Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

...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 />

As I work at a video store, I found it to be my solemn duty to talk about the worst movies I've ever seen, and warn my friends and co-workers of it. Amidst one day of particularly heated debate of what is the worst movie, my friend dared me to watch B.T.K. Killer, even stating that if I could watch the whole movie and still claim my previous choice was the worst movie ever, then he'd watch it. I lost. I believe that even I made better videos than this in high school, and those were hardly great feats of a young genius. This film not only lacked in what seemed to be production value (it looks like it was shot on a bad camcorder, although it is surprisingly clear), but also in acting (wooden, hollow, and pathetic don't scratch the surface), as well as just generally bad movie feeling. I can remember a scene where I heard glass smash, suddenly, I was reminded of some bad high school plays (I know that I reference high school too often here, but this film did seem very juvenile) both in terms of the set, which seemed far too fake, but also as if the people were reading their lines from the script, not entirely sure what was actually going on. My review doesn't do this film justice, because I can't describe how utterly horrid the time I spent watching this was. It's almost ironic that I do a pathetic job describing a pathetic excuse for a movie.

I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another "Biblical" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.

This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master.

Having enjoyed Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqatsi I was looking forward to this third part of the Qatsi trilogy and seeing what direction it had taken. Rarely has a film so spectacularly failed to live up to its predecessors and lost its way. Although it tries to represent "civilised warfare" in the form of sport, science, trade and other forms of competition, it lacks the global scope and even the coherently developed themes of its predecessors. War is chaos, but even wars have an aim in mind and this film had little structure and unclear goals.<br /><br />Naqoyqatsi is flawed by being a chaotic melange of images that does little to develop its theme. On the plus side, it wisely avoided using some of the iconic images of last century's wars.<br /><br />Naqoyqatsi is also so insular that several times I had to remind myself that I was not watching an advertisement promoting the American way of life. Perhaps this insularity reflects the ongoing "War on Terror". When representing "sport as war" the prominent team logos ensured that the USA was depicted as the winner. Hence it missed the opportunity to depict some of the many sports around the world and showing that humanity is united in its use of sport as a form of civilised warfare.<br /><br />Apart from newsreel, the footage seemed to have been shot on a budget in the confines of New York and there was little recognition of "life as war" in the rest of the world. The gallery of faces (waxworks) gave only a nod to the existence of important personages outside of the USA. The makers missed the point that globalisation does not mean Americanisation.<br /><br />The Philip Glass soundtrack sounded much like every other Philip Glass score I've heard (with the possible exception of Koyaanisqatsi) and at best can be described as "inoffensive" neither adding to, nor detracting from, the chaotic imagery.

I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..<br /><br />come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.<br /><br />technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.<br /><br />kamal at his best is the best in tollywood

I drove from Sacramento to San Francisco (and back) to see this movie premiere--and really glad I did. As a big movie fan and a life-long Northern Californian, I was surprised how many Oscar-winning films have been made in the Bay Area. As a fashion designer who really wants to stay in the Bay Area as opposed to going to LA, George Lucas' comments about persistence, community and having a vision really resonated with me. <br /><br />Hey, if he and all the other filmmakers can make it in SF, so can other artists. <br /><br />Would recommend this film

Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.<br /><br />Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.

This is the kind of movie which shows the paucity of French cinema when it comes to making thrillers.The director's desire to "sound American" is so glaring that you will not be fooled a minute,unless you have not seen a serial killer movie since "Peeping Tom".<br /><br />Two male cops (or one and a half,more like,as you will see),horrible murders,a plot more complicated than complex.Charles Berling is not lucky with the genre(see the astoundlingly dumb "l'inconnu de Strasbourg" a couple of years ago).The scenes with his pregnant wife -which are supposed to be a counterpart for the otherwise noir atmosphere of the rest of the plot-are among the worst ever filmed.Add a steamy love scene between them and a gory autopsy to get a PG 12 and thus to attract the huge adolescent audience.A violent and absurd conclusion,followed by a silent epilogue who could make a nice commercial for the côte d'azur,it's really the silence of the lame.

This very forced attempt to fuse Robert Altman and Quentin Tarantino (who is wildly overrated himself) is neither informative nor entertaining. The character development is arbitrary and unbelievable -- especially in the final scene of the thugs and the little boy, as other reviewers have noted. Also, a couple of humorous moments aside, the film is not as funny (black humor or otherwise) as the director seems to think it is.

Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.<br /><br />What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase "the real story of "Ma BArker and her boys...", and the standard "any similarity to actual persons..." disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.<br /><br />Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.<br /><br />However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.<br /><br />Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with "Take The Girl!"?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 / 10 is what I must vote.

If you see this movie, you know you will see an extense video-clip of popular music. But you will find more. Incredible FX, great music and a nice time to enjoy with your kids. If you compare this movie, you have to remember is a pop extravaganza. Clips of "Man In The Mirror", "Leave Me Alone", "Smooth Criminal" and Beatles' "Come Together".

Out of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.<br /><br />First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said "I'm going to go polish my lense". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.<br /><br />Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.<br /><br />This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid.

"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.

The whole set-up of this contrived Disney family film (ad-exec gets his teenage daughter a horse because she "wants one more than anything else in the world") is just an excuse to film the big climactic horse-show at the end. All the other ingredients (the ad campaign for the stomach pill, Kurt Russell as a potential boyfriend for the youngster, Lloyd Bochner as a potential rival for Dean Jones over the affections of Diane Baker) are shelved near the end simply to showcase the horse. Over half the picture is padding, and worse: it is whiny and obnoxious. The kid is the ninny-sort who cries on the couch with a dog in her arms, and as usual she gets her way. * from ****

I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.<br /><br /> What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)<br /><br /> The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!<br /><br /> This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.<br /><br /> The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.<br /><br /> Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!"

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

When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.<br /><br />It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.<br /><br />The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only "good "part.<br /><br />Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening.

*Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!! <br /><br />*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded ! <br /><br />*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN ! <br /><br />*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!<br /><br />*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !<br /><br />*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.<br /><br />*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !<br /><br />*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !<br /><br />*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !). <br /><br />*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap ! <br /><br />*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !<br /><br />*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!<br /><br />*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition ! <br /><br />*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones ! <br /><br />*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !! <br /><br />P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !

For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. <br /><br />This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.

I remember I loved this movie when it came out. I was 12 years old, had a Commodore 64 and loved to play Rambo on it. I was therefore really thrilled when I got to buy this movie really cheap. I put it in my VCR and started up: Man this movie is really bad! Sylvester Stallone says like 3 words in the entire movie (except for that awful sentimental speech at the end), and has the same expression on his face all the way. And that stupid love thing in the middle, it's just so amazingly predictable. I just ended up fast forwarding the entire thing and went to exchange the movie for something else.

A good film, and one I'll watch a number of times. Rich (the previous commenter)is right: there is much more going on here than is clear from the title boards, and I have to wonder how much has suffered in translation. Were there more in the original? Or was a native-language audience expected to lip-read more? Or -- since the screenplay was written by the author of the novel on which this was based -- was this a currently popular story with which the audience was already very familiar? In short, very worth a look, but it probably requires more work from contemporary viewers than the original 1913 audience had to put into it.<br /><br />The Alpha Video release touts the new organ score, but the music is not matched to the story progression in any way. Sure, it starts promisingly, but degenerates into a repetitive, Phillip-Glass-like monotony that reflects nothing of the action on the screen. After listening for a while, I turned off the sound and simply watched: much better!

Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and 9 years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />How much farting, pooping, peeing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other sexual names (IMDb won't even let me post that word on here, yet here it is coming out of the mouths of 8 year olds. Think of the irony in that!) and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices." <br /><br />What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles? <br /><br />However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that. <br /><br />I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.<br /><br />You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!

Some teen agers go to an old deserted farm house left to one of them by their dead grandfather, unaware that there had been several murders there decades earlier because their grandfather had made a pact with the devil for a good harvest- couldn't the guy have thought of something better to sell his soul for? The man's grandson and his friends are set up to be the next sacrifice, for reasons which are never explained. The stereotypical teenage son and his girlfriend, the black guy with a white girlfriend, and the two lesbians have to do battle with three killer scarecrows- but, don't be tricked like I was, this isn't nearly as fun as it sounds. It's mostly just a lot of chit chat about ball kicking, dope smoking, and the lead actor complaining about never knowing his parents. The camera work is atrocious and shaky, maybe done on a hand held camcorder in some scenes, which maybe a good thing since the scarecrows look like they just came from some kid's birthday party, and apparently they could only hire two people to play the three scarecrows! Some of the best movies I've seen have been these low budget, independent horror movies, but this one is just pathetic. The cast and crew seems to have just been made up of a bunch of people who knew each other, had never acted before and had no intention of acting again, and had a few thousand dollars (I can't believe this movie cost $130.000 to make) and a weekend of free time on their hands- even the lesbian skinny dipping scene is lame.<br /><br />I think it's amusing also, that as of this writing, there is a sequel to this film which no one has even bothered adding to IMDb.<br /><br />* out of ****, and I only rate it that highly only because of the skinny dipping scene, no matter how lame it may be.

CONTEXT is everything when one goes to rate a movie. When rating this movie one has to consider the time in which it was made. We didn't really know WHAT the inside of the EARTH was in those days so you can't rag on the movie too much for the plot (based on a much older book). For the era, this was top notch special effects and the production quality was great. I watched this movie in a masterfully restored HD master. For the time the makeup and effects almost make the guys in the rubber suits look plausible as a monster-thing. This is pure movie cheese complete with bad rubber suits, models, and creepy costumes. AWESOME. PS Doug McClure ROCKS!

I have previously seen Zu: Warriors from the Magic Mountain. In that film, the setting takes place in China's mountains, the Legend of Zu looks like another dimension!! Thank that to Tsui Hark's extensive use of CGI effects. He's able to portray his vision of mountains floating above the clouds, a land where beings fly freely, and powers ranging from razor sharp wing blades, split swords, and the ultra cool Moon Orb.<br /><br />While there are many characters in this one, the focus is mainly on King Sky and Enigma. The romance aspect is there, although the movie seems much darker than its predecessor. Cecilia Cheung is beautiful and her presence on screen makes this movie worth watching. In the beginning, I like how she resembles the Countess (from Zu Warriors) and she does well playing Enigma as she deals with facing her past life. Oh, by the way, did I mention that Cecilia's very appealing to the eye??<br /><br />In truth, Zu Warriors had more comedy elements and its special effects were limited due to its time in 1983. Tsui Hark takes it to a whole new level and sets a new standard in cinema.

I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.<br /><br />I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.<br /><br />Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.<br /><br />JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious

Low-budget schlockmeister Herschell Gordon Lewis reaches a new low (even for him) with "The Gore Gore Girls," a 'film' (snicker) that possesses all of his technical trademarks: badly-recorded sound, poor lighting, and OTT gore. This would be tolerable, even a bit charming, if the film at least had an interesting plot ("Blood Feast," in all its ridiculous glory, is a fine example), but "Girls" is a total snooze. Completely unlikable pompous-ass private investigator Abraham Gentry (Frank Kress) is recruited by a newspaper reporter to find out who's been murdering out-of-shape strippers (you'll stop caring who the culprit is long before these two are wrapping up the case). As before, the appeal isn't the plot, but the creative methods of bloodletting (including a girl's fanny being tenderized with a wooden mallet) and the occasional flashes of then-risqué skin...but this just isn't enough to elevate the material above tedium.

SAPS AT SEA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />Suffering from 'hornophobia', Ollie embarks on a 'restful' boat trip, but he and Stan get mixed up with an escaped convict (Rychard Cramer). Chaos ensues.<br /><br />This feature length comedy - an OK entry which nonetheless unspools like a mere imitation of Laurel and Hardy's best work - marked the final collaboration between L&H and producer Hal Roach. Episodic in structure, the movie culminates in a memorable ocean voyage after The Boys are taken hostage by villainous Cramer (who shoots a seagull to prove how tough he is!). The gags are OK, but inspiration is lacking, perhaps due to the recruitment of actor-turned-director Gordon Douglas, previously responsible for Ollie's first solo effort in the sound era (ZENOBIA, produced in 1939), but whose work here lacks a measure of pzazz. Fair, but nothing special. L&H regulars Charlie Hall and James Finlayson make guest appearances.

This, in my opinion, is a very poor movie that advertises Arnold Schwarzenegger as starring (despite him being the co-star) only to sell more copies. Obviously taking influence from the similarly themed ‘Conan' movies, this film fails to prove as enjoyable and eventually fails to entertain at all.<br /><br />Bridgette Neilsen stars as Sonja, a beautiful woman who has been given unbelievable strength by a ghostly figure after her village was pillaged, her family killed and she herself raped by the soldiers of Queen Gedran (Sandahl Bergman). Gedran is a tyrant Queen who wants control over the barbaric world and seeks out a talisman protected by Sonja's sister to do it. After discovering what has happened Sonja sets out for revenge and at the same time she must save the world from the wrath of Gedran. Kalidor (Schwarzenegger), the master of the talisman, sets out to protect her whether she wants him there or not.<br /><br />The first major problem with this movie is the beginning. The events leading up to the point where Sonja receives her powers could have easily made a good ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyable film. However, the beginnings are rushed into what seems like a quick one-minute `Previously on….' segment from a television show. Had they actually made these events part of the story and cut out some of the filler later on they may have been able to start redeeming this movie but unfortunately they didn't (I wonder why director Richard Fleischer has only currently directed two movies since Red Sonja).<br /><br />This film also features some of the most annoying characters in history like Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr.) who is a stupid character and just adds an over abundance of camp to the movie, which sometimes works but in this case fails miserably. He was quite obviously written into the movie for some comic relief but with the overall absurdity of the film anyway this was another costly mistake for ‘Red Sonja'.<br /><br />For all it's faults there were some good fight scenes involving both Neilsen and Arnie which are worth noting but these are nowhere enough to save this turkey. The acting is about as good as it gets for movies of this quality and even Arnie didn't seem too bothered about his performance. I don't recommend this film at all; to me it's a waste of an hour and a half. My rating for ‘Red Sonja' – 3/10

...the opportunity it gave me to look at Ireland's past was invaluable.<br /><br />I had the benefit of seeing this with my Mother who hailed from Cork, and in watching, we talked and I learned a lot from her about how things were back then.<br /><br />Stuff like how Deasy and Co. was a Cork soft drinks company; how rain truly could destroy a harvest; how farmers used to have to collect the crop; how in dance halls the women and men did really have to stand along opposite walls before the men walked forward and asked the woman to dance; about the bellows that kept the fire going; how priests really did call out the list of church donators and their donations and a bit about the currency back then (which my Dad helped by showing me a case displaying the pence, shillings and crowns that were used back then (which were legal tender in England also)).<br /><br />I didn't pay that much attention to how good the movie was, but I was very grateful in having this opportunity to look back on a period of time that for some is Irish History, but for others including some of our parents and grandparents, is just their childhood.

Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart.

The Regard of Flight, written and performed by Bill Irwin, is a true classic theatre piece which translated quite well to the small screen. Full of quick and sparkling dialog and some of the best physical comedy of the decade, it is head and shoulders above 99% of "Comedy" as it is presented today. I am sure it will one day take its rightful place with such great shows as "The Fantastiks", and "Waiting for Godot." Why it isn't available on DVD yet is a mystery and a tragedy.

Wolfgang Peterson directs this thriller that has Clint Eastwood playing Secrect Service Agent Frank Horrigan, who matches wits with a clever psycho(John Malkovich) in a cat-and-mouse game involving the the protection of the President. Mitch Leary(Malkovich)keeps in touch with Horrigan teasing the agent with discouraging remarks about his abilities, as well as the Secret Service's protection of the presidents in the past. Agent Lilly Raines(Rene Russo)tries to keep Horrigan grounded; but he is head strong in stopping Leary from carrying out his threats of assassination. Very good FX and fast pace sustains the plot. Eastwood and Malkovich are superb. Russo has a way of getting your attention. Rounding out this strong cast are: Dylan McDermott, Fred Dalton Thompson, John Mahoney and Gary Cole.

Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.

I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie...

I've seen this movie quite a few times and each time I watch it, the quirkier and funnier it becomes. Perhaps its the lack of research that went into Nicolas Cage's character's 'punk' persona or just the cheesiness factor because it was such a typical eighties film...nonetheless it's a cute love story with extremely funny, unique characters. I think it's right up there with "Fast Times" and "Weird Science" (quintessential eighties flicks!)

A have a female friend who is currently being drawn into a relationship with an SOB who has a long term girlfriend. Of course the SOB is very good-looking, charming, etc and my friend is a very intelligent woman. Watching Jean Pierre Leaud's character at work is exactly like watching what goes on in real life when guys like that destroy the lives of our female friends. It's tragic, and you know she's going to end up very hurt, but there's nothing you can do. Leaud is brilliant. Totally empty. A blank throughout, he pulls the faces and tells the stories he thinks will get the reaction he wants.<br /><br />The scene two hours in when Leaud and Lebrun have made love, and the next morning he puts on a record and, very sweetly and charmingly, sings along to amuse her is brilliant. The "What the hell am I doing here with this idiot" expression that flickers back and forth across her face will be in my memory for a long time to come.<br /><br />It's a long film, but see it in one go, preferably in a cinema. Takes a while to get into, but then the time just disappears.

Aardman does it again. Next to Pixar, Aardman Animation proves again and again how to do animation properly.<br /><br />I had a great time watching the first episode of Creature Comforts. I thought it translated well for American audiences. My only concern is that most of the audiences aren't going to get the subtle humor in this show.<br /><br />Having been a fan of the BBC version and the short film, I knew what I was in for when I sat down to watch this. The animators did a great job matching up pre-recorded voices to a perfect match animal. Look at the first episode with the Goat, who sounds stoned, and the dogs on the street that keep calling each other "dawg".<br /><br />Is this for everyone? Not by a long shot. In fact, I'd be happy to see the show last for a full season. But like I said before, audiences aren't going to get it.

Oh my god. oh my god, i cant get over this movie. It was god-awful. horrible, terrible! Don't even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. No, avoid it at all costs I'm warning you!!!<br /><br />It was the worst movie I've ever seen. In my life. In my life!!<br /><br />First of all, G-girl? Are you kidding me. Get real that sounds like some kind of new Barbie doll.. Super Women? Are you kidding me. It was so fake fake fake fake. The people of the town didn't even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire.. Ohh big!<br /><br />Jesus, was it just me or did this movie seem offensive?? I guess what you need to be a super hero is a couple of double D's, blonde flowing hair, no glasses and a leather skin tight suit?!<br /><br />If it was trying to be romantic ... than.. god, i don't know. It was horrid, if love means taking some one to an art show and than having sex in a bed AND in the air.. than they totally had love!<br /><br />It was pathetic, everything went too fast. First that guy was single, than he was dating G-girl.. than they broke up than he dated that Hannah girl.. and.. it just goes on. <br /><br />I have to say this movie made me wonder.. How the hell did they get this in theaters??!!<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs.

You looking for a comic drama with suspense and an ensemble cast? Well locate this little sleeper. John Lithgow and Billy Bob Thorton are great in this little plot twister. Don't forget the cameo by Jamie Lee Curtis. A touch of the 60's, a touch of "the Prince and the Pauper", and dash of that homegrown gold makes for a greast little story.

In the seemingly endless quest to find well made, well acted horror films, it is all-too-rare to find one that even comes remotely close to hitting the mark. Needless to say, I was very pleasantly surprised when I stumbled across "Burned at the Stake" on a U.S. cable network while I was flipping channels. The premise is reasonably simple. In 1692, young Ann Putnam (Swift) is the most vocal witness against alleged witches, leveling baseless charges against anyone who earns her displeasure. Manipulating her for his own ends is Reverend Parris (Peters) who also serves as the court's guide on matters pertaining to witchcraft and Satanism. Things get complicated when Ann starts accusing members of the Goode family of witchcraft. Salem (of 1980 or so), Loreen Graham (also played by Swift) begins having unusual visions shortly before she visits the Salem Witch Museum. A strange man in seventeenth century garb tries to accost her there and the building. He continues to stalk her while strange phenomena begin to involve her more and more. Soon, it appears that she is becoming possessed by the spirit of Ann Putnam. Unfortunately, further description gets rather involved and would give too much away. Though the film is not action-oriented and would likely be of little interest to many viewers, the performances are good and the seventeenth century dialogue used in the film's many flashbacks sounds very convincing. The production values are solid with the possible exception of some of the special effects. In a side-note, the film's technical advisor was Laurie Cabot, Salem's official witch. Viewers who appreciate a well-made, atmospheric, but understated horror film may appreciate this. The writer/director, Bert I. Gordon, has had a long career in horror and science fiction filmmaking and is best known for his work on a number of "big bug" films and similar works years earlier.

I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!<br /><br />I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.<br /><br />I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.<br /><br />I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.

Grey Gardens was enthralling and crazy and you just couldn't really look away. It was so strange, and funny and sad and sick and ……….. really no words can describe. The move Grey Gardens is beyond bizarre. I found out about this film reading my Uncle John's Great Big Bathroom Reader, by the Bathroom Reader's Institute and it was well worth the rental and bump to the top of my movie watching queue. This movie is about the nuttiest most eccentric people that may have ever been filmed. One should watch it for their favorite Edie outfits, which I am sure include curtains. When I get old I almost wish to be just like Big Edie, thumbing my nose at normalcy and society.

It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.

I started off being interested somewhat in the movie. It appeared it might be serious drama, dealing with death, grief, and healing, with some realistic human conflict thrown in. Alas, it didn't hold up.<br /><br />I need a movie with somewhat consistent and believable characters. Too many characters in this movie were portrayed as extremely gullible and inconsistent. Look, I know this was not supposed to be Shakespeare, but come on, I need some quality in script and characterization.<br /><br />The acting was alright, the writing not so much. At one point, James Brolin's character is berated for showing up at a picnic under-dressed. He states that ordering him around will not work. His new wife says that if he goes home and changes she will rip his clothes off later. That is a howler. This movie had a few unintentionally funny lines.<br /><br />It was hard to care about Jame's Brolin's character. When he so readily gave his first wife's things to his new wife, even allowing his daughter to be snubbed, I lost most of my sympathy. Who really cares what happens to him. I must confess that I did not finish the movie. If it did a 180 in quality in the last 45 minutes, let me know. It was just unpleasant to watch and so predictable I felt there was no need to finish it.

Another awful movie about hockey. I if never watched hockey and saw Hollywoods version, I would hate the game. This movie doesn't make Canada look that great either. I can laugh at it and not take it too seriously. All the same this movie is awful, with every thing you can put in a 80's movie. In the end don't even watch it on TV. 4/10

With all the hype surrounding the stars of the movie, this movie left me wanting. I expected a much better movie considering the inclusion of the talents of Murphy, De Niro and Russo but found that the movie fell flat on it's face. Comedy sequences were overdone and the superior performances of the stars especially De Niro and Russo couldn't save this one!<br /><br />** out of *****

You get 5 writers together, have each write a different story with a different genre, and then you try to make one movie out of it. It's action, it's adventure, it's sci-fi, it's western, it's a mess. Sorry, but this movie absolutely stinks. 4.5 is giving it an awefully high rating. That said, it's movies like this that make me think I could write movies, and I can barely write.

If it's action and adventure you want in a movie, then you'd be best advised to look elsewhere. On the other hand, if it's a lazy day and you want a good movie to go along with that mood, check out "The Straight Story."<br /><br />Richard Farnsworth puts on a compelling performance as the gentle and gentlemanly Alvin Straight, in this true story of Alvin's journey on a riding mower across three states to see his estranged brother who has had a stroke.<br /><br />Farnsworth is perfect in this role, as he travels his long and winding road, making friends of strangers and doling out lots of grandfatherly type advice about family along the way. The story moves along as slowly as the riding mower, but somehow manages to keep the viewer watching, waiting for the next life lesson Alvin's going to offer.<br /><br />Stretch out on the couch, relax and enjoy. It's the only way to watch this very good movie, which rates a 7/10 in my book.

This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best of…" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.<br /><br />Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.<br /><br />My IMDb Rating: 7/10

This is a very amazing movie! The characters seemed so realistic to me, it was hard to believe they weren't real people. Being from the South, I thought Judith Ivey's character seemed especially real, and as everyone else has mentioned, she does an outstanding acting job. The characters are not beautiful and look nothing like the average Hollywood stars - their imperfect bodies and personalities seem so much more natural and real. <br /><br />One reviewer mentioned that the main character, Alice, had no good reason to run away from home, which is true - she didn't have any moral or upstanding reason to run away, such as escaping child abuse, etc. I thought that she was just fed up with dead-end jobs in a working class life and wanted to flee down to Florida where her friend lived the appealing and privileged life of a college student in Miami. The actress shows Alice's confusion, uncertainty, and questioning turn into decisiveness and willingness to take control of her life with impressive naturalness. The film also shows how Alice is trapped in situations with seemingly no options, causing her to panic, take action, and reach out for help. <br /><br />At first, the grainy filming style put me off and made me think that it was a very low budget or homemade movie, but in actuality it is very well done. The home movie quality really makes you feel like you are there with the characters, a part of their RV trip across the country. This is definitely a film worth seeing, although I don't quite understand all the descriptions of it as a heart-warming coming of age tale. It is rather vulgar and disturbing at times, even if it is not completely sad in the end.

The film listed here as having been made in 1980 is not the film which is available from Something Weird Video in their "Driver's Ed Scare Films Vol. 5". For one thing the 1980 version is in color. SWV has on this disc an earlier version (1972) of the film made in b&w for WLWT television Channel 5 in Cincinnati. Either way this film is notorious. However, unlike most other driver's ed films, this was intended for television broadcast and viewing by the general public. Thus the level of carnage has been ratcheted down. It's still a pretty grim exercise in exploitation of bloody death for a purported educational intent. I live in the Cincinnati area and I remember this thing being shown every year around prom time on Channel 5. If you're looking for one film that demonstrates the tone of this uniquely American film phenomenon, "The Last Prom" is pretty typical - morose, hyperbolic, extremely didactic, heavy on melodrama. Whether it really affected any teenager's driving at all is anyone's guess.

I'm a big fan of fan of film noir, and this film by Otto Preminger easily stands as one of the best that I've seen! Preminger has reunited two of his stars from the hit 'Laura' - Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, for an entirely different sort of crime film. Laura was based around love, and this film is based around hate; as we watch police detective Mark Dixon, a copper already suffering scrutiny from his superiors for his heavy handed tactics, accidentally kill a suspect and try to pin the murder on a known criminal; a man by the name of Tommy Scalisi. The plot is brilliantly worked, and Preminger excellently balances several plot points; but it all comes back down to the main moral implication surrounding our main character. The fact that the film is set in the criminal underground means that the plot is given an excellent base to work from, and director Otto Preminger expertly captures the sleazier side of life by showing the main characters gambling, beating one another (and their women), shooting and more - and this also helps to offset the film from the earlier 'Laura', which was very much set in upper class society.<br /><br />The role of Mark Dixon gives Dana Andrews one of the most interesting parts of his career. Here, we have a character that is difficult to like as he's so cold - but the fact that we can understand his motives ensures that he's easy to sympathise with, and that allows the audience the ability to plug into his plight. The character development is well timed, and as we've follows this character and his motivations throughout the film; everything makes sense by the end. His co-star is the beautiful Gene Tierney, who isn't given as much to do in this film as she was in Laura; a film that made Tierney its linchpin. She does well with what she's got, however, and the lead duo's chemistry is excellent and Tierney helps to complete every scene she's in. I can't say that this is a better film than the earlier Laura; that's a hard act to follow, but this film certainly fits into the film noir formula better than Preminger's earlier film. The film also makes a good comparison piece for Laura; as just about everything in this film is opposite to the 1944 movie, yet it's all strangely familiar. Highly recommended to all!

Revolt of the Zombies starts with Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) trying to convince General Duval (George Cleveland) that his mate Tsiang (William Crowell) is a priest who has the power to hypnotise people & render them under his control turning them into mindless zombies (a bit like the people I work with really). Anyway, Tsiang is murdered by Colonel Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) but fails to gain the knowledge of turning people into zombies. An expedition has been set up by General Duval to hunt for the secret since Tsiang ain't going to tell them much anymore. General Duval heads the expedition along with his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone) who is engaged to Louque who also comes along. During the expedition Claire dumps Louque for his mate Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) at which Louque isn't too pleased about. In a way that could only happen in a film Louque finds the secret to turning people into zombies by himself & starts to use his new found power to gain revenge on Claire & Clifford... Co-written & directed by Victor Halperin Revolt of the Zombies has a bad reputation & after watching it I can see why. The script by Halperin, Howard Higgin & Rollo Lloyd all uncredited, has a good central idea but is killed stone cold dead by being dull & as exciting as watching paint dry. Nothing much happens for ages & then nothing much happens afterwards either. How Halperin depicts his zombies is different to that which most modern audiences would consider to be a zombie, these zombies are just brainwashed people & filmgoing audiences would have to wait over thirty years before George A.Romero would define what a zombie is now thought as in Night of the Living Dead (1968). At only about an hour in length Revolt of the Zombies still feels too long. Technically the film is OK considering it was made 70 years ago, the black & white cinematography is adequate although some of the scenes look like they were shot against a photo of the background location. The acting is wooden & largely unimpressive. Revolt of the Zombies might have been hot stuff in 1936 but it hasn't dated well & in 2005 it's an absolute chore to sit through. I believe the film is now public domain as it turns up on lots of ultra cheap DVD compilations & budget labels, but it's still not worth watching no matter how cheap you can get it for.

The twins effect is a vampire martial arts movie available in Cantonese with English subtitles. It is a Jackie Chan production and he does make a special guest appearance, although it is not for those that liked Shanghai Noon/Knights and the other recent Hollywood flicks he has become known for, this film is a lot more special than that.<br /><br />It was originally called The Vampire Effect but as a very popular Chinese female pop duo called The Twins (Charlene Choi and Gillian Chung) took the two leading roles the title was changed to cash in on their fame.<br /><br />The film will appeal to three types of audience: those who love martial arts films, those who love vampire films and those who loath the rubbish films Hollywood generally churns out.<br /><br />The premise for the film is that vampires are about and a secret society seeks to hunt them down before we all become snacks for the undead. This bloody work is carried out by some martial artists who drink a little vampire blood to give them the edge they need, well it must be thirsty work! Things are going pretty much for the course until a particularly nasty European vamp finds out that he if he obtains a set of keys held by all the vampire princes then he can walk around in sunlight etc and generally eat when ever he wants to. To say anymore on the plot would spoil the enjoyment of watching the film.<br /><br />The twins consist of one assigned vampire slayer (Chung) and the sister (Choi) of another. It is the twins that really make the film; with some of the freshest and funniest acting going. The fight scenes they carry out are fast and furious and well choreographed with a mix of genuine athleticism and wire work. To add the cherry on the cake the twins are both quite lovely to watch too.<br /><br />The direction is crisp and the script is sharp. There are only 3 things that let this film down: the make-up for the vampires is quite poor, Jackie Chan seems to be in the film just for the hell of it and adds nothing to its content, and some of the slapstick comedy attempted by the male vampire hunter is quite lame. Thankfully the twins save the day bringing an originality to the film normally only found in European films. The best scene for me was one of them (Choi) communicating only by screaming, her ability to convey her thoughts through this medium was a comic delight.<br /><br />Their are many other touches of originality in this film - I particularly liked the coffin complete with surround sound stereo and TV screen! And it is the films' many original touches and acting that stops this from being a tired old flop and turns it into a must see movie.

It's been a long time since I have been in the art-house theater and I went to see Douches Froides because it has gotten such great reviews in the papers.<br /><br />The thing is with this movie, is that it has no head or tail, but merely a section in time about the life of the three main characters.<br /><br />When it started I already knew that it was gonna be a long sit down, but sometimes things can get better, in this case not. There is no real character development or interconnection between the players. You start in the middle of a situation, all of the sudden there's a girlfriend and then there's a guy with whom he needs to be friends with in order to fulfill his sports ambitions, but the way they are put together is quite odd, since they are "just put together", so it seems.<br /><br />And all of the sudden they have sex with each other, at least one you can see of. The feeling of guilt or jealousy with the other guy is hardly noticeable and really all I could think of during the movie was "when are they gonna have sex again?". And when you think of it, it's quite insane really. Because it basically means there is nothing really worth looking at, but three teens going at it and that, for me at least, makes it a very crappy movie, stay clear from it and save your money (my €7,50 is wasted), there are better art-house movies than this one.<br /><br />I give three stars for the acting performance, one each.

The main aspect about the Superstar's movies at his later stages were the frequency, the lacuna between one movie and the next. Being a well established star of the south Indian cinema, the feedbacks he was receiving before Baba was great. <br /><br />Since Nattukku Oru Nallavan (1991), the number of movies he acted in Tamil as a mass Hero in 11 years were only 11 exactly at the rate of 1 per year. All of these were a great hit. He was having a image that many thought could not be easily brought down. <br /><br />But after Padayappa (1999), he went into a state of Hibernation. His fans all over the world, especially in South India were ready to see movie of any kind with their superstar in action. So, the Tamil cinema industry decided to come with Baba. <br /><br />The movie makers thought that the fans will take whatever they show with Superstar in it. But this clearly did not work out in this movie. As usual, the hype from the media and the expectation from the fans were way beyond limit. <br /><br />Rajinikanth's image was totally damaged. The fans went nuts. The movie's collection did not meet the expected level. Reputation of great people went down. <br /><br />The only positive aspect about this movie was the songs by A.R.Rehman. Rehman is known to have composed good music for some worst movies like Tajmahal, Kadal Virus, Alli Arjuna, Paarthale Paravasam, Star, En Swasa Katre, Vandicholai Chinnarasu etc. Well, i never thought that this movie would join that league.<br /><br />You'l feel very much depressed not because the movie was bad, it'l be because of the superstar's image going down. It took him five full years to regain it fully back with two movies Chandramukhi and Sivaji and give fans back what they really look for in a superstar film.

I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. "Cute" was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being.

Style over substance. But what a style it is. "The Cell" is the internal version of most serial killer movies. Unfortunately, the story hardly supports the visuals.<br /><br />Psychotherapist Catherine Deane (J-Lo) goes into her patients' dreams via artificial means to discover and help them over come their phobias and obsessions. A new patient whose fallen into a coma, is brought to her attention by the FBI. He's a serial killer who drowns his female victims then poses their bodies in grotesque scenarios like mannequins. Deane must enter the killer's mind and navigate through his sick fantasies in order to find and save his latest victim. <br /><br />Director Tarsem Singh has incredible visions and set pieces for this production. Each dream sequence is like a nightmare-ish painting in motion, from the landscapes to the costumes. <br /><br />But the plot suffers from lack of history of its characters. Stargher is the only person with a thorough background and he's the last person you want to care about. Without him, you basically have a movie that moves in the present tense only, which is a shame since the movie is so visually stunning and genuinely scary. Lopez is wasted but she's not that amazing an actress anyway, though she's as gorgeous as ever. And Vince Vaughn? I don't even know why he was chosen. This is not his forte and he overacts to boot. He tried too hard to become his character and it showed. Stick to comedy, Vince! Even so, this movie is so visually frightening, I still watch this movie with the lights on and can never fall asleep right away afterward.

This film was on last week and although at that time of the day (around 6pm) the quality of the movies is almost never good (at least here on Mexican TV), I couldn't switch the TV off. The story about Madelene Moore really touches you. She doesn't come across as a very sympathetic character at first, but seeing the whole film, you just want her so succeed. This film really leaves you thinking. And i think that basically due to the great acting of Brooke Johnson. I had never heard of her before nor knowingly seen her in another film, but this was great great acting. Compliments to Brooke. I hope to see her in another film soon.

This 1953 Sam Fuller movie contains some of his best work, and its sad that he couldn't continue to get the backing of major Hollywood studios to do his stuff. The story line goes something like this. A tough hard broad (read prostitute) is riding the subway one hot summer day, and gets her pocketbook picked by Skip McCoy. What Skip (and the dame) don't realize is that she is also carrying some microfilm to be passed to commie spies. This opening shot without dialogue, and mostly in tight close-ups is a beaut,one of the many that Fuller uses throughout the movie. Playing the babe known as Candy is Jean Peters, who was never better nor better looking. One forgets how beautiful she was, and she handles this role very well. The Pickpocket is played by Richard Widmark, who had already made his mark, and set his style with 1947's Kiss Of Death as the crazy creep with the creepy laugh, and although he's a little "softer" here, he's still scary. These hard edged characters do have soft spots here and there, but its noir and nasty all the way. The standout performance belongs to the wonderful Thelma Ritter,who plays Moe the stoolie saving up her dough to pay for her own funeral. Ritter received a well deserved Oscar nomination for her performance, but lost out to the boring but popular performance of Donna Reed as the B girl (read prostitute) in "From Here To Eternity." Hollywood loves it when a good girl goes bad, and loves to Oscar them even though their performance is usually awful. See for instance Shirley Jones in "Elmer Gantry. Set among the docks and dives of New York City, with crisp black and white photography by the great Joe MacDonald,and some very good art direction. Especially good is the set representing the New York City subways and Widmark's shack near the river. Made at the height of the cold war and red scare, the villian of the piece is the ordinary looking commie, played by Richard Kiley who is much more dangerous than the pickpocket who is a criminal but is just trying to make a living and above all is a loyal American.

I really like this show. It has drama, romance, and comedy all rolled into one. I am 28 and I am a married mother, so I can identify both with Lorelei's and Rory's experiences in the show. I have been watching mostly the repeats on the Family Channel lately, so I am not up-to-date on what is going on now. I think females would like this show more than males, but I know some men out there would enjoy it! I really like that is an hour long and not a half hour, as th hour seems to fly by when I am watching it! Give it a chance if you have never seen the show! I think Lorelei and Luke are my favorite characters on the show though, mainly because of the way they are with one another. How could you not see something was there (or take that long to see it I guess I should say)? <br /><br />Happy viewing!

We often see movies about undesirable things going on in politics, but I still recommend "City Hall". In a role he was born to play, Al Pacino stars as New York's mayor who has to deal with the shooting of a boy. But it turns out that nothing that he does will really have any effect. In this movie, the characters are as gritty as we would expect of anyone involved in a political scandal. No matter how much you trust any given politician, you may have your doubts after watching this movie.<br /><br />I understand that I can't name any specific example of something similar to what this movie portrays, but that's not the point. If we had idealistic impressions of those at the top, this movie tears such ideas down. Certainly one that I encourage you to see. Also starring John Cusack, Bridget Fonda, Danny Aiello, Anthony Franciosa and David Paymer.

This is hands down the most annoying and frustrating game I have ever encountered. Every time you turn around the game takes control of your character or creates invisible walls that you can't walk through. The cut scenes leave you in control of your character's movements, but only to a slight degree. Also, you have to play the game for about 2 hours just to get past the intro/tutorials. It's terrible! I am afraid if I play this game any more I will end up breaking something. This game sucks. The graphics are good, but nothing special, the game play, however, is awful. To say I hate this game would be a huge understatement. I got it on sale, but I want my $20 back. What a waste!

This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.<br /><br />He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.<br /><br />The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time.

An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________

Great concept, perfect characterizations and voices, but a complete waste of time. A real shame since had it aimed higher, it would probably not have been the bomb it was (is); way too dependent upon scatological humor, for starters. I'm amazed by comments from "educated" reviewers referring to the "good science" behind this piece of puerile trash. Unlike "Finding Nemo," where (with a bit of suspension of disbelief) attention to detail was staggering and the science was as good as the context would allow, "Osmosis Jones" was utter nonsense; don't kid yourself about the science. Humor aimed at eight-year-olds but subject matter suitable more for some unsophisticated teens.

I'm giving this film 9 out of 10 only because there aren't enough specific scientific references to the amount of energy it takes to produce food to satisfy the science haters. mdixon seems to believe the admittedly biased commentators are making this stuff up, but even an elementary understanding of resources and the laws of thermodynamics will indicate that at the very least, they are on solid scientific ground when they state that we cannot continue to depend on oil, we must transition to different types of energy, and do not have a plan that will replace the amount of energy we get from oil. Other civilizations have refused to face the facts of life, and have perished. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" which is a popular book, or any elementary Ecology or Earth Science textbook and you can verify the basic premise of this movie. Go ahead, fiddle while Rome burns!

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

This film was amazing. It is an inspiring piece of cinema. The characters are fully developed through the truth in which Director, Lucy Walker brings to the film. I highly recommend this to any one looking for that special film that shows the humanity in the human condition. Lucy Wlaker showcases the landscape beauty. This film id a true example of man vs. nature and sometimes man vs. man. The inner turmoil and triumph is tremendous in its subject matter. The subject of how the Tiebtans view blindness as a sign of demons is interesting. This film sheds light on a particular culture that has never been showcased. Lucy Walker has given Erik Weihenmayer a voice when he would have not normally been heard. Thank you Lucy for being true to your vison as a filmmaker.

This movie was OK, as far as movies go. It could have been made as a crossover into secular movies. However, it had little to do with the Left Behind books that it was supposedly based on. Major story premises were removed, and new major story premises were added. <br /><br />What disappointed me most was how Nicolae was portrayed. He was shown with supernatural powers that he did not have at this point in the books. Antichrist is not Satan, is not omniscient and not omnipotent. <br /><br />Faith and beliefs were portrayed in weird, surreal ways that seemed to make the movie just silly.<br /><br />Non-believers who watch this will have more ammunition to mock Christian beliefs.

"Flavia, la monaca muslmana" aka. "Flavia the Heretic" of 1974 is a truly disturbing and uncompromising piece of Italian Exploitation cinema that, to a certain extent, follows a somewhat feminist premise (though the level of sleaze and brutality would probably disgust the majority of feminists). Set mostly in a convent, and with a nun as the eponymous central protagonist (great performance by the wonderful Florinda Bolkan), "Flavia the Heretic" may be referred to as a 'Nunsploitation' film. However, this film differs quite drastically from the typical Nunsploitation flicks from the time, as it doesn't so much focus on the nunsploitation elements such as lesbianism, sadistic lesbian punishments, etc. Personally, I saw more similarities to the Hexploitation flicks of the time, such as "Mark of The Devil", (even though this one doesn't treat the topic of witch-hunts), which focus on the brutal execution of Christian fundamentalism in the middle ages and early modern period.<br /><br />Italy around 1600: After witnessing her despotic father behead a wounded Muslim soldier, young Flavia is forced to become a nun in a convent. When her father condemns a fellow nun to a torturous death for a small misdemeanor years later, Falvia's disgust with male violence against women turns into hatred against the despotic church, and she joins a band of Arabic scavengers...<br /><br />One thing is for sure, "Flavia the Heretic" is not for the faint-hearted, and neither is it for those who want happy endings. Director Gianfranco Mingozzi obviously tried to make his film as realistic and disturbing as possible, especially in its nasty scenes. The many torture- and execution-scenes are extremely disturbing, with skinnings, spikings and other gruesome scenes in explicit detail, the most shocking scene probably being the torture of the young nun quite in the beginning of the film. The violence here is never superfluous, however. After all, this gruesome methods actually were reality in the time the film is set in. The film is very well-made, with realistic costumes, fantastic settings an elegant cinematography and a great score by Nicola Piovani. The stunningly beautiful and great Florinda Bolkan has proved her talent in many great Italian cult-productions (including Lucio Fulci's Giallo-masterpiece "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" of 1972). She delivers another great, charismatic performance here, and I couldn't imagine another actress fitting as well in the role as she does. The film has some minor inconsistencies (E.g. why does the rigid church let bizarre cult-followers into convents in the first place). However, it is overall amazing how realistic this film is. "Flavia the Heretic" should definitely not be missed by my fellow fans of Italian Exploitation Cinema. This is a great Exploitation flick overall, though it definitely is a deeply depressing one and therefore should be watched in the right mood. Highly recommended to fans of disturbing exploitation cinema. 7.5/10

I would like to know who conned the producers of this movie to pay for its production - That persion is a genius of sorts. This movie somehow held my attention for about two thirds of it until I realized that it was going nowhere fast. I think the music managed to make it seem like something was going on, but nothing really was. It was not scary. The dialog was poorly written. The first 90 minutes should have been covered in about 15 minutes. This would have been a moderately acceptable Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode.<br /><br />At this point I'm just mad that I wasted all that time. That's a couple hours that I will never get back.<br /><br />I hope these comments save someone from wasting their evening. Take a nap or hit the gym instead. Or if you want to be scared, turn on a cable news channel.

Tian's remake is no good at all. I only click on his remake documentary to see Wei Wei, the original actress back in the classic 1948 film say a few words to the crew. We are going to meet Wei Wei this Sunday (28/3/2010) after the showing of Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun in the Hong Kong Film Archiev. Wei Wei is almost 90 years old in silver hair, her cameo appearance in Hong Kong films is always a surprise to her fans. In this year's Hong Kong Film Festival, a special program is dedicated to Fei Mu, director of this epic movie and Wei Wei's still shot from the movie is being seen all around in Hong Kong. My son, who turns 21 this year, is surprised Wei Wei was so beautiful then.

"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". <br /><br />Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. <br /><br />While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. <br /><br />The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? <br /><br />With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. <br /><br />While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.<br /><br />The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.<br /><br />I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.

As a devotee of Ms. Frank, I remember being so excited that the play was being re-made for TV. That is, until I saw it... This film is a prime example of how IMPORTANT casting is, and how directing plays such an important part in creating the sense of purpose. The casting of any CENTRAL role is CRUCIAL to a production of this sort...shows like AUNTIE MAME and MAN OF LA MANCHA are totally dependent on the charisma of the lead actor. And in the cast of this movie, the whole thing is destroyed by the atrocious casting of Melissa Gilbert in the lead role. There is not ONE SINGLE MOMENT that Ms. Gilbert even comes close to inhabiting the sensitive, mature spirit of Anne- Ms. Gilbert is "white-bread" throughout the movie... the only time I was close to tears was during the reading of Anne's most haunting line: "I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart"- this is spoken by Ms. Gilbert so rushed, so lacking in conviction, that she might has well burped and achieved the same effect. Film and dance legend Marge Champion was the dialogue coach for this production- she should have refunded her salary! Despite Ms. Gilbert ruining DIARY, other performances are satisfactory for the most part- special kudos to Joan Plowright as Edith, Scott Jacoby as Peter and Clive Reville as Mr. Dussell. Maxmillian Schell does not have the deep-rooted soul and spirit as Otto as does the creator of the role on stage and film(Joseph Schildkraut), but he's okay. Doris Roberts and James Coco as The Van Danns are relatively superficial in their parts- they're shrill and bombastic, but again, only on the surface. This COULD be due to the fact that the pacing of the project is way too rushed(as noted in previous postings)- this film clocks in 45 minutes shorter than the film version- the difference owing to the pauses for dramatic effect, which apparently is necessary to propagate the appropriate MOOD for the story. This is NOT mandatory viewing, especially for youngsters learning about Anne Frank for the first time- stick to the original film version, and or even better, the TV production of ANNE FRANK: THE TRUE STORY starring Ben Kingsley, which is the CLOSEST thing to capturing the heartbreak and reality of Anne's situation ever filmed! Note: Especially appalling is the fact that Melora Marshall, who plays Anne's sister Margot, is NOT included in the opening credits along with all the other members of The Secret Annex... she's listed in the post-credits along with the actors playing Miep and Mr. Kraler. If I was Ms. Marshall, I would have SUED!

This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now.

This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.

As good an advert for republicanism as you're ever likely to see,"Mayerling"is an everyday story of royal folk in late nineteenth century Austria.Set during one of Europe's seemingly incessant internal turmoils it concerns itself with the Emperor Franz Joseph (Mr James Mason),his rebellious son,the Crown Prince Rudolf (Mr Omar Sharif)the Empress(Miss Ava Gardner) and various mistresses,secret policemen,spies,extravagantly-uniformed popinjays,gypsies,dancers,wives, soldiers,swans,horses and the bizarre inbred web of European royalty at the time of Franz Joseph's Austro-Hungarian Empire. Filmed in what the old movie posters used to call "A Riot of Color" it resembles nothing more than an expensively-dressed but intellectually-challenged production of "The Student Prince" .Mr James Mason,wearing a very natty little white number,utilises his all-purpose mittel-European accent whenever he remembers.I am a great admirer of his and I sincerely hope the remuneration was comensurate with the distaste he clearly felt for the character he was playing. Mr Omar Sharif,who built a career largely founded on looking directly at the camera with his big brown eyes and looking soulful,gives a stupefyingly monotonous performance as his son the Crown Prince.He is utterly unconvincing as a man who -in the movie at least-cut a swathe through the distaff side of the Austrian aristocracy.With his well-buttered locks firmly in place he preens and poses in ever more unlikely uniforms.As a rebel he talks the talk but conspicuously fails to walk the walk,leaving a bottom button undone on one of his tunics is about as far as his defiance goes.Unhappily married,he falls in love with a commoner."Forbidden Love" is one of the movie's come-ons.As she is played by the most uncommon Miss Catherine Deneuve he is scarcely pushing the envelope there.Miss Deneuve has a profile to die for and we see rather a lot of it,particularly in the sequence set at the ballet. Now I love ballet as much as the next man,but this sequence does seem to go on for an excessive amount of time,a more cynical critic might consider it to be "padding". Rudolf's mother,the Empress is played by Miss Ava Gardner.She gives the part some good old American oooomph,making her a bit like "Auntie Mame",but it's done with undeniable style.Rudolf is certainly very fond of his mother - I'll put it no more strongly than that. The only performance worth watching is that of Mr James Robertson Justice as Sir Lancelot Spratt - sorry,Edward,Prince of Wales.He is so wonderfully unconcerned about everything going on around him it's a joy to behold.I waited vainly for him to ask Rudolf the immortal question "What's the bleeding time?". I am not qualified to dispute "Mayerling" 's historical accuracy,but,in my opinion,everything else about it is risible. It is a Ruritanian Opera Buffa without the tunes to send you home from the theatre whistling.

What a great film it is. The notion of nations sending people fighting each other with giant robots is tacky. The ending is not just a fitting one, it's more inspirational.<br /><br />But I am intrigued by the characters. It is a pity we never see the relationship of Achilles and Athena more developed beyond just a couple of kisses and Athena's fear for Achilles's safety. Their romance is very enjoyable.<br /><br />

Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.

I've noticed that a lot of people are taking Opera to task for the way Betty reacts to the murders. I think they are basing these complaints on how they imagine a "normal" person would react. The thing is...Betty is not a "normal" person, due to traumatic events in her childhood. She has problems way way before the movie ever even starts...and by the end of Opera...in my opinion...she has become totally unhinged.<br /><br />---------------------SPOILERS--------------------------------------- You have to keep in mind that when she was a very small child she witnessed her mother's lover commit at least one brutal murder while her sadomasochist mother was getting off watching it.<br /><br />She was raised by a woman who achieves sexual release tied up watching girls get hacked, slashed, and strangled to death. That does not make for a healthy home life. I think it's pretty easy to conclude that her mother would have employed all sorts of emotional manipulation and negative reinforcement to ensure that her daughter never snitched on her. It is also likely that at her impressionable age, Betty might have been deeply confused by what she saw. Is this just something that adults do, etc.<br /><br />Betty obviously looks up to her mother...I mean...she's become an opera singer just like her. If mommy likes it it can't be bad, can it...mommy can't be bad, can she? She couldn't tell the police on her mommy or this mysterious hooded fellow she associates with mommy.<br /><br />Betty has a lot of deep-seated emotional issues. Her mind has for years been trying to block out the memory of what she saw her mother doing...but it keeps coming to the surface, manifesting itself in the form of horrible nightmares, skull-throbbing migraines, a dependence on relaxation techniques, and sexual frigidity She associates brutal violence/bloody death with sex on a subconscious level. There's an inner struggle between the part of Betty that has confused murder/sex and the part of her which believes these things to be wrong.<br /><br />After she's seen her boyfriend murdered by the hooded man...she calls the police, yet is unwilling to give her name. The part of her that thinks murder is wrong forces her to make the call, but the part that is ambivalent won't allow her to admit personal involvement. The ambivalent part of her takes control before she can go all the way. So she walks away from the phone in the rain...and when she's picked up by the director she's acting surprisingly calm, not as upset as you would think a "normal" person would be...because the part of her that's been blocking stuff since she was a child is trying its damnedest to block the horror of what she's just witnessed.<br /><br />The state of affairs in her life all contribute to an impasse within Betty's psyche. Her singing career is starting to bear fruit...she's going to be a great opera singer like her mother was. But is she going to become like her mother in all ways? In the darker ways? Or will she be able to make her own path? Add this to the re-emergence of the hooded man murdering everyone around her.<br /><br />It's not until the hooded man kills Daria Nicolodi's character that Betty really takes an active role in defeating the killer. Here's someone who loves Betty, who's supported her wholeheartedly in her emerging career, who is in fact a maternal figure in Betty's life now since mommy's dead. Imagine how terrible it would be to lose your real mother and then to see the woman who is the closest thing you have to a mother get shot through the eyeball.<br /><br />I could go on...but I won't. The main gist of what I'm saying is that the character of Betty is a lot more complex than most of the reviewers on here have been willing to acknowledge.<br /><br />Opera is one of Argento's best...and not just for the visuals alone (although they are truly magnificent) and not just for the inventive murders (although they are). There is a depth here...and attention needs to be paid.

What a lovely heart warming television movie. The story tells of a little five year old girl who has lost her daddy and finds it impossible to cope. Her mother is also very distressed ..only a miracle can alleviate their unhappiness.Which all viewers hope will materialise. Samantha Mathis is brilliant as the little girl's mum ,as she was as the nanny in" Jack and Sarah",worth watching if you like both Samantha Mathis and happy; year tear jerking movies! Ellen Burstyn is, as, always a delightful grandmother in this tender and magnificently acted movie. Jodelle Ferland (the little five year old) is charming and a most convincing young actress. The film is based on a true story which makes it so touching."Mermaid" is a tribute to the milk of human kindness which is clearly illustrated and clearly is still all around us in this difficult world we live in. "Mermaid" gives us all hope ,by realising that there a lot of lovely people in the world with lot's of love to give. James Robson Glasgow Scotland U.K.

"Murder Over New York" is an entertaining entry in the Charlie Chan series of films, but if you're paying attention, a lot of plot holes reveal themselves to the observant eye. While traveling to New York City for an annual police convention, Chan (Sidney Toler) meets former Scotland Yard investigator Hugh Drake (Frederick Worlock) on the same flight. Now employed by military intelligence, Drake is tracking Paul Narvo and his Hindu servant, suspected for acts of sabotage around the world. Drake believes that by contacting Narvo's elusive wife, he'll be able to pin down the whereabouts of the master criminal.<br /><br />When Drake winds up dead in the library of George Kirby, president of the Metropolitan Aircraft Corporation, Charlie theorizes that he was killed by a recently discovered poisonous gas called "tetrogene", administered via a glass pellet that releases the poison when broken. Summoning Kirby to bring all of his dinner party guests together, Chan and Police Inspector Vance (Donald MacBride) question those in attendance, as one of them may be the killer. Among them are Herbert Fenton (Melville Cooper), a fellow Oxford student of Drake's, actress June Preston (Joan Valerie), unknown to Drake but requested by him to attend, Ralph Percy (Kane Richmond), the chief designer at Kirby's aircraft company, and Keith Jeffrey (John Sutton), Kirby's stock broker. Kirby butler Boggs (Leyland Hodgson) is also a suspect, especially after Number #2 Son Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) catches him steaming open a cablegram, the contents of which concern Boggs himself.<br /><br />There are some other cleverly planted characters in the proceedings as well. Mrs. Narvo turns up as Patricia West (Marjorie Weaver), and contrary to Drake's suspicion that she might lead him to Narvo, is actually on the run away from her former husband and a disastrous marriage. She's involved with David Elliott (Robert Lowery), principal of a chemical research firm, and thereby a suspect in the tetrogene angle.<br /><br />As with many Chan films, racial comments must be taken in stride with the proceedings. This one offers two glaring ones. When Kirby's black servant is brought in for questioning, he states that he doesn't know anything about Drake's murder, that he's completely "in the dark". Chan's response: "Condition appear contagious".<br /><br />Later, following Inspector Vance's order to round up all the Hindu's in New York, Jimmy Chan comments on their arrival with "They're all beginning to look alike to me." Actually, the scene provides one of the elements of comic relief in the movie, as Shemp Howard impersonates Hindu mystic "The Great Rashid", but is actually uncovered by the police to be con artist Shorty McCoy.<br /><br />Before the movie's over, two more victims fall to the clever Narvo - his confederate Ramullah, and aircraft magnate Kirby himself. To uncover the killer, Chan, in concert with Elliott, arranges for a test flight aboard a newly developed TR4 Bomber after discovering a poisoned capsule planted by mechanics on the plane the day before. Before it can release it's deadly poison, the Brit Fenton catches the falling capsule in mid-air, revealing that he knew about the plant. Arrested and brought in for questioning, Chan asserts that Fenton is not Narvo. The real Narvo reveals himself when he offers a poisoned cup of water to the nervous Fenton, anxious to maintain Narvo's secret. But Chan was clever enough to be wary of such an attempt, and reveals the real murderer - Narvo now in the guise of stock broker Jeffrey, having undergone reconstructive surgery following a car accident.<br /><br />Now for the plot holes. When first investigating Hugh Drake's murder, it was maintained by the police that fingerprints found in the library did not match those of any of the dinner guests. However Jeffrey/Narvo was present at the dinner party. It had already been established that Drake had one non party visitor in the library, chemist Elliott. If the fingerprints really did not belong to Narvo, then making them an issue was pointless.<br /><br />Also, at the end of the film when Narvo offers Fenton the poisoned water, how did he think he would get away with it with everyone there as a witness? But going even one better than that, how would a world traveling saboteur like Narvo have the time and wherewithal to establish himself as a New York City stockbroker, it just doesn't make sense. <br /><br />For trivia fans, a few more points bear mentioning. In the film, Number #2 Son Jimmy is a college student studying chemistry as he comes to "Pop's" aid to solve the case. In the prior Chan film - "Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum" - Jimmy was a law student.<br /><br />The poison gas formula would get reworked in a later Chan film, this time by Monogram with Roland Winters in the Chan role in "Docks of New Orleans". In that story, poison gas is released from shattered radio tubes in similar fashion to claim its' victims.

I will admit my ignorance of this film's existence, until I saw it advertised on a cable outlet. I was very impressed with the novelistic structure of the film. The film, which is in a language I do not understand, shone with intelligence and nuance for me. I think this speaks to the film's quality. It was visually stunning. The acting was visually entrancing. The Chinese theater traditions of movement, used to enhance the delivery of dialogue, is so compelling after watching Western film, where actors traditionally focus more heavily on the dialogue. The action in this film comes right at you, without a lot of explosions to get your attention. It is human action that is so affective here. The added advantage that the film taught me history about one of the world's greatest tourist attractions, the funereal clay army of China's First Qin Emporer, was very impressive. It seemed to give the film an international relevance beyond the film's great ethical themes. This is a film I can comfortably recommend to a wide variety of friends and acquaintances.

There is something that one of the characters (the aging film director who pretends to be dead) says which may summarize all the film: "In Italy it's the dead who rule". True! This is a country without a future, in the hands of old and jaded men. And Bellocchio's cryptic portrait of the country, pivoted on the apparently senseless story of a director who has to film marriage parties to earn a living, manages to say a lot about what is not working here. But foreigners may miss the point, as it's not clearly expressed. I understand that Australian or Canadian people who watch this may get bored and wonder if there's a meaning--well, there's a meaning, but it's clear only to people who live here today, and keep their eyes wide open... like Bellocchio. Surely it's not one of his best films, and it's not as powerful as Buongiorno, notte, but it's worth seeing... for Italians who live in Italy.

Mary Poppins is definitely much better, but this is a lovely film nonetheless. Angela Lansbury is splendidly dotty as Engletine Price, and David Tomlinson has great fun as Mr. Brown. Their chemistry was just brilliant as well. The children, however just lacked the same sparkle, though Paul is very funny and cute. The songs were actually not as bad as some people say, "Beautiful Briny Sea" is the best, in fact all the songs are outstanding. The special effects were wonderful, that had plenty of magic, and the story is original enough. The highlights, though, like Mary Poppins, were the animated sequences. The underwater sequence was beautiful, but my favourite was the football match, which was absolutely hilarious. The only other criticism was that I didn't quite get the ending when I first saw it. All in all, a lovely film, that is hardly ever on. 8/10 Bethany Cox

A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.

Worth the admission price for the Rock-off alone!! Any D fan will LOVE this movie (even though it's a tad short) and cameos from John C Reilly, Ben Stiller, Tim Robbins, Meatloaf and Dave Grohl (just about recognisable) prove that the D rock hard enough for anyone. Even Dio... The sasquatch/mushroom scene is going to become an instant classic (I don't want to say any more and be accused of putting spoilers in here). Fans of the original HBO series will see a couple of nods to the D's early on-screen appearances in characters such as Lee and the open mic host. I only wish that they had played a few of the songs from the first album and the omission of 'the government totally sucks' from the POD album is also a shame. Other than that this movie rocks. Obey the D!

A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.<br /><br />I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.<br /><br />Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)? <br /><br />Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.

Love the characters and the story line. Very funny with plenty of action. Thomas Ian Griffith and Tia Carrer give great performances. I enjoyed the dynamic and comical interaction of Griffith and Career. Donald Southerland plays a very likable, and surprisingly sympathetic, burnt out hit man. All three actors are among my favorites and having them in this movie made for a special treat. A nice addition to my extensive DVD collection. I highly recommend this movie. If you like... Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Replacement Killers, L.A. Confidential, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Abyss and, The Whole Nine Yards... you will love this movie.

This movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.<br /><br />This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.<br /><br />If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.<br /><br />Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.

I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.<br /><br />The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd "Suzanne", another twit. "Donald" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.<br /><br />The film would have been charming with Guiness and the "older woman" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in "The Card", a little known but worthwhile film.

...but I've seen better too.<br /><br />The story here is predictable--a film crew trying to film a horror movie in a place where murders occurred. Three guesses what happens. This isn't a total bomb--the cast is fairly good with pros John Ireland, Faith Domergue and John Carradine giving the best performances. It's reasonably well-made--for a low budget film. Just don't expect any nudity, swearing, blood OR gore (the film has a very mild PG rating). I was never totally bored--it's OK viewing on a quiet night. I saw it on video--it was a HORRIBLE print--very dark and some scenes were impossible to see. Still I didn't hate it and it does have a cool ending which surprised me--basically nothing happens up till then so it catches you off guard. Worth seeing but only if you're a horror film completest.

This movie has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.<br /><br />Rating: ***** out of *****

This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.<br /><br />The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.<br /><br />It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.

Be prepared for the Trip to Haneke's "La pianiste"...The psychological sickness of the main character, wonderfully played by Huppert, goes beyond any limit you could expect. The most stunning part of it is that you start feeling compassion for the character Erika. Trash-Sexuality (no nudes scenes though), perversion, masochism, incestuous relations...Haneke gives us a crude meal, heavy to digest; sometimes, the only way you can escape the extremism of some scenes is to start laughing at it. The "mise en scène" is maybe not the most appealing part of the movie, it has obvious austro-germanic, sometimes scandinavian notes : static, long scenes, but never boring. The vienna settings, the french language used, make the whole look like a european blend. The permanent germanic music Background (Schubert) is beautifully chosen. Above all, both of the Cannes awards for best actors are well deserved: one of the greatest performance of the year by one of the greatest french actress ever.

I was hardly aware of the time in history depicted in this 1971 Brazilian black comedy, however that is not to say it wasn't accessible to me because the movie makes it very clear. It's set in 16th century Brazil, where rival French and Portuguese settlers are exploiting the indigineous people as confederates in their battle to assert dominance. What is particularly interesting about the movie is that it is made by the Portuguese from the point of view of the French. The hero is a likable Frenchman, the Portuguese are barbarians, and the rest of the French are oppressive and greedy. The film's Portuguese makers are objective because when all is said and done, we see that it makes no difference whose side one takes. It's about heredity overpowered by environment in a time starkly defined by tribes. Enemies are made and perpetuated, and like so, the environmental integration never progresses.<br /><br />A Frenchman is captured by the Portuguese is then captured by an indigenous tribe, the Tupinambas, after they massacre a group of Portuguese. The tribe's shaman predicted they would find a strong Portuguese man to cannibalize as revenge for the chief's brother being killed by a Portugeuse musket ball. Thinking the Frenchman is Portuguese, they believe they now have one. Nevertheless, the Frenchman is granted unrestrained course of the village, is sooner or later given a wife, and assumes their accustomed appearance rather than his Western clothes, or any clothes. Another Frenchman comes to the village and tells the tribe that their prisoner is indeed Portuguese, then assures the incensed Frenchman that he will tell them the truth when the Frenchman finds a secret treasure trove that another European has hidden nearby.<br /><br />I found the opening scene funny, because its narration apposed with its contradictions on- screen serve as great satire, even if the movie didn't seem to want to maintain that tone very much more often. It's actually not a terribly riveting film. The bountiful, essential locale, fierce way of life and ripened native women make not only the Frenchman, but us, too, forget any threat, and we have the feeling of him as a free man. It should not be that terribly hard to escape. The cannibalism is as scarce of desire as the full-frontal nudity of the cast, suggested in lieu as the representative core of Pereira dos Santos's dry political cartoon of New World mythology and undeveloped social coherence. At any rate, this 1500s-era social commentary, shot on location at a bay with 365 islands, played almost entirely nude and almost entirely written in Tupi, encourages effective breakdown of established ways which are topical because they've repeated themselves for centuries.

...And there were quite a few of these. <br /><br />I do not like this cartoon as much as many others, partly because it was made in its period. I much prefer cartoons with Daffy and Bugs which are fifteen or so years before-hand. Many people will like this, particularly people who always find violence funny, cartoon or not.<br /><br />The basic plot is a pretty well known one for Looney Tunes: Elmer goes out hunting, Daffy leads him to Bugs and Daffy ends up being shot instead. Also inserted are quite clever and highly entertaining jokes (some do not enhance the episode), ugly shooting and animation which is slightly mediocre. The plot is mainly geared by jokes - each joke keeps the episode going. This way of plot-going is not all that unusual in Looney Tunes (of course if you are pretty much a Looney Tunes boffin - or an eager one - like me, then you'll know this already).<br /><br />For people who love everything about Looney Tunes and Daffy Duck and like the sound of what I have said about it, enjoy "Rabbit Seasoning"!<br /><br />7 and a half out of ten.