when he's playing Poirot, all I see IS Poirot.

I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.<br /><br />In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.<br /><br />Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.<br /><br />The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype.

In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.<br /><br />To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.<br /><br />So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.<br /><br />After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.<br /><br />I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?

Hmmm, yeah this episode is extremely underrated.<br /><br />Even though there is a LOT of bad writing and acting at parts. I think the good over wins the bad. <br /><br />I love the origami parts and the big 'twist' at the end. I absolutely love that scene when Michelle confronts Tony. It's actually one of my favorite scenes of Season 1. <br /><br />For some reason, people have always hated the Reincarnation episodes, yet I have always liked them. They're not the best, in terms of writing. but the theme really does interest me,<br /><br />I'm gonna give it a THREE star, but if the writing were a little more consistent i'd give it FOUR.

I worked on this atrocity ten years ago. Luckily for me, no one knows it because I didn't make the final cut. And when I saw the movie in the theaters, I was glad! My agents were driven nuts by the (apparently first-time) filmmakers, rewriting the script daily and changing their arrangements with the agencies just as often. They later told me that, once back in California (we shot in Atlanta), these "professionals" had 4 1/2 hours worth of footage! Even edited down to 90 minutes, it's at least twice as long as it needs to be. I found Hulk Hogan surprisingly charming, but otherwise -- what a waste of film!

I love this movie!! Sure I love it because of Madonna but who cares - it's damn funny!!! *ALANiS Rocks*. When I first saw this film in the theatres back in 1987, I thought it was all out hilarious! Madonna is so funny and I love her dubbed accent and wacky/funky look. The all-time funniest part is when Madonna(Nikki) screams at a man who is about to get into a taxi. And also when Griffin Dunne(Louden)trips and falls at the apartment interview scene. **ALANiS Rocks**. Madonna's character Nikki steals/shop lifts and fools people throughout the whole movie - her hilarious antics are enough to keep you on the floor the whole time. "Didn't rob nothin', when you rob a store you stick up the cashier. We busted a few tapes, there's a bit of a difference" I love that!!! It's classic. ***ALANiS Rocks***. I don't know why this movie got slammed the way it did. I see nothing wrong with it - course maybe if you're a huge Madonna fan then whatever she does is just awesome. Anyone out there who wants to see some funny, classic entertainment then watch "Who's That Girl?" And another very important fact that of which should be known to all man kind or at least to all that exist, ALANiS will always "rock ya" completely to the end! So does Madonna in this film, and just entirely! Her acting is superb!

I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.<br /><br />The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.<br /><br />Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.<br /><br />Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies.

First the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!<br /><br />It put me in mind of "Magnolia". And then I thought "Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than "Magnolia".<br /><br />I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic. <br /><br />Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the "elegaic" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the "emotional" parts are simplistic.<br /><br />The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.<br /><br />I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.

Diane Lane is beautiful and sexy, and Tuscany is gorgeous but this film is no better than mediocre and that's being generous. The story line is grafted onto a travelogue and remains thoroughly uninvolving.<br /><br />Set in (let's say) a suburb of Newark, the plot would be deemed ridiculous. All that saves the movie are the Tuscan countryside and occasional scenes set in Florence and Positano, and a film of the while-the-sun-sinks-slowly-in-the-west variety would have served better to show what it certainly one of the loveliest locales in all the world.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:<br /><br />Not good. The movie differed completely from the book(Not that the book was exactly a classic but it really was very good.)<br /><br />I guess Demi Moore was OK. Actually, I don't really remember to much about her performance one way or the other. However the big disappointment wasn't with Ms. Moore.<br /><br />WHY did whoever did the rewrite decide to suddenly make the millionaire have a heart? (I'm referring to him as "the millionaire" because he also had a different name in the movie then the book version-just another change.)<br /><br />People who didn't read the book obviously won't know anything's different but in the BOOK version this guy is much more ruthless as well as complex overall. He is also fascinating. The fact that such a big change was made in the movie alters the whole plot. It was almost like seeing a completely different movie.<br /><br />I know MANY movies vary widely from the books. But I also thought Redford's character was a bit of a wimp. This ISN'T Redford's fault(He's a great actor and could have played ruthless well) but without those qualities he becomes just another dazzled man in love hence the story becomes just another cliché love story involving 1 woman and 2 men. That wasn't really the point of the book.<br /><br />This could have been a lot better. Even if I hadn't read the book version I wouldn't have liked this all that much, but changing so much around definitely takes it, for me, a few points down.

Two teenagers in the north-east of England are desperate to raise money and buy season tickets for their favourite football team. They go through a series of "comic misadventures" but come up smiling in the end.<br /><br />The trailer for this film sells it as a comedy and includes most of its light-hearted moments. However, the tone is increasingly grim and the end result is a depressing story peopled with familiar stereotypes. The two "heroes" have no problems with lying, cheating and stealing. Their adversaries are a callous teacher, a pantomime villain of a father, a psychotic skinhead and a well-meaning but incompetent social worker. The other female characters are a drug addicted teenager, a pregnant schoolgirl and a battered wife who seems to be smoking herself to death. There are no likable characters, and the audience can only feel either pity or contempt. Local actors Tim Healy and Kevin Whateley both play against type as baddies, but the writing and direction of their characters are so one-dimensional that they have no more than novelty value.<br /><br />Chris Beattie and Greg McLane give good performances in the two young leads. However, they are miscast, because they have the wrong accent. To anyone from the north east, it is obvious that they both come from the Sunderland/Durham area, and yet we are expected to believe they are natives of Newcastle. As a Geordie myself I can assure you that the accents are by no means the same. Take the phrase "Let the poor lad speak". We say "Let the pooa lad speek" while they say "piwer lad spiyk", with two distinctly different vowel sounds. This discrepancy creates a ridiculous double irony in a scene in Sunderland football ground, where the two lads are trying to disguise the Newcastle accents they don't have, and *pretend* that they come from Sunderland - which they clearly do. In a gentle comedy this kind of criticism might be seen as nit-picking. However, the film's bleak tone makes it clear that writer/director Mark Herman is aiming for gritty realism: that means "near enough" is actually way off.<br /><br />I had hoped for humour and optimism from this film, and instead found tired old clichés. Tyneside is not a grey wasteland populated solely by losers, and in telling us it is, Herman should have known he would cause offence. It's interesting to compare the film with the same director's "Little Voice" - also largely downbeat and populated by one-dimensional characters, "Little Voice" at least has a talented heroine and doesn't wallow in misery to the same extent. I've heard "Belter" ranked alongside this year's "Billy Elliot", but that film is a vastly more enjoyable and life-affirming experience.<br /><br />Incidentally, I may be just too old, but having lived on Tyneside for 42 years, I have never heard anyone outside this film use the expression "Purely Belter".

It's frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not "as good" as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this "something," which the director probably calls "adaptation."<br /><br />All the beautiful philosophy that asks "is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?" is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. François Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.

I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say "Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-(

After watching this thing, then reading the summary on the back of the DVD, then thinking back to actual movie....I became a bit dizzy. I thought, maybe I fell asleep and dreamed I was a down syndrome baby waltzing through a never ending forest where people drive 11 miles an hour and stop for no purpose other then occasional tasteless lesbianism. Where (zombies?) come out of nowhere and (vampires?) who (seduce?) pure hearted citizens on their way to save the world. Neither zombie nor vampire notably encounter each other. The only fighting i remember was getting that walrus Bonny Giroux's panties off. Coo Coo ca FAT! All of them! Maybe that was because we were watching it widescreen stretched and were too lazy to change it to its native resolution, but that actually made it more entertaining... In conclusion my trailing thought thesis had more continuity, plot, character development, antagonism, subject matter, and acting then the entirety of this film. It made Bloodrayne look like Citizen F***ING KANE

Paul Greengrass definitely saved the best Bourne for last! I've heard a lot of people complain about they way he filmed this movie, and some have even compared the camera style to the Blair Witch Project. All I have to say to that is...are you kidding me? Come on it was not that bad at all. I think it helps the action scenes to feel more realistic, which I would prefer over highly stylized stunt choreography. As for the rest of the movie I really didn't even notice it.<br /><br />You can tell that Damon has really gotten comfortable with the role of Jason Bourne. Sometimes that can be a bad thing, but in this case its a really good thing. He really becomes Jason Bourne in this installment. Damon also has a great supporting cast in Joan Allen, Ezra Kramer, and Julia Stiles. David Strathairn was a great addition to the cast, as he added more depth to the secret CIA organization.<br /><br />Even though the movie is filled with great car chases and nonstop action, they managed to stick a fair amount of character development in their with all of that going on. This film stands far above the other two Bourne movies, and is definitely one of the best movies of the 2007 summer season!

Some time ago I saw this when HBO was showing it and from what I saw of it, it seemed like a good movie. so I'm in Blockbuster today and I see it there with the DVD'S and I decide what the hell. So I rent it. After I finished watching it I was in shock of how good it was.<br /><br />This movie just touched my heart. Everything in it was so amazing. The stories, the actors, the dark humor, the MUSIC!!! Oh don't get me started on the music in this film. PT Andderson is one of the greats. Definitely the best thing to come out since Quentin Tarantino(a god.)<br /><br />After I finished the first viewing I watched it again with Anderson's commentary (I was suprised on how such a cool guy he is.)<br /><br />Anybody who is interested in movies at all should watch this movie, if they haven't already. Anderson is obviously a film lover. In the movie he rips off so many other directors tecniques. Such as the pool scene with the camera following the girl through the water. Obviously ripped off from "I Am Cuba." But I have no beef what so ever with that. The film is very respectable with it's ripoff's.<br /><br />I recomend this film to anybody who can deal with some of the content of the film(porn.)<br /><br />10/10

I thoroughly enjoyed this film when it was first released, and on each occasion I've seen it since. The political drama is effective, if not especially new or inspired. The decades since the release of the film have demonstrated that the willingness to cut costs at the expense of public safety is definitely not just something imagined by a screenwriter.<br /><br />However, I think the most impressive element of this film is Jack Lemmon's performance. It is absolutely astonishing to watch him at work. He has the gift to be able to communicate so much, at times without saying a word. Next time you watch this film, check out Jack's face at the times he is not saying anything. He does not need to speak (or worse yet, to mug) to let you know what's going through his mind.<br /><br />I am calling this a spoiler, because of the impression it made on me when I first saw the film: in Lemmon's last scene in the film, as he is lying on the floor, he feels a slight vibration. The terror in his eyes is one of the most frightening images I have seen in any film. It is perfect acting, because it conveys instantly the threat about to occur--if Jack's character is so terrified, there is certainly something awful about to happen. And it does.

i am finally seeing the El Padrino movie, from what I can see it is an incredible film, and lots of action Damian Chapa is good director, But I must admit I love his acting the Best.<br /><br />Also I saw the behind the scenes it was edited by some lady named kinga, she needs to go back to school and learn how to edit.<br /><br />However the film El Padrino is a pure 10 action epic. Why cant most people who direct put together films that keep you wondering what the plot is? I am so happy to see someone I know to be a real great actor become a great director also.<br /><br />I am one of those people who love to see artists make it.<br /><br />B.S.

GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).<br /><br />The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?<br /><br />I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, "I want to do something from a woman's point of view". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.<br /><br />To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: "Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 1/10

I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).<br /><br />Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)!

The Best Years of Our Life is often compared to It's a Wonderful Life. They never should be. Their only commonality is the desire to make a serious comment about a war that took millions of lives. It is hard to know what value individual life may have. (How many people know that 1 in 22 people lost their lives violently in the last century? What a statistic we have to live with.) Also our feelings about war have changed in 60 years. We have progressively moved from thinking that war is just if the enemy is the right one to believing that no war is totally just, especially the ones that have been fought recently.<br /><br />I have been a life long pacifist. I oppose all war. Not long ago I had that position tested. It occurred while I was on the USS Lexington, which is permanently anchored in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ship required a crew that is 3 or 4times the community in which I live. It is a powerful experience, moving around on her decks. She had seen a great deal of action. Someone granted me the right to be a pacifist and it was not cheaply bought.<br /><br />I cannot watch The Best Years of Our Life without thinking about things like the Lexington.<br /><br />Each of the three veterans paid their dues. And they paid mine as well.<br /><br />No one of them got off any easier than any other. The Navy, Air Force and Army paid equally although in different ways. Each had problems directly related to the war. And each had to work terribly hard to overcome those difficulties. It took more courage to face their civilian surroundings than it did to deal with war, because each had to do it on his own. Each could understand and sympathize with the problem of the others: ultimately no one could help.<br /><br />The moving part of the film (this could be the beginning part of the spoiler) is what follows when one of the male leads found someone who knew enough to give advice. The obvious case is when Derry told Herald to marry the girl. Don't hesitate, do it tomorrow. It is hard for Harold to believe that anyone could love him when he had been a football hero and athletic star before the war. But to his credit, Harold listens.<br /><br />The other is when Al tells Derry to stay away from his daughter. The meaning was clear. Mend your relationship with your wife – standard fair for 30's/40's films. Derry did not debate the point: he felt he was not fit for Al's daughter. So he agreed. The truth of the film comes out when we consider the daughter feels the same way about Derry. Real emotions from real people. I think our era has deep problems with feelings and sentiment and honor. I sometimes think we believe these values do not exist. That's perhaps why people looking at this film have problems.<br /><br />Al is not free of advice he does not totally want. Any time his boss talks to him, Al gets tied in knots. And rightly so. There are some things that cannot be judged by the standards of occupation: they must be judged by huge general intangibles and only someone tested by the severities of life would understand what those intangibles are.<br /><br />All of this leads up to a scene near the end where all the planes that fought so valiantly are stripped, stacked, stored, discarded and soon to be recycled: their function, worth and pride as translucent as Derry himself. He can overcome that translucency which he does, making him fit, in his mind, for the woman he loves.<br /><br />I gave The Best Years of Our Lives a 10 and there are few films I feel that way about. This is not a film for popcorn. It deserves our attention. We are very privileged to eves drop on something so private as the lives of these wonderful people. We ought to be careful that we don't abuse that privilege.

There is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones. <br /><br />The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind. <br /><br />Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.<br /><br />Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend it.

Went to see this finnish film and I've got to say that it is one of the better films I've seen this year. The intrigue is made up of 5-6 different stories, all taking place the very same day in a small finnish town. The stories come together very nicely in the end, reminding, perhaps, a bit of the way Tarantino's movies are made. Most of the actors performed very well, which most certainly is needed in realistic dramas of this type. I especially enjoyed the acting by Sanna Hietala, the lead actress, and Juha Kukkonen. I noticed btw that IMDB has got the wrong information about Sanna. Her name, as you might have noticed in my review ;), is NOT Heikkilä, but Hietala.

After watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).<br /><br />Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible.

The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!<br /><br />1/10

I'm a sucker for mob/gangland movies, so I rented this movie. This movie is a complete train wreck. With all the big name actors in this film, I can not believe how bad it was. It was so bad, that I began laughing hysterically towards the end of the film. The actor better known as Zues or the big dude from the Ice Cube movie "Friday" does an incredible overacting job throughout the film. First thing I told Blockbuster when I returned the film was to remove this garbage from their shelves. Do not rent this movie, unless you want to waste two hours of your life. If they come out with a sequel, I wonder if it will be twice as bad as the first. I will be more cautious when renting so called 'mob/gangland' movies.

Written by science fiction veterans Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. This space fantasy is aptly directed by Robert Parrish. Experienced American astronaut Colonel Glenn Ross(Roy Thinnes)agrees to a manned flight to the far side of the sun. The mission is to be controlled by Jason Webb(Patrick Wymark)and his Euro Sec Space Agency scientist John Kane(Ian Hendry)will accompany Ross. The two will explore a newly discovered planet that is in the same identical orbit as Earth...except it is always hidden on the other side of the sun. Ross is the only one to make it back to earth and has a very incredible story to tell. Special effects may be better than the story line. Nonetheless fun to watch. The cast also includes: Lynn Loring, Loni von Friedl, George Sewell and Herbert Lom.

heres a fun fact, I was the baby in the movie, the one in the crib. :) I am 19 years old now. my parents took me to try out for the part, we lived in Texas at the time.I think I only made like 80 bucks for it, but i wasn't in it very long. My parents said i would cry when i was supposed to be happy and would be happy when i was supposed to cry. I was all mixed up. Strange and funny fact i suppose.. and no I am not a child actress. I am livin' in San Antonio, workin' at a walgreens. I graduated here in Texas but I lived in Maryland most my life. This Movie is a great movie, though, good concept. I have seen it several times in my short 19 years.

This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.

Just saw the movie, it's actually pretty good. The trailers'd left me an impression of either yet another Dujardin one-man-show-turned-film (à la _Brice de Nice_) or an expensive, stupid French comedy. Surprisingly, it's neither. Secret agent OSS 117 is stupid, but at least he sort of knows it, whereas I've always found that James Bond was stupid but acted like a smart arse. Dialogue is witty with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humour that one would expect from a British rather than a French movie. The women and the music are beautiful. A refreshing trip into the past, when the bad guys were ex-Nazis or Soviet brutes, cars were shiny, and France had colonies!

What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations

This movie is BRILLIANT.<br /><br />I don't remember this movie even BEING in theaters, so thinking it was a "straight to DVD" I have fairly low expectations, even though I am a big fan of Mike Judge. It has some of the same kind of comic future satire as "Brazil" and "Demolition Man", but taken to the next level.<br /><br />Then I saw the cast; Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph and Dax Shepard, who were all brilliant in their roles.<br /><br />Needless to say, this movie won me over in the first 5 minutes, where it shows above-average people having fewer children and the poorest, stupidest, trashiest people having lots of ignorant children, and how this is leading to a kind of reverse evolution. It takes that concept, and then shows where we are headed with this pollution of the gene pool.<br /><br />Sadly, I don't think it will take the 500 years as depicted, but probably only about 50. I already see the shocking rise of "mild retardation" in the general populace, media and culture. People who like classical music and art are ridiculed instead of respected. The lowest common denominator seems to rule, especially in Hollywood and on TV (eg, "Jackass the Movie" and any reality show where they make you eat something disgusting or humiliate yourself for money).<br /><br />All of the political/social satire aside, this movie is also just LAUGH OUT LOUD funny! And I don't say that lightly; few movies make me actually "LOL", but this one did.<br /><br />A lot of the best jokes are word/sight gags in the background, so you really have to pay attention to get some of them. I even had to pause and zoom in for a few of them (like when Joe got his government ID and for "hair" it said "yes" and for "eyes" it also said "yes"). Also, the prison has engraved on the front "House for Particular Individuals", since the cops in the movie (much like real life cops) call everyone "individuals" instead of people, etc. Again, this was on the screen for just a moment...this is one of those movies you can watch again and again and dissect it to get through the layers of funny.<br /><br />Also, I normally watch movies with the subtitles on, and that clued me in to some jokes that might pass by your ears in the dialog mix, for instance, the police constantly talk about people "excaping" instead of "escaping", and there are many other mis-pronunciations that just cracked me up. But again, I might not have picked up on them just by the dialog mixed with music/sound effects; it is very subtle but still hilarious.<br /><br />Additionally, the special effects were REALLY GOOD for a sci-fi/social satire.<br /><br />I could go on and on, but overall, I think this is one of those movies that if you DON'T think it's funny, it's probably making fun of YOU! I plan on recommending this to many, many people!

This tale set in Wellington, New Zealand suburbia (Tawa -home of the renowned Tawa College) is McCarten's first feature.<br /><br />With a contemporary New Zealand flavour Via Satellite abounds with absolutely hilarious situations which develop in the (adult) family context. At the same time it manages to invoke intense emotions of sadness and despair.<br /><br />One of the most moving and humourous movies of the year - not to be missed!

I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE!

I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.<br /><br />First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing. <br /><br />If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.

Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?<br /><br />I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.<br /><br />Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.

With all the potential for a good movie in its gorgeous settings, cast, and cinematography, this film's lacklustre script, leaden pace, and wooden performances produced only a major disappointment. With decent direction, editing, and musical score, this could have been a good movie, perhaps a dark version of Blake Edward's '10', instead of a weepy version of Ron Howard's 'Splash'.

WARNING: SPOILERS Dear Roger,<br /><br />During your distinguished career, you've made a wide range of entertainment, some good, some notsogood. "Night of the Blood Beast" falls in the latter category. It's not as unredeemingly awful as say, "The Phantom From 10,000 Leagues" or, maybe, "The Dunwich Horror." Nonetheless, one of my greatest criticisms of this movie is that I could have made it for you faster, better and cheaper.<br /><br />Let's start with the foreward and titles. Roger, the rocket sequences look like something from Disney's "Man Into Space," not as good, of course. The futuristic rocketship looks like nothing in contemporary 1958. Why didn't you just use a Vanguard, Atlas, or even a Viking launch? Better still, why not dispense entirely with the launch and start with a shot of space and the capsule floating in it? That's what I would have done for you, Roger. Second, why have the spaceship crash upon reentry? Even a middle school physics student could have told you, your astronaut would have arrived on earth extra crispy and largely deboned. I would have shown your astronaut becoming "possessed" by the monster (maybe by using that great "negative/positive" stuff you used in "War of the Satellites"), losing contact with earth and landing in the wilderness. That would also explain how you "blood beast" could impregnate your astronaut during the tremendous heat of reentry, but still be destroyed by fire. Even with these stupidities. The first half of your movie is pretty good. Had you spent some money on decent music, it would have been as good as a mediocre episode of "Outer Limits." But, once again, your writer describes Ed Nelson as the designer of the landing system, then gives him some stupid dialogue regarding magnetism. The biggest problem with the second half of "Night of the Blood Beast" is Michael Emmet. He's terrible as the doomed astronaut. You should have fired him on the spot and replaced him with Ed Nelson. You could have combined Nelson's responsibilities with those of John Dunlap and saved yourself the cost of one actor. I don't know if you actually PAID any of these people; but, at least you would saved the cost of catering three meals a day. I'd had also ditched the "scorched parrot" costume and spent the extra money using makeup to have the astronaut turn into the "blood beast". Maybe that was a little too close to "The Creeping Unknown" for you, but it would have helped the pace of the second half immensely. if you are going to have a "blood beast," wouldn't it be a good idea to show a little blood? Yeah, I know the title comes from the embryos in the astronaut's blood, but Kowalski could've done a LOT better job for you if he poured a little chocolate syrup around. After all, it LOOKS like blood in black and white. What've that cost you, maybe two bucks? I'd have also used some closeups. For some reason insipid dialogue and bad acting don't seem quite so bad in closeups. Look at almost 70s TV series and you'll see what I mean. Oh, in closing, Roger, a note to your writer. You can't use a fluoroscope to show some poor schmuck full of alien embryos when you DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTRICITY. Remember, you fried the generator in the first reel? Oh,and I almost forgot. Roger, couldn't you afford a fake knife? You know, the kind where the blade goes into the handle. I had one of those when I was 9, which also happens to be the year "Night of the Blood Beast" was made.It cost, maybe, another two bucks. I think I knew enough then to make you a better movie. I KNOW I know enough now to do so. So, Roger, if you decide to remake "Night of the Blood Beast," or if you are looking for a writer/director to work with you on SOME OTHER PROJECT, I'm your man. I'll work cheap, 'cause I'd really like to make a movie for you, Roger.<br /><br />I give "Night of the Blood Beast" a "3". SPECIAL NOTE: If you like to watch kitschy movies like "Night of the Blood Beast," the DVD I bought for $3.99 was very good quality. You can also get "Night of the Blood Beast" along with a lot of other terrible horror/scifi movies at places like Bestbuy for about $6.

I am a big MD fan. But, I call it like I see it. This film limped along. The plot was preposterous. Gaining access to heads of state in this movie is easier than gaining access to the the local grocery store. Come on! Tone Loc has the emotion of a wooden plank. Loosen up! The editing is choppy. The actors, and I use the term loosely, sound as if they are reading their lines on valium.<br /><br />This movie could have been better. Dudikoff has potential, but he chooses scripts that just scream,"Stinker".<br /><br />If you want to watch a good Dudikoff movie, may I suggest Crash Dive or Avenging Force. If you have never seen one of his films, this is not the one to introduce you to his work. You will walk away with a bad taste in your mouth and think all of his projects are this bad.

A surprisingly good documentary. My surprise was mainly due to the fact that I was confused by the title. I assumed this was about the influence of the drug culture on film making but no it is a much more far reaching and intelligent film than could have been expected. Demme has done a great job in encapsulating the period from the late 60s to the late 70s. From, 'Easy Rider' and the collapse of studio influence, through all those introspective 'real life' movies, where brilliant young directors tried to express themselves politically, sexually and artistically, through to the beginnings of the blockbuster and the return of the reigns to the money men and their studios. As someone who saw the 'real life' movies of Britain and the rest of Europe through the sixties and then the revolutionary US films of the 70s and is sad that the sequel to the sequel is so much the order of the day, this was a most fascinating film. The interview clips are measured (thanks to DVD the full interviews are available as extras!) and the film clips well considered. Also, as someone who has only just caught up with, 'Joe', I am impressed that this important little film gets its well deserved entry here.

Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.<br /><br />It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well – the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.<br /><br />You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there – a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre – the female star singing and dancing among a line of women – but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.<br /><br />Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film – in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.<br /><br />As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart – one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.<br /><br />Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed – or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.<br /><br />With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore.

Alain Chabat claims this movie as his original idea but the theme of reluctant lovers who finally get it together is as old, if not older, than Shakespeare.<br /><br />Chabat is a "vieux garcon", happily single and not wanting any member of the opposite sex to disturb his life. He has a problem, 5 sisters and a matriarchal mum - the G7 - who decide he should be married. Enter the delightful, charming Charlotte Gainsbourg and what should be a simple plan. Charlotte has to pose as Chabat's girlfriend and then simply not turn up on the day of the wedding. No more talk of marriage from the G7. Of course the best laid plans have a habit of spiralling out of control.<br /><br />There are very strong supporting roles from Lafont as the mother and Osterman as the tight-fisted brother of Gainsbourg.<br /><br />There are some fantastic scenes as first Charlotte has to charm, then revolt the family. French farce with an English.

"Graduation Day" was released in May 1981, during the height of the slasher film craze. Earlier that year, fans had been subjected to flicks like "My Bloody Valentine", "Just Before Dawn", "Friday the 13th Part 2", and "The Burning" and theaters still were expecting flicks such as "Halloween II", "The Prowler", and "Happy Birthday to Me". I have seen all of these films, and out of all the popular 1981 slashers "Graduation Day" is by far the worst.<br /><br />What "Graduation Day" amounts to is an exercise in poor, low-budget film-making with bad acting, bad writing, pointless characters, pointless scenes, unneeded nudity, cheesy dialogue, and an experiment in editing that didn't work so well. And who could forget the classic 80's disco music that plays throughout the film (the opening scene's music is only rivaled by the music that plays during a chase scene). However when renting a movie like this a person should be aware that those details will be in this film. So why isn't "Graduation Day" considered a classic like "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "A Nightmare on Elm Street", "My Bloody Valentine", "The Burning", or "Prom Night"? Why do fans still seek those films but disregard this without care?<br /><br />Where slasher films need to succeed above all other areas is in the pacing. There is nothing worse than a slow moving slasher, and "Graduation Day" moves pretty slow. The most aggravating part is that there are plenty of opportunities to speed things up; there are numerous pointless characters who are introduced and who are never allowed the chance to be a suspect in the murders or be a victim. There's a sleazy teacher, a stressed principal, a cunning secretary, a dopey school security guard, a clueless detective, an alcoholic step father, a mindless grandmother, and a mom to an earlier victim still grieving. All of these characters could have a motive to killing or a reason to getting killed, but they are all wasted. The worst part is that the story still focuses on them, and at times designates entire scenes just to flesh out their character. But for what?<br /><br />What does amaze me about "Graduation Day" and its small fanbase is that people aren't more amazed by the death scenes. Fans go wild for death scenes like the raft massacre in "The Burning", the washing-machine death in "My Bloody Valentine", the kabob death in "Happy Birthday to Me", the upside down death in "Friday the 13th Part 3", and hot tub death in "Halloween II", and even the car hood death in "Madman". But where is the respect for some truly unique (even though cheesy) deaths in "Graduation Day". One victim gets impaled right through the jugular with a fencing sword, while another gets that sword thrown at them like a javelin. The best death includes spikes under a landing mat. Why aren't these deaths famous among the genre like the deaths in more popular slasher films?<br /><br />"Graduation Day" tries hard to be a great and unique film, but there is just an element of logic and pacing missing that really ruins the whole experience. Its not the worst of its kind (try checking out "Don't Go in the Woods... Alone") and there is a bit of suspense, plus it delivers just what fans are looking for (blood, gore, nudity, sex, and nostalgia) but "Graduation Day" will not be remembered as one of the all time greatest slasher films ever made. It's not a question of budget - almost all slashers have a low-budget - however it is a question of ideas, creativity, and craftsmanship. That's all any type of movie making is...<br /><br />Recommended for hardcore slasher fans. General horror fans might get a little bored, and people who don't have much interest in horror at all should steer clear. It's not the worst slasher film ever made, but its a long way from being the best.

I watched this movie thinking it was going to be absolutely horrible and was ready for all the corniness, bad special effects, etc. But, I was pleasantly surprised. Not to say that it's the best vampire movie I have ever seen, but it certainly isn't the worst. I liked the whole alternate reality/dream state that played into the movie. The graphics were quite well for a straight to DVD movie and I liked the overall look of the film. I enjoyed the main character Sai. I usually end up hating the female leads but there was something about her that kept me interested. Yes, she does make some bad decisions, but that was to be expected. Yes, the other characters were stereotypical, but I was expecting that too. I don't know if I'd highly recommend this movie, but give it a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised. I'm putting this one on my guilty pleasures list.

As a geology student this movie depicts the ignorance of Hollywood. In the scene where the dog grabs the bone from inside of the burning house, it is less then a foot from lava which has an average temperature of 1,750 degrees Fahrenheit. This stupidity is witnessed again when "Stan" goes to save subway 4. His shoes are melting to the floor of the subway while the rest of the team is standing just feet away from the flowing lava. And to finish off this monstrosity of a film, they come up with the most illogical solution, stopping a lava flow with cement K rails. Earlier in the film a reporters voice can be heard saying that nothing can stop the flow fire fighters have tried cars and CEMENT. Common sense dictates this film is a preposterous and gross understatement of human knowledge.

I had the pleasure of witnessing this brilliant film at a preview screening in Sydney. Although it was a pleasure to see it. Pleasure is not the emotion you are left with as the credits roll.<br /><br />2:37 is a film that tackles not just one stigma felt by young individuals but all of them. Chief of which is isolation. It is not just to place the films final galvanising scene on a pedestal above the others, but rather it is important to see it as the culmination. And from that, it is important to realise what it represents to both you as the viewer and to the people directly effected by it.<br /><br />2:37 is not a soft picture but the manner in which Mr Thalluri handles it's subject matter with a profound dignity and it's no holds barred approach acts as credit to it's message.<br /><br />I do not believe films such as 2:37 should be scaled by votes of favour. Rather it should be recommended to those looking for purpose in their viewing.<br /><br />A brilliantly crafted portrait of innocence lost. And a master stroke for a as of yet untaped talent.<br /><br />Not to be missed.

This film never received the attention it deserved, although this is one of the finest pieces of ensemble acting, and one of the most realistic stories I have seen on screen. Clearly filmed on a small budget in a real V.A. Hospital, the center of the story is Joel, very well-played by Eric Stoltz. Joel has been paralyzed in a motorcycle accident, and comes to the hospital to a ward with other men who have spinal injuries. Joel is in love with Anna, his married lover, played by Helen Hunt, who shows early signs of her later Academy-Award winning work.<br /><br />Although the Joel-Anna relationship is the basic focus, there are many other well-developed characters in the ward. Wesley Snipes does a tremendous job as the angry Raymond. Even more impressive is William Forsythe as the bitter and racist Bloss. I think Forsythe's two best scenes are when he becomes frustrated and angry at the square dancers, and, later, when he feels empathy for a young Korean man who has been shot in a liquor store hold up. My favorite scene with Snipes is the in the roundtable discussion of post-injury sexual options.<br /><br />The chemistry between Stoltz and Hunt is very strong, and they have two very intimate, but not gratuitous, sex scenes. The orgasm in the ward is both sexy and amusing. There is also another memorable scene where Joel and Bloss and the Korean boy take the specially-equipped van to the strip bar. It's truly a comedy of errors as they make their feeble attempts to get the van going to see the "naked ladies."<br /><br />The story is made even more poignant by the fact that the director, Neal Jimenez, is paralyzed in real life. This is basically his story. This film is real, not glossy or flashy. To have the amount of talent in a film of such a small budget is amazing. I recommend this film to everyone I see, because it is one of those films that even improves on a second look. It's a shame that such a great piece of work gets overlooked, but through video, perhaps it can get the attention it so richly deserves.

The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.<br /><br />Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.

No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary: <br /><br />* Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie<br /><br />* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at times<br /><br />If you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.<br /><br />If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.<br /><br />Vikings didn't have horns by the way...

I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.<br /><br />Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.<br /><br />However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.<br /><br />There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.<br /><br />The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).<br /><br />Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Much reviled when it first appeared, (inspiring the famous review 'Me No Leica'), this precursor of "Cabaret" can now be looked at in comparison and it's not half bad. It's certainly no classic but it has its own wayward charm, (the film version of "Cabaret" follows this plot whereas the stage version changed the plot somewhat). One should, of course, resist the temptation to snicker when Laurence Harvey's Christopher Isherwood, (it keeps the original author's real name; God Knows what Isherwood thought of it), describes himself as 'a confirmed bachelor' and while Harvey is an utterly inadequate 'hero', (he's virtually asexual), and Shelly Winters woefully miscast as Fraulien Landauer, (the part Marisa Berenson played in "Cabaret"), Julie Harris is a perfectly marvellous Sally, (it's a lovely piece of comic acting), and Anton Diffring is first-rate as Fritz, the German-Jew in love with Shelly's character. Of course, if "Cabaret" had never come along you might ask yourself would this ever have seen the light of day again. That it has been revived may not quite be cause for celebration but it's perfectly acceptable all the same.

From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.<br /><br />Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.<br /><br />The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.<br /><br />It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.<br /><br />Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.<br /><br />Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.

I loved this film, seen this evening on a movie theatre big screen! The audience laughed out loud at some very interesting things, and the fast pace was most enjoyable.<br /><br />I do, as a singer and musical director, question one section of Roby Keeler's vocal in "By a Waterfall." The key modulated, and she was suddenly singing much lower, in a very mellow voice that bore no resemblance to the somewhat tin-like higher twitter voice she used in all her other vocals.<br /><br />Does anyone know if this was overdubbed by another singer? It sounds it to me. I would love to know.<br /><br />Thanks so much.

This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.

This adaptation of M.R. James's short story 'A View From A Hill' was first shown on British television in 2005, on the little watched digital channel BBC 4. I saw that it was being repeated again on BBC 4, and decided to give it a go, remembering the BBC's successful 1970's adaptations of other M.R. James stories including 'Whistle And I'll Come To You My Lad' and 'The Signalman'. Though not in the same class as these masterpieces, 'A View From A Hill' is nonetheless an enjoyable and at times suspenseful drama.<br /><br />A historian arrives in a small rural village to look over the collection of a recently deceased collector of antique artifacts. Whilst out in the countryside, he sees an abbey that has been in ruins for hundreds of years. But what does this have in connection with an old pair of binoculars and a gruesome legend about the ominously named Gallows Hill? And what do the brusque country squire and his servant know about the situation? Whilst not scary in any way, I enjoyed this little production, and had the running time been longer than 40 minutes it could have become a truly great adaptation. As it is, it all feels a little rushed and a bit more exposition to set the mood would have been welcome.<br /><br />I give it 7 out of 10.

It takes patience to get through David Lynch's eccentric, but-- for a change-- life-affirming chronicle of Alvin Straight's journey, but stick with it. Though it moves as slow as Straight's John Deere, when he meets the kind strangers along his pilgrimage we learn much about the isolation of aging, the painful regrets and secrets, and ultimately the power of family and reconciliation. Richard Farnsworth caps his career with the year's most genuine performance, sad and poetic, flinty and caring. And Sissy Spacek matches him as his "slow" daughter Rose who pines over her own private loss while caring for dad. Rarely has a modern film preached so positively about family.

How dare you? Adam Low, without apparent shame, puts his name to this fake tribute. It's not even a serious study or analysis or commentary of the great Visconti's work. Yes it's long and portentous, yes we do have some wonderful clips from the films that, most people interested on the subject, have already seen. But what resounds the longest leaving the most lasting impression is the gossip. The last and loudest voice comes from a third rate German actor, ranting and raving. The appropriately named Mr.Low directed this, hoping, I imagine, to get better ratings than his previous, more to the point, but deadly boring documentary on Kurosawa. Well I have news for you Mr Low and your cohorts. You missed a great opportunity and I for one, won't give you another.

This film had some very funny moments. The aforementioned feeb sketch for starters. <br /><br />The parts where Rik tries to act dignified in front of his guests, looking down at them through his nose. Very subtly done, especially as the guest was a toffee nosed adulterer himself.<br /><br />The scene where Rik finds out that Gina has a fiancé, "Ahhh. She was stringing me along all the time, the brazen hussy." with his 2 candle eyes. Like as if she really fancied him. But he believed it. That's why it was so funny. Great moment. <br /><br />Gino was also excellent. He should have been used more as the bad man. "Where are the whores I ordered!" he bellows. Brilliant stuff.

One of Starewicz's longest and strangest short films follows a toy dog in search of an orange after becoming animated by the tear of the mother of a girl who longs for an orange. The dog comes upon an orange after falling out of the back of a car on his way to be sold, but at night must protect the orange when he comes enters a devilish nightclub featuring many bizarre and scary characters. With the help of a stuffed cat, the dog gets the orange back to the little girl and she is saved from a terrible scurvy death. The Mascot features new techniques I have not yet seen in Starewicz's films. The addition of sync sound and a mixture of live action with the stop-motion animation makes for a new twist on Starewicz's old style of puppetry. Live scenes of moving cars and people's feet walking by as a puppet sits on the concrete sidewalk is impressive and fresh. The honking of cars and cries of street vendors is noteworthy due to the fact that small studio shifts to sound were costly and Starewicz's utilization of the new technology seems like old hat. New puppet characters in this film are frightening contributions to the devil's club scene. Twigss and newspaper shreds come to life. Skeletons of dead birds lay eggs which hatch skeleton chicks. Characters come flying in from all over on pats and pans and rocking horses. A new editing technique uses quick zooms which are accomplished through editing to speed up the pace of what before might have been a slow scene. Overall, Starewicz is able to update his style of film-making to meet the demands of a new audience making this film one of the best examples of his work.

First of all, I should point out that I really enjoyed watching this documentary. Not only it had great music in it, but the shots and the editing were also wonderful. However, all these positive things about the film does not change the fact that it plays to the orientalist "East meets West" cliché that bothers many Turks like myself. Okay, this film tells the story of traditional and contemporary Turkish music in a very stylish manner which is a good thing, something that would show ignorant Europeans and Americans that this country is not just about murdering Armenians and Kurds. However, the problematic of the film is that it looks at what it defines as "east" from the eyes of the "west". I mean, like one jazz musician says in the film, maybe there is no east and west, maybe it is just a myth, a lie created by the ruling leaders of "western" countries in order to keep fear and hostility alive so that they could continue ruling the world and "keep the cash flowing"? <br /><br />Why don't you think about that?

After having seen The Lost Child for quite a number of times since its release in 1995, and having read the reader's comments (mostly about Jane Tennison's background and Helen Mirren's superb role in it), it strikes me more than ever that no comments are made upon the brilliant role Robert Glenister is playing as Chris Hughes. Even after 10 years it is still one of the most credible ways of portraying the complex personality of a child abuser, carrying the weight of his own past.Watching the episode for the full one and a half hour makes you constantly switch between feelings of love and hate for this guy, in which the hate prevails because of the gravity of his actions. I have seen more brilliant roles of my favorite actor, but this one never fails to make the largest impression possible to me. Helen Mirren would never shine without these wonderful actors next to her. Praise for Robert Glenister!

Before watching this movie I thought this movie will be great as Flashpoint because before watching this movie Flashpoint was the last Jenna Jameson and Brad Armstrong movie I previously watched. As far as sexual scenes are concerned I was disappointed, I thought sexual scenes of Dreamquest will be great as Flashpoint sexual scenes but I was disappointed. Except Asia Carrera's sexual scene, any sexual scene in this movie doesn't make me feel great (you know what I mean). The great Jenna Jameson doesn't do those kind of sexual scenes of what she is capable of. Felecia and Stephanie Swift both of those lovely girls disappoint me as well as far as sexual scenes are concerned.<br /><br />Although its a adult movie but if you aside that sexual scenes factor, this movie is very good. If typical adult movie standards are concerned this movie definitely raised the standards of adult movies. Story, acting, direction, sets, makeups and other technical stuff of this movie are really great. The actors of this movie done really good acting, they all done a great job. Dreamquest is definitely raised the bar of quality of adult movies.

I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!!!<br /><br />I did buy this film for a dollar and I've seen much worse for much more!!<br /><br />This is a Scottish sci-fi film from Mark Stirton and according to the Making of (hysterical by the way) the production only cost $8000. Eight grand!!! That wouldn't pay for half a minute in Hollywood!! Nevertheless ---- This is top fun film making. If you like things gritty then you're in for a treat. These are some rough character with rough voices and harsh swearing. I didn't mind, but my girl friend did!! The actors do a fine job and it's interesting to see people that I've never heard of or seen before. It meant I had no idea who was going to die first.<br /><br />If you watch a movie for it's 'latest of the latest' visual effects then watch a Star Wars. The effects here are OK, but kinda weak in space. But the monsters are very well done if a bit pred like.<br /><br />Stirton does an amazing job with not very much and I'd love to see his take on a real Hollywood movie. It least it wasn't predictable and I almost fell off my chair when one dude got his head blown off!!! OK, so it is a little derivative of other sci-fi, but for this budget it is an amazing attempt and anyone who thinks making a sci-fi film for 8 g's is easy or happens a lot clearly knows nothing about the film industry.<br /><br />Good marks for a good film, extra marks for working so hard, extra extra marks for a really interesting Making of. No standard bull here, all the problems of production are gone into making it like Lost in Mancha only with a film at the end. But why no commentary? KEEP GOING SCOTS!

I really enjoyed BG Seasons 1-3 and really couldn't understand those who didn't like it. But I can't defend this nonsense. Spoilers follow.<br /><br />The first problem is that the characters are now doing inexplicably stupid things on a regular basis: <br /><br />So if Starbuck thinks she knows where Earth is why not send her out in a Raptor? Would the Admiral accept the resignation of his third most experienced officer? Would the Quorum elect their newest member, the non-elected Adama Junior? He has about three weeks political experience under his belt, and is the son of a man they distrust. Would Adama send Gaeta AND Halo along with Starbuck leaving himself short of senior officers? Would Adama put a man into having sex with cylon prisoners in charge of the fleet?<br /><br />I just don't buy any of this.<br /><br />Secondly, while I accept there have been miracles and references to god up to the end of season 3, it's now all totally over the top. I started watching BG because I thought it was Sci Fi, not some biblical epic. I expected the characters to continue to behave reasonably intelligently, and wanted some satisfying explanations regarding some of the odder developments in the series. <br /><br />Baltar was the best character in the show, but he now seems to be totally insane. Not illogical considering what he's been through, but very unsatisfying.<br /><br />All the characters appear to be just puppets dancing to an unknown third party's behest (some godlike entity). This isn't good drama, it's annoying and a writing cop out. <br /><br />OK, so what are the good points? Nice battle at the start of 4.1. Some good dramatic scenes (well acted) when viewed in isolation. A good final scene, a nice cliffhanging curve ball of a development.<br /><br />But this isn't Sci Fi, it's turned into Fantasy. I can't imagine how the writers can recover this one.

I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. The best part about "Party Camp" is the fact that it literally has no plot. It simply drops a weak batch of "characters" into a location and then things occasionally happen. The cliches here are limitless (SPOILERS): the nerds vs. the jocks, the secret camera in the girls locker room, the hikers happening upon a nudist colony, the contest at the conclusion, the secretly horny camp administrators, and the embarrassingly foolish sexual innuendo littered throughout. The only cliche missing is the presence of Corey Feldman. This movie will make you laugh, but never intentionally. I repeat, NEVER. A final note, be prepared to bust a gut watching the nonsense that is the "dramatic" scene where Jerry Riviera and D.A. share a beer late at night, spilling their guts to each other. The dialogue literally makes no sense, and the acting belongs on a high-school stage. It's a classic.

Spoiler warning!!!<br /><br />This is probably my least favourite Cary Grant film. I spent most of the time thinking: ignore him, leave him etc. Is he trying to kill her? Should we assume that after the end, when he persuades her to return home with him, that he will kill her after all? I see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers/critics have taken. Finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book, than to change the ending - and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than, for example, in Altman's The Long Goodbye. Unlike Hitchcock's earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when Gosford Park refers to The Lodger, Ivor Novello's murderous habits are not mentioned) the book's ending is not definitely ruled out.<br /><br />In Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited, he writes: "As one mentally 'swiches' from ending to ending , the significance of every scene changes, the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves, the illusion of the fiction's 'reality' disintegrates, the film becomes a 'modernist' text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded." I enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else, but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading, then it fails. This one fails. Even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few Hitchcock films.<br /><br />An annoying quibble. The year is 1941. Nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. Beaky (Nigel Bruce) keeps his money in a Paris Bank, and goes there to do financial business? Does he not know that there is a war on? Indeed, were there still any flights from Croydon airport? Is he on good terms with the Nazis? How come it is never suggested that the Germans shot him as a spy or something.<br /><br />A curiosity. When Johnnie and Lina have dinner with Isobel, the mystery writer, and her brother, the pathologist, there is a fifth person present, who is never explained nor introduced - a woman in a tuxedo. The credits say that she is Nondas Metcalf playing Phyllis Swinghurst. Is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in '40s films? Are we to take her as Isobel's lover? The books that discuss overt and hidden gays/lesbians in Hitchcock (e.g. Robin Wood again) do not include Phyllis Swinghurst.

Feels like an impressionistic film; if there is such a thing.<br /><br />The story is well told, very poetic. the characters well developed and well acted by the interpreters (or interpreted by the actors :)).<br /><br />The film delights in its own sumptuous emotions at times and works well, unless you hate such emotion in movies - not so in my case.<br /><br />It's a very humanistic film.<br /><br />The landscape and even the extraordinary situation of the displaced cook are very poetic in their own right.<br /><br />Well done.<br /><br />A good classic for any good film collection.

[Warning contains spoilers]<br /><br />I felt no sympathy for any of the characters, incl the main one, who gets over the death of his girl friend v.quickly, (but it's OK as he shacks up with an ex prostitute from the casino he works at). The main character is portrayed as this wonderful intelligent writer who gets drawn into a web of deception, all the while there is running his monologue of the book he is writing. I can't say I would buy the book, a much better premise perhaps would have been if the voice-over (which annoyingly cuts in to narrate any bit of the film that you might not have understood, via his book) would've had 52 different personailties... to represent each card in the deck, but I digress. In the end there was a twist, whereby the main character has been setup by someone close to him, but as I disliked his character so much by this point (I found it impossible to like anyone in this film, the characters are all one dimensional zombies) that I really didn't care, and was glad the film was over.<br /><br />Plus points: The English actress from ER doing a dodgy south african accent Minus points: An irritating film

honestly, i loved Michael. although there were "give me a pillow i need to take a nap" parts, it was cool. i think everyone did a great job in this film. and nora ephron is in my "ok" list of directors.<br /><br />it's nice to see John Travolta as a pot-bellied angel. it's not very often i see one in a movie. some people might call this a boring movie, but for me i loved it. angels and all.

Farrah Fawcett gives an award nominated performance as an attempted rape victim who turns the tables on her attacker. This movie not only makes you examine your own morals, it proves that Fawcett can excel as a serious actress both as a victim and victor.

I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.<br /><br />Yuk!

I honestly found Wicked Little Things to be a very cool and fun horror film.My friend had given this to me, and I really saw it as nothing but a crappy low class gory horror film.Then after I watched this I was wrong it was very cool and very good and while Ill say it seemed a bit unnecessary at times, and while it may not be the best horror film ever its still good.I thought the acting was very good especially from the girl who plays the mother(she seemed very believable and to me very likable).And while it is a little cliché'e and over the top its good.Overall I gotta say if the Afterdark Horror Fest films are not your style then you should have no business watching this, but if you like horror films, or a wicked little time than check out Wicked Little Things. 8.0 out of 10 stars

The first few minutes of this movie don't do it justice!For me, its not funny until they board the sub and those hilarious characters begin to gel. I was born and raised in Norfolk Virginia and met my share of "different" sailors- I even married one! Most of my favorite movies are just funny, not topical, not dependent on sex or violence and funny every time I see them. Groundhog Day, Bruce Almighty and Down Periscope are still funny even after I know the dialog by heart. Kelsey Grammar with his "God I LOVE this job!"was sincere, genuine and lovable. Rob Schneider is hysterical as the crew gets back at him for being annoying. I am still amazed at the size of that fishing boat next to a sub! I can see why folks who live this life would notice the uh-oh's but its not a documentary after all its a comedy and I just love it!

One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?<br /><br />The answer is: Probably not.<br /><br />But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.<br /><br />This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.<br /><br />Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.<br /><br />Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.<br /><br />Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.<br /><br />Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.<br /><br />As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.<br /><br />There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.<br /><br />Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.<br /><br />Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."<br /><br />Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.<br /><br />Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."<br /><br />It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.<br /><br />Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.<br /><br />There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.<br /><br />At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.<br /><br />This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort.

Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.

Why did I enjoy the show to the last episode? Because of the true talent Melissa Joan Hart and her supporting cast had of demonstrating that whit, comedy, light-hearted humor, and deep thought could actually coexist. What I enjoyed most was the fact that I could come home from a hard day's work, and bust a smile... I was inspired... and why? It was an inspiration to watch as this magical person was so happy while helping others. <br /><br />Sabrina was a hero in my opinion... even though she was vulnerable in ways that were not so different from our own... to very different; she had powers at her fingertip, wishes, and command that could be used for good or bad which may only exist in many of our imaginations. Most everything we see, have, know about, own, or even desire... can be used for good or bad, and how we choose to define that, defines the person we are. <br /><br />She traveled the globe and other realms with these constant and unwaivering ideas in mind... to learn, to live, to laugh, and to love. She was always learning how to improve her skills to the benefit of all around her; she made mistakes as she was living life, going through different journey's of growth, as she, her aunts, and Salem (the underrated, yet imperfect hero) did well to demonstrate that even through mistakes, you can still be noble, gifted, and wonderful. <br /><br />She also demonstrated many selfless, learning, and loving acts as she went along her way. If this isn't reason enough for 10 stars in this war torn world where people are so hostile toward each other, not realizing how differences are the spice of life rather than a reason to kill... then I don't know what is. This show was most certainly a trip to a better world as well as an inspiration to be better ourselves and a gift intended to bust a smile on our chops... I've heard from a doctor before that everything that I've mentioned above leads to a healthy "hart"... and isn't that what we all need? :)

Well I'll start with the good points. The movie was only 86 minutes long, and some of it was so bad it was funny. Now for the low points. My first warning sign came with an actual "warning" on the film. When it started the following "warning" was displayed: "The film you are about to see contains graphic and disturbing images. Because contrary to popular belief being killed is neither fun, pretty or romantic." I should have saved myself the 86 minutes and turned it off then. The first words of the film were: "I'm at the glue factory." It was some guy talking on his phone, and he was referring to a nursing home as a glue factory. I don't know why. So the basis of the movie is some kid is obsessed with the Zodiac Killer and starts imitating him. The budget for this film was at least 50 bucks and they must have used the cheapest cameras they could find. The acting was worse than me reading straight from a script. That's what is looked like they were doing. The script was horrible, and the big "twist" was that this guy who wrote a biography on the Zodiac Killer was actually the Zodiac Killer. Of course they tried to show this subtly but made it totally obvious within the first 10 minutes. Without any more painful details of the plot, here were some horrible highlights of the movie. They try to make the Zodiac Killer compare himself to an "army of one" because soldiers are really just murderers. Then they tried to make an attempt at "Satanic Worship" by showing some guys in black hoods in a meeting. The great "computer hacker" was able to get this kid's address when someone gave him the kid's name and phone number. For some reason he had to hack into the FBI to get someone address. I'm not sure why he didn't just look it up in the phone book or use whitepages.com. There was also a random allusion to 9/11 for no reason. I also learned that no matter where you get shot, blood will come out of your mouth within seconds.<br /><br />So if you like really bad acting, sub-par scripts, bad camera work and an obvious plot, you'll love Zodiac Killer!

If the directors/producers/publicists wish to promote a film as "based on actual events" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.<br /><br />A team wearing "all black" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the "All Blacks" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.<br /><br />Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.<br /><br />The question is "Why"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?<br /><br />I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought "wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great."<br /><br />How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting "oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo" react? They'd laugh their heads off!<br /><br />The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can "fool all the people all the time".<br /><br />It's just dumb!

Rented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:<br /><br />KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield song<br /><br />Total: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movie<br /><br />Everything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.<br /><br />Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "Kentucky Fried Movie". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON" or "UHF"<br /><br />Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.<br /><br />IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL "Modern Problems"

"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2)

Somehow, this film burrowed it's way into the soft spot of my heart. Don't ask me how it happened, but I suppose having the film feature Ed "I'll Sponsor Anything" McMahon as a tail-chasing crack hustler had a bit to do with it.<br /><br />Frankly, I was disappointed with Slaughter's first outing in 1972. Nothing more than a quick throw-together to follow Shaft-mania. How does the sequel get away from this? Big Jim Brown seems stronger as Slaughter here than in the first. Perhaps this is due to the fact that one year later he had something to work from, instead of his simple "Be like Shaft" motivation before.<br /><br />The most outstanding part about the film is the soundtrack provided by pimp-daddy number one, James Brown. Almost every scene is graced with a touch of funk by the Godfather. An excellent period film, for the music, wardrobe, vehicles, lingo, and hair. I should also point out this film is also an excellent period film to represent a time in motion picture history when Jim Brown and Ed McMahon could actually GROW hair.<br /><br />Double the chicks, double the blow, triple the body count, and factor in Ed McMahon and James Brown. You'll be in for one hell of a 70s action flick, and one that outshines it's predecessor no less. For my money, Slaughter's Big Rip-Off can play ball with any Blaxploitation film ever made. Even Shaft. Chances are you'll disagree, but Slaughter's Big Rip-Off has it's own distinct feel. Something the original was lacking.

A simple comment...<br /><br />What can I say... this is a wonderful film that I can watch over and over. It is definitely one of the top ten comedies made. With a great cast, Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau wording a perfect script by Neil Simon, based on his play.<br /><br />It is real to life situation done perfectly. If you have digital cable, one gets the menu on bottom of screen to give what is on. It usually gives this film ***% stars but in reality it deserves **** stars. If you really watch this film, one can tell that it will be as funny and fresh a hundred years from now.

I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.

So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen...

The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.

I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,<br /><br />"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch. <br /><br />So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too. <br /><br />The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.<br /><br />When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!<br /><br />However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.<br /><br />It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film.

...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.<br /><br />Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....<br /><br />

This noisy, dizzying football film from director Oliver Stone seems to have everyone in the cast - well, everyone except William H. Macy, who could have tackled the role played by Mr. Stone, the team doctors, or the "fruitcake" selling cereal. If you're a fan of the foul-mouthed, there are some great, profanity-laden knock-down, drag-out, put-down phrases you can try-out on two-faced friends and way-ward lovers. The film is sometimes good as lively background party atmosphere, especially during the first two hours; it even features some MTV-styled music video scenes.<br /><br />** Any Given Sunday (12/16/99) Oliver Stone ~ Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid

There is a scene in Dan in Real Life where the family is competing to see which sex can finish the crossword puzzle first. The answer to one of the clues is Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. This is exactly the case for Dan Burns (Steve Carell, the Office) a columnist for the local newspaper. Dan is an expert at giving advice for everyday life, yet he comes to realize that things aren't so picture perfect in his own. Dan in Real Life is amazing at capturing these ironies of everyday life and is successful at embracing the comedy, tragedy, and beauty of them all. Besides that this movie is pretty damn hilarious.<br /><br />The death of his wife forces Dan to raise his three daughters all on his own... each daughter in their own pivotal stages in life: the first one anxious to try out her drivers license, the middle one well into her teenage angst phase, and the youngest one drifting away from early childhood. Things take a turn for Dan when he goes to Rhode Island for a family reunion and stumbles across an intriguing woman in a bookstore.<br /><br />Her name is Marie (Juliette Binoche, Chocolat) and she is looking for a book to help her avoid awkward situations... which is precisely whats in store when they get thrown into the Burns Family household.<br /><br />If you've seen Steve Carell in The Office or Little Miss Sunshine, you'd know that he is incomparable with comedic timing and a tremendously dynamic actor as well. Steve Carell is awesome at capturing all the emotions that come with family life: the frustration and sincere compassion. The family as well as the house itself provides a warm environment for the movie that contrasts the inner turmoil that builds throughout the movie and finally bursts out in a pretty suspenseful climax. The movie only falls short in some of the predictable outcomes, yet at the same time life is made up of both irony and predictability: which is an irony within itself.<br /><br />Dan in Real Life is definitely worth seeing, for the sole enjoyment of watching all the funny subtleties we often miss in everyday life, and I'll most likely enjoy it a second time, or even a third. Just "put it on my tab."

This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:<br /><br />1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?<br /><br />2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?<br /><br />3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).<br /><br />4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.

Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes.

I saw this at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival and liked it a lot. It worked for me as a slightly weird comedy, because I don't like horror, but there were only a couple of minutes I had to close my eyes.<br /><br />The dialog was good, the costumes and settings were not far off BBC-quality, which is amazing for an indie film. I liked the way the plot twists and even meanders, it kept surprising me in good ways. I even warmed up to the Willy Grimes character, who I quite disliked at the beginning. It would have been better if there'd been any motivation for the woman to be so interested in going to the island: that felt very much like a plot device.<br /><br />I am fond of Dominic Monaghan, and he did a good job at pratfalls, horror, and at the more thoughtful moments. Nice voice in the narration, too.<br /><br />This would be a fun and unusual date movie.

Over the past century, there have been many advances in gender equality, but not so much in the world of movies. I'm not talking about what goes on behind the camera, I'm referring to the tastes of the audience. The idea of a "chick flick" is alive and well today, while there are still plenty of action and horror films which appeal primarily to males. Sure, there are men and women who enjoy the movies that fall outside of their typical demographic, but there aren't many movies which have appeals across the board. Hitch, the latest Will Smith vehicle attempts to change that trend by being a chick flick which throws in a dose of male perspective.<br /><br />Smith stars in Hitch as the title character, Alex "Hitch" Hitchens, a "date doctor" who trains men on how to approach a woman and have a successful date. Hitch enjoys his job and loves to see men successfully accomplish their goals of going out with the woman of their dreams, but due to a bad experience in college, Hitch himself is somewhat sullied on the idea of love. As the story unfolds, the film introduces two seemingly separate story lines. Hitch's latest case is Albert Brennaman (Kevin James), an accountant who is very attracted to one of his clients, the beautiful heiress Allegra Cole (Amber Valletta). Hitch has his doubts about Albert's chances, but if his clients desires seem sincere, Hitch supports them.<br /><br />In the mean time, Hitch meets gossip columnist Sara Melas (Eva Mendes) and is instantly attracted to this strong woman. However, the date doctor can't seem to follow his own advice in pursuing Sara. Things get even more complicated when Sara's job leads her to investigate the relationship between the accountant and the heiress. Will Hitch be able to balance his private life and his job? And more importantly, can Hitch believe in love again? If you are a true movie fan, then there's been at least one time in your life when you've complained about the redundancy of the Hollywood movie factory and cried out for something new and original. Well, Hitch ain't that movie. But, most movie fans will also admit that occasionally a formulaic movie can work solely on an entertainment level. Hitch does qualify as that film.

ASTROESQUE (2 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />I have no idea what the title is supposed... even less of an idea of what is supposed to be going on in this movie half the time... yet, it still kept me sort of interested. This is low, low budget film-making along the lines of "El Mariachi", filmed in 16mm... and, for what it's worth, the shots are very well-composed and visually stylish. Directed, written by and starring comic book writer/artist Michael Allred... I guess it's no surprise that the film looks good. Unfortunately, some of the acting is beyond bad... and the rest is competent at best. Allred himself comes off the best... but only because he doesn't actually speak much. He just strides around looking cool most of the time... or running from crazed rednecks who are trying to kill him. The sound is also pretty bad... almost as if it was unfinished in places... maybe they couldn't afford to pay for the music they'd planned to use? Strange, vaguely science-fictiony plot... similar in tone to "The Man Who Fell To Earth"... but most of the film boils down to a standard run-from-the-bad-guys and kill-them-before-they-kill-you plot. Ultimately too oblique to be successful but not without interest for adventurous movie watchers.

This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.<br /><br />Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.

Unfortunately, this film has long been unavailable (as other posters have noted), but this is one of the essential dramas of the Great Depression, a lyrical and touching drama of love set in a shanty-town. It features performances by Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young that are just about the finest of their careers, and it's a surpassing example of how the director, Frank Borzage, was able to create an almost fairy-tale aura around elements of poverty, crime, and horrendous social inequity, which just proves that how truly romantic and spiritual his talents were. This film shows how love survives amidst squalor and desperate need, and it is totally life-affirming. This is a real masterpiece of the period, and is a movie that deserves to be more widely known.

I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10.

As a "cusp-pre-baby-boomer"...born in 1944, IN Los Angeles; thereby having the dubious distinction of having been alive while Hitler was still actively involved in his "Last Great Offensive; but also with our President Roosevelt still actively fighting the offensive...this was one of the most important "first films" of my young life. Having the opportunity to see it in "re-release," several years after the 1946 opening (a common studio custom in those years), answered (even to my very young mind)oh-so many questions I had...being surrounded by our returning Vet heroes. Ensconced in all the many of William Wyler's equanimity of subtle "multi-plots"...intentionally NOT "surrounding," "mini" or "sub" plots...in all their "colors and shades of intensity"...did more, than anything else I can recall, to provide to me some semblance of "reason" and "rational explanation" of what had been going on all around me...in REAL life. (My personal experience perchance being a "new" and "different" angle when looking at this classic film.)

I have certainly not seen all of Jean Rollin's films, but they mostly seem to be bloody vampire naked women fests, which if you like that sort of thing is not bad, but this is a major departure and could almost be Cronenberg minus the bio-mechanical nightmarish stuff. Except it's in French with subtitles of course. A man driving on the road at night comes across a woman that is in her slippers and bathrobe and picks her up, while in the background yet another woman lingers, wearing nothing. As they drive along it's obvious that there is something not right about the woman, in that she forgets things almost as quickly as they happen. Still though, that doesn't prevent the man from having sex with her once they return to Paris & his apartment. The man leaves for work and some strangers show up at his place and take the woman away to this 'tower block', a huge apartment building referred to as the Black Tower, where others of her kind (for whom the 'no memory' things seems to be the least of their problems) are being held for some reason. Time and events march by in the movie, which involve mostly trying to find what's going on and get out of the building for this woman, and she does manage to call Robert, the guy that picked her up in the first place, to come rescue her. The revelation as to what's going on comes in the last few moments of the movie, which has a rather strange yet touching end to it. In avoiding what seemed to be his "typical" formula, Rollin created, in this, what I feel is his most fascinating and disturbing film. I like this one a lot, check it out. 8 out of 10.

Just above the box i am typing in now, i was required to pick a number between 1 and 10, and rate this feature film. Unfortunately there is no option for a number less than zero, and i have to put something. If i had my choice i would just put nothing, no number, because there exist no digits that express the worthlessness of this movie.<br /><br />If you do decide to watch this film even after reading all of these horrible reviews, make sure there are no sharp or blunt objects in the area, this will help prevent you from trying to kill yourself in the middle of the film.<br /><br />I don't know how this film was released to the public, it should be locked up and guarded 24/7 somewhere in Fort Knox. I am angry that this film was even available for me to watch. I feel cheated by humanity, i had no idea humans could be this cruel. Stalin, Saddam and Hitler got nothing on this douche bag Cowell.<br /><br />Do not be fooled by the movie's cover. 1) There are no scarecrows, no one knows why there is a legit looking scarecrow on the front. 2)None of the characters on the back of case are even in the stinking movie! 3) The tag line says something about "new moon, more victims", there were no frigging victims no one even died. We don't know if the dam cop died, and i'm assuming the killer didn't die because it sounded like he was being hit over the head with a frigging whiffle ball bat.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and stay away from this movie, it wasted about 4 hours of my life. That's right four, it took an hour for me to watch it (i fast forwarded thru the 4 minute zooming scenes that reveal nothing in the plot), i stared at the television for about an hour after it was over, contemplating my life and the direction it was heading after watching this crap, and then i began to cry for the next two hours because i know someone out there will unfortunately see this movie and there is nothing i can do to stop it.