Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

Brian Keith as Cole Wlikerson and Richard Jaeckel as Wade Matlock make excellent villains. They just love intimidating the locals in the most brutal way possible, and sneer sexily at any suggestion that there might be a more humane way to achieve their ends. It's a pity that goody-goody Glenn Ford gets in their way.

After watching this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.<br /><br />The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.<br /><br />The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.<br /><br />The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with.

This movie will promote the improvement of the mind. Read a book! It's incredible anyone would think this movie deserved the time and investment to make. I've seen "B" movies before but the "C" movie has just been invented. I didn't think I would ever enjoy Power Rangers since my kids stopped watching but I found myself looking for the videos fifteen minutes into "Knights." High school productions are better than this and the actors involved should erase this from their resume. Embarrassment is one of many descriptions that come to mind. My roommate, who loves these types of movies even turned it off. Now that has to really tell you something. If you watch this movie, and like it, I will pray for you.

This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.

The reason why I say this is because I wrote the screenplay and knew very little about it being made until I was asked to see the film. I wrote it for some producers who sold it on without telling me. Because Alan Dobie was a friend of mine, I got to hear about it. I had only written a first draft so I was understandably worried when I heard that it was on the floor. I asked Peter Collinson, through my agent, whether he might like me to do another draft. I also asked if I could I see my original script because I had lost it. I was told, too late. So I did the only thing I could do under the circumstances and took my name off. I had no idea what they might have done to my screenplay. Then I was invited to see the finished film. I was so impressed that I very quickly asked to have my name put back on. It's a beautifully made piece, from a hurriedly written first draft, I expected to be asked to do much more work on it; perhaps if I had it wouldn't be so good. I would love to see my original script again if anybody knows where it is? I would also love to see the film again, I only saw it once in a little viewing theatre in Soho.

The most horrible retelling of a great series. It should not have been named Battlestar Galactica, because it's only the same in name alone. Too many changes to just have changes. You have characters turned from male to female, black to asian to cylon all in a way to "attract female audiences," when there was already strong female characters that could have just been made stronger. Gone are the egyptian feeling. Gone are the quest for earth. The lack of cylons to go to terminator rejects takes away from the film, especially when one is made a fembot. Granted the original show had a lot of cheese to it, but it had a large following. They tried to hold onto this following but give the fans nothing to work with and basically spit in their face as they make it "their own story." Changes are good, when they make something better, not to just make them.

This is an interesting little flick made in 1967, with cool jazzy twangy soundtrack music and a plot that will make you laugh...OK, it's not really stupid but it's cheesy fun. I saw many similarities between this and 'Creature with the Blue Hand' (AKA The Bloody Dead) and they do have the same director! Scotland Yard's finest is investigating the murders of young ladies at a college. Seems that criminals are being let loose from a local prison to do the bidding of some evil person and then returned when their work is done. There's a nifty device hidden inside a bible that squirts prussic acid, and there's another device that is neither nifty nor clandestine, it looks like a large squirt gun and the victim must be pretty near soaked before they expire. Joachim Fuchsberger plays an Inspector and he mostly chews gum and looks off into the distance. There's a "monk", and how anyone identifies this thing as a "monk" is beyond me, it carries a whip and dresses in a red outfit with a red hood, more of a Klan member of a different color than a monk. There's all kinds of nifty devices like a fireplace hearth that goes up and down to admit the monk, and it steps right over the fire without setting his robe alight, a nifty trick right there. This is an odd combo of crime drama with goofy overtones, and while it's rather silly at times it is fun to watch. 7 out of 10, not bad....

I love horror movies. I can even appreciate most cheese (face it, 9 out of 10 horror films these days ARE cheese), but this was just ridiculous. Terrible acting, terrible writing, completely hollow and unbelievable characters (no Meisner actors here!) and a total lack of sufficient body count. I wish I could SALVAGE the 79 minutes of my life I just wasted. At least the Crook brothers are aptly named. The only good thing about the whole film was watching the Alicia Silverstone wanna-be get punched in the face. How this EVER made it to Sundance is completely baffling to me. Most of the plot was absolutely unrealistic, even by slasher film standards. I mean, COME ON! Who would rush out to get a cheap earring 10 seconds after a creepy stalker guy just left their doorstep? Lame.

This is one of the greatest 80s movies!!! It sticks out like a "turd in a punchbowl"!! I can't believe Mad Magazine denounced it or whatever. And yet, they proudly put their name on a show with "Stuart", "I-speak-a-no-enlish Chinese lady" and "UPS guy on speed". What's up with that? And, I LOVE Ron Leibman-he's foxy!! Wonder why he had his name removed from the credits? It was his funniest role that I know of. Of course, he's not nearly as foxy as he was in Norma Rae. But, in my opinion, this movie is right up there with National Lampoon's Vacation. If you liked movies such as Porky's, Fast Times, Last American Virgin, or any of the other 80s teen-focused movies, you'll love this one!! Rent it and you'll see what I mean!!

In Theodore Rex poor Whoopi Goldberg is set up as a tough police cop who gets to work with a pathetic dinosaur on a case. The movie tries to be funny, and tries to make a story about abductions and more but it never works. The movie is far from funny, and the story is ridiculous. I voted 1/10

It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal. <br /><br />But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.<br /><br />The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?<br /><br />Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.

Lou Costello (sans Abbott) plays a small town self-employed "rubbish collector" (and the inventor of a time-controlling machine!) who is secretly courting the niece of the town big-shot. After a spat, Lou's girl (Dorothy Provine) runs into a misty cave--why it's misty we never learn--and emerges as a 30 foot giant. Provine is certainly a good sport, and she doesn't bother trying not to look ridiculous (it would've been impossible anyway), yet the screenwriter is really cruel to this character, turning her not only into a giant but a nagging harpy as well. Provine bosses Costello around while creating havoc with the Army troops who get called in, but nothing funny is done with the transformation. Trumped by "Attack of the 50 Ft. Woman" the previous year, the film does feature Lou Costello in his final bow, but provides little else. The special effects are marginal, while the script needed funnier lines and the direction snappier pacing. *1/2 from ****

This is like something I have NEVER seen before. It had me cracking up the whole time I don't think there was one scene that I didn't laugh through. It is about a girl from the country in South who goes off to a big town for college. At the school she befriends the RA across the hall. When she realizes that he has no family to go to for Thanksgiving she invites him to come home with her. Rabecca and her family and her serious boyfriend all go out to dinner one night and Becca realizes what her boyfriend is about to do...Propose. She urges Cral to do something so he stands up and shouts something like... Sorry mate but you are too late I already asked Becca to marry me a couple of weeks ago back at the school and she said yes. That all turns into Chaos. Please watch this classic it is totally worth it... I swear.

Why the crap is this movie rated so low?! I've seen this movie over 25 times, I know EVERY line to this movie. It's obvious that I love this movie. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park and the new puppet masterpiece Team America) star as the main characters Joe Cooper, or Coop "Airman" Cooper, and Doug Remer, or "Sir Swish." Mainly they're just referred to as Coop and Remer throughout the movie. Right as the movie starts it reminds us of the money hungry corrupt world of overpaid sports starts, they even go as far as to make one up called "Townsell." I must quote this portion of the movie since it is true with some sports starts: "And after playing for New England, San Diego, Huston, Saint Louis, a year for the Toronto Arganauts, plus one season as a greater at the Desert Inn I'm happy to finally play here in the fine city of Miami." His agent leans over: "Minnesota." Let us not forget this important piece of the movie. So it starts that Coop and Remer are at a high school reunion party and realize they are still nothing as they talk to their old classmates. Outside they create the sport BASEketball after being challenged by what probably was high school basketball heroes. After shaming them the sport goes pro in about a year. During this time they manage to recruit their third team mate Squeak, which is actually a day after they invent the game. As the movie follows we find out that Coop, Remer, and Squeak are the only virtuous sports heroes left. The story follows with zany blackmail, the Milwaukee Beers cheerleaders, and humor so absurd it'll leave you crying for more. Watch it dude, it's hilarious.

There's an inexhaustible hunger for "basic training" movies, so it's surprising that this one got so little notice when first released. Looks likely to have a well-deserved second life on DVD/VHS.<br /><br />Tigerland isn't uniformly great by any means, there are some terribly cliched characters (especially the portrayal of the NCO's, makes you long for the return of Lee 'Full Metal Jacket' Ermey) but the lead performance of Colin Farrell is the stuff of instant stardom. Charisma to burn and a role any actor would kill to get.

This is a very entertaining flick, considering the budget and its length. The storyline is hardly ever touched on in the movie world so it also brought a sense of novelty. The acting was great (P'z to Dom) and the cinematography was also very well done. I recommend this movie for anyone who's into thrillers, it will not disappoint you!

I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and "perfect". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8/10

I rarely watch short films as they only seem to be on late night television and are not publicised enough for me to know which short films are worth while. As The Room is an extra feature on The Hitcher DVD, it gave me a wonderful opportunity to witness a high quality short with Rutger Hauer in excellent form.<br /><br />Artistically shot in black and white, The Room explores a man's obsession with a room he passed by in the early stages of adulthood and is expressed in a documentary/ interview style. The dialogue is very poetic, typical of a man expressing his feelings for a woman, but is also juxtaposed with ramblings and occasional deficiencies in fluency. This adds great realism and depth to Hauer's performance who is perfect as an eccentric man with most of his life behind him.<br /><br />The piano music that Harry (Hauer) hears from the room is constantly in the background and enhances the touching atmosphere of the film and intensifies the feelings of sadness expressed by Hauer.<br /><br />Hauer proves he is more than just a psychotic Hollywood bad guy with this role and perfectly displays his more sensitive side. Mattijn Hartemink is also effective in the flashback scenes as young Harry with a silent role. He shows how affected he is by the music and his disappointment when it goes away.<br /><br />The ending is prophetic and leaves you in a reflective mood longer than many feature length films. A very good effort.

This is a film that the mainstream market will probably never be able to access as it doesn't exactly give the viewer easy watching. The story about troubled Spike and his friend Heaton is not exactly a Friday night film yet it has its own unique edge and I found that it was entertaining. There are moments of brilliance given that the film was shot on such a low budget, such as when Spike inhales the aerosol. However I did not really understand the relationship between Spike and Heaton and to be honest it made me spend most of the film trying to work it out. And also I did not like the fact that most of the film is spent with the two friends talking and not really much "action". It is a small film that is complex to watch and that is what makes it appealing.

Ah! When good actors take on bland material! If you are thinking of this movie as a tight police thriller you may be disappointed. While the situations are very true to life, the plot proceeds at a very predictable clip and you can pretty well see what lays ahead way before the actors take you there. Many of the criminals and secondary figures are really just stereotypes in motion. Much of the dialog is just plain silly.<br /><br />But! If you love to see good actors rise above this kind of material and make something of it, then you will LOVE this movie! Sam Elliott is nothing short of brilliant in taking the one-note character of Detective Falon come alive with depth and pathos. Those of you who have never seen Elliott emote that much beyond his usual scowling stoic stances will be delighted at the range of emotion he depicts in this film. And also, in his early fifties in this film, he looks fantastic! His bare chest scene gives hope to middle aged men everywhere! Esai Morales does a wonderful job elevating his role as Det. Falon's eager beaver new police partner. He could have easily played it as a Robin to Elliott's Batman, but instead he breathed a genuineness and passion into this role. He makes it work despite some of the lame lines he is given to say.<br /><br />Paul Sorvino is fun to watch! He plays the eccentric police captain. He seems to know he is slumming in this movie and is having a ball doing it. He makes it fun for us too.<br /><br />This movie is very by-the-numbers in plot but makes up for it with great performances! Sam Elliott fans should definitely get this one as it is suck a kick to see him spread his wings and do so much more than he usually is allowed to do!

I walked out of this movie and I did this only one time before with the Australian movie Sweetie close to 20 years ago. After about three minutes I felt like killing the camera man and just couldn't believe that this film actually showed anywhere and- guess what - was nominated for two independent Spirit Awards. What???? Regardsless how realistic the dialog might be (I will NEVER use the word "dude" again!) -who wants to listen to these conversations? I don't go to the movies to be annoyed but that's all I got. The only good thing I came away with was the realization that if this movie can make it to Sundance and other festivals, anybody can. Well, wait, that might not be a good thing after all...

The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.

The movie is a bit "thin" after reading the book, but it's still one of the greatest movies ever made. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and Nick Nolte is really "vonneguty". He makes great job expressing the feelings from the book to the film. Not many films engage the feeling of the book as well as Mother Night does.

"THINGS TO COME" Movie Review by kWRice<br /><br />Here is another wonder filled science fiction film from a different time and place. It is a film I've only seen in truncated parts, but Art should be taken as a whole. I experienced this film as it was designed, in a darkened theatre, on a silver screen, with whirling reels of film and an audience to share it with. That audience and myself were effected by this film! One woman who lived through WW II was choked up by the remembered ravages of war and replenished by the positive, albeit corny, ending.<br /><br />The things that caught my attention from the beginning were the initial credits. The first thing we see is "H.G. Wells" in bold angular block copy much like the "Superman" of yore. It is not the film title, but the creator's title, and then before any other humans, such as actors or production, are listed, the director William Cameron Menzies is up there! Who? You've probably seen his work before, "Around the World in 80 Days," "Pride of the Yankees," and "Gone With the Wind." He did not direct after this Sci-Fi epic opera he and Mr. Wells created, but his film imagery, sets, and design are very recognizable.<br /><br />That imagery is very effecting. I recognized images from many other films, that have paid homage to this classic. The recent "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is obvious, along with Bugs Bunny, "Fantasia," "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," "Sky Captain & the World of Tomorrow," "Night of the Living Dead" and more that I know of, but which titles escape me. This is real special effects here, scenes now done with CGI are done with actors, big sets, and detailed models. This film was made in 1936, and it's obvious it meant something to the other auteurs. Wells and Menzies also worked with Bliss, doing the music, and Korda, the producer, to create a masterpiece with message, warning, and sermon.<br /><br />The lines the Shakespearean actors Cedric Hardwicke, Ralph Richardson and Raymond Massey speak, sometimes sound preachy, but I also heard lines I still hear now. "These toys children have nowadays are nothing like I had when I was child," "It'll help develop their coordination," "What do we need books for, what do we need to read for?", "We don't need cars, there's nowhere to go, we have all we need right here," "There will be no war." But war there is! The naive citizens of "Everytown" refuse to see the literal writing on the wall. The never-ending war explodes Christmas eve. The little boy wanting to be a good soldier like his daddy is an image that will likely always stay with me. This is the world of 1936 that wore blinders to Hitler's appeasement. This war does not end. The poison gas of the aerial wars segues into the second act.<br /><br />It is another dark age. No government, no services, and people carried along and cheering the war that no one remembers anything about. Plague, warlords and bullying to get the planes flying for fuel that no longer exists. Loved ones are shot in the street, before they can carry the plague to another. Midway there is a marvelous vignette about the Rolls Royce, that is a much needed respite mid-way. Into this lands a futuristic plane that heralds the future.<br /><br />That future is the third act. The world has rebuilt itself with the help of that "puny animal, man." Helicopters fly in this film, before they were even invented. The Plumber's Helper has other uses than the Dalek's or Glenn Miller's. Wide screen plasma screens beguiling the masses, and orators inciting the people to tear it all down. "Beware the concussion, you have been warned!", the city father warns the riotous populace. So be warned, this film might hit you like it hit me. There are some cute miscues and miscalculations, but the thought provoking idealism is what is really worth pondering again, and I do want to see this artful film again. Others criticize Mr. Wells vision. It is very easy to work with 20/20 hindsight regarding things, costumes and foley miscues. I believe Mr. Wells' "Things to Come" is not about things, but is actually about concepts, social trends, and philosophical ideals. Besides, we are now just beginning the new millennium and are not in the time still to come. This is not cheap cardboard British Science Fiction, but worthwhile Epic Filmed Opera, sans singing, that as a whole concept overcomes some minor dated shortcomings.

We bought the DVD set of "Es war einmal das Leben" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Life" (English) for our bilingual kids because everyone loved the "Es war einmal der Mensch" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Man" (English) series (us parents had seen it as kids) and it has exceeded even high expectations! The series is very well made, does not show its age, and our kids at various ages really like to watch it. At the same time, they learn things us parents didn't know until way, way later. The series covers everything to do with the human body from organs, all senses, blood, infection, antibodies, and much more in animated 20-25 min episodes. Topics some people may find "sensible", such as digestion and reproduction are covered in a tasteful, discreet and child-friendly manner (the reproduction episode starts coverage mainly where the baby starts growing), while still (as typical) informative and fun.<br /><br />Children are usually fascinated with how their bodies work and through the episodes gain an understanding of this in the context of their environment. The format of the episodes switches between the outside world (a family with 2 children) and the inside of the body. For example, in the episode covering infections, the boy cuts himself accidentally and the wound gets infected and the episode covers how the body reacts to this. Similarly, the episodes on the senses, e.g. hearing, seeing, link what happens inside the body to the context of the outside world and the episode on respiration and circulation of oxygen in the blood covers the complete lifecycle including (briefly) where the oxygen comes from (plants).<br /><br />This is one of the best ever children's programs - I would say it's a must see for every family with kids!

Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.

i'm not going to ramble on about it but i'm just going to make it brief. basically for those who don't know how prue actually died........... the first time round the demonic assassin comes hit piper and prue with an energy ball they fly through the wall blood everywhere. phoebe the third sister comes down the stairs, says the spell which send him away but not vanquished.(NEEDS THE POWER OF THREE)leo comes heals them both and so on. they get exposed along the line and the only way the can be saved is for a demon named tempus to turn back time. the only way he can do that is is phoebe stays in the underworld. she agrees, tempus turns back time. it now around 7:00 in the morning again. demon comes strucks piper and prue with energy ball. they fly through wall again. but this time phoebe isn't there to say the spell to fend demon off. demon kills doctor. doctor flies through window. he is dead. demon goes in a whirl wing type thing and glass on the doors shatter which is a great effect bye the way and there is and airy sound. thats where it ends. NOW.......... what the whole world doesn't know if they didn't pay attention to the next episode. although what i'm about to say wasn't shown its what happens trust me................ because this time there was no phoebe to call for leo this time he arrives later. piper survives because her injuries wern't as fatal as prue's and leo heals her first before prue so by that time prue is already dead. there mystery solved. ps calling for prue with a spell should have worked!!! and she should have made a surprise appearance in the last ever episode.OK i did ramble on

Distasteful, cliched thriller has young couple doing cross-country research on America's most infamous murder sites, becoming road partners with a dim-witted young woman and her snarling boyfriend--who is an actual psycho. Arty and alienating, the film's tone alternates between pouty pseudo-irony and silly flamboyance. Handsomely-made perhaps, but ultimately laughable. Brad Pitt's performance as the low-rent killer is godawful. * from ****

Films about the mundane are often the most interesting of all films to me, in the hands of an insightful artist who examines all the twisted little details of the mundane. The French cinema seems to often be very good at this sort of thing, and I love the French cinema.<br /><br />This film was about the mundane. It didn't have a much of a plot. It was just characters who lived in a town, very normal people, and stuff just happened. But it wasn't very interesting stuff, and it wasn't examined very insightfully. The film did capture a bit of a mood, but it wasn't a particularly captivating mood. And while I can't think of much that the film did specifically wrong, it failed on just about every level to do anything right.<br /><br />There were a lot of characters in this film. A lot of them kind of looked alike, so it was hard to figure out who was who, and what were their relations to one another. I don't mind putting some effort into understanding a film, or even watching an especially complex film more than one time to iron out the details, but this one was a puzzle not worth the solving for me.<br /><br />The only good thing I can really say about this film is that the cinematography was pleasant--functional, not brilliant, but pleasant. The camera often captured some nice postcard-type shots. But it rarely found the really interesting little details.<br /><br />I've seen a handful of not-so-good films so far at the Seattle International Film Festival, but this was the only one that failed to get any applause when the credits rolled. I sensed a big collective sigh of relief when the film was finally over. But I suppose there are probably some people out there who would like it.<br /><br />4/10

This was one of the best half-hour horror/suspense/fantasy shows of the eighties, without a doubt. Granted the show had a barely capable cast with every single episode, and it stank as far as production values (i.e. the sets) went, but darn it I have to give it some credit for being gutsy with the plots. I mean the plot of each episode was edgy enough that even I, a hardened horror movie, shock-film, and 70's grind-house buff got a little sickened and creeped out. Great show, just great, regardless of what the other reviewers have said here. My favorite episode was called "Bug House", yeah that was the title I think? Anyhow it still gives me the willies every time I think about it to this day, almost 20 years after it first premiered. Other shows like "Tales From The Darkside", "The Outer Limits" and (of course) "The Twilight Zone" were definitely better production values-wise, but in my opinion they ain't got a thing as far as plot lines go when compared to this sick little show! It definitely paved the way for the even more graphic cult classic phenomenon that was, "Tales From The Crypt".

Lapyuta (Castle in the Sky), more than any of Hayao Miyazaki's movies, brings the joy of storytelling to the audience. It is the kind of movie that makes one feel like a kid again; it's just magical. It's a crime that it took this long for it to be released in the states, but now that it's here check it out! And stick with the original language; the dub changed my impressions of the characters somewhat, which is something that should be avoided at all costs in a translation of a movie (or book, whatever.)<br /><br />I give it a ten/ten.

Even if you know absolutely nothing about Ireland, you have to love "My Left Foot" (and especially Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in it). He plays cerebral palsy-afflicted Christy Brown. Due to this, he has spent most of his life ostracized. Even when trying to warn people about something, they just laugh at him. The light in the darkness for him is that he has control over one body part: his left foot. He uses that appendage to paint and write poetry, bringing him to prominence.<br /><br />Daniel Day-Lewis and director Jim Sheridan did very well on this collaboration, and also on a later collaboration: "In the Name of the Father" (but "The Boxer" was unnecessary). "My Left Foot" can make you feel many ways: sad, hopeful, or something else. But in any case, Daniel Day-Lewis gave the performance of a lifetime here. A great movie in every sense.

Turkish-German director Faith Akın ("Head-On" & "The Edge of Heaven") follows German musician and "Head-On" soundtrack composer Alexander Hacke of Einstürzende Neubauten to Istanbul for this documentary which delves into the modern music scene of the city from arabesque to indie rock and was screened out of competition at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.<br /><br />Alexander Hacke makes for an amiable guide as he travels around Istanbul with a mobile recording studio and a microphone in hand where he runs into and records the likes of classic rocker Erkin Koray, rapper Ceza, Kurdish singer Aynur Doğan, Arabesque singer Orhan Gencebay and pop star Sezen Aksu as well as rock bands Baba Zula, Duman and Replikas.<br /><br />The director has pulled together a diverse collection of popular performers and ground-breaking acts from what was at the time a highly competitive short-list to give an eclectic account of modern Turkish music as seen from the streets of its cultural capital which will enchant and entertain even if at times it seems a little rushed and unfocused.<br /><br />"Music can reveal to you everything about a place."

Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)<br /><br />Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:<br /><br />(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.<br /><br />(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.<br /><br />(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.<br /><br />(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.<br /><br />(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.

This derivative erotic thriller remains watchable most of the way, mainly because a viewer is casually curious about how it will turn out, and because the director, Peter Hall, manages to stage a pretty hot (and quite bold) sex scene. But the finale, though unexpected, is preposterous, and the whole plotting (complete with childhood traumas and multiple-personality disorders) reveals itself to be unbearably cliched, especially as far as motivation is concerned. (*1/2)

Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.<br /><br />Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.<br /><br />Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.<br /><br />I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall.

I originally scored Sarah's show with a nice fat 8, but I've struggled a bit with her humor of late and a thin 7 is what's settled in. I shall explain.<br /><br />You will either like Sarah's humor, or you won't. If you don't, I doubt anyone could persuade you. You folks know who you are and it's perfectly fine, but then you know that too. Moving on, the first season gave us fantastic bits about Sarah, her friends and family, and her pursuits in life. In one memorable episode, she is "pulled over" by Officer Jay whom she meets for the first time. - "Do you know why I am standing here?" he asks. "Because you got all C's in high school?" she quizzically replies. It seemed to be a genuine question. - That is funny stuff in my book. Sarah can come at you from odd angles. In another episode, her affair with God was notably funny. God being petty and jealous added wonderfully to the joke. It is clever, it is a twisted view, but she would show us the truth in the humor and we laughed.<br /><br />Then, came the second season. While still not without some new and inventive comedy, we seem to have slipped somewhat into banal poop and fart jokes, quite simply. I get some good laughs here and there, but much of it seems like filler while she, and the writers, struggle to foment some original material. Sophomoric and tiresome are the feelings I have for the episodes lately, but I have been gutting it out for the gems I do find (the turtle) and waiting for her to turn it around. I was a fan of her "Jesus is Magic" routine and would like to think that I understand what she is capable of. Let's get back to that.

Why can't more directors these days create horror movies like "The Shining"? There's an easy answer to that: modern day directors are not Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick proved once-and-for-all with this movie that he is truly one of the greatest directors and auteurs of all time.<br /><br />So, the plot is fairly simple. A man named Jack Torrance (played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson)and his family move into a large, secluded hotel to watch over it for the off-season. The kicker is that the previous caretaker of the hotel savagely murdered his wife and two girls. What follows can most readily be summed by the title of the movie, but you have to watch it to see what I mean.<br /><br />This is the first movie in a very long time to strike me as "scary". It's some seriously messed up stuff, but in a good way. One of the things that adds to the scare factor is the amazing music. Music has been a major part of Kubrick's movies (2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange, just to name a couple) and he definitely doesn't disappoint with this one. The score completely sets the tone and this film would not be the same without it.<br /><br />Finally, I must comment on Nicholson's legendary performance. Jack is terrifyingly convincing as a crazy killer. In fact, just his stare steals a few scenes of this movie. This is top-notch acting that must be seen to believe.<br /><br />There will never be a horror movie that quite matches this one. R.I.P. Stanley.

Poor Diane Arbus (whoever she was). Not only was she (according to this movie) a spoiled-but-sweet-acting upper East Side brat, she was a bad wife, bad mother, awful business partner; plus there is no evidence in this picture that she was any kind of an artist -- except in the bold statement in the prologue.<br /><br />Nicole Kidman, who incredibly is more attractive today than 25 years ago and actually looks younger, indeed gives an excellent performance; but what can an actress do with a wife and mom who seeks out and falls for an incredibly weird werewolf-looking guy living in the apartment upstairs? Set in the early 1970's, Manhattan was a virtual magnet for freaks and weirdo's of all sizes and shapes, most not looking like human hairballs; so why is this affair worthy of a 122 minute movie?<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr used to be one of my favorites, but I'd say his well known and prolonged use of drugs has taken its toll. One might think he'd be disinclined to be in a movie that treats drug use as casually as it does smoking cigarettes. <br /><br />FUR has already taken a beating at the box office, but in view of those who input a score of 10 for this misbegotten slice of trash, I'd like to say, 'taint so, McGee.

This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies. <br /><br />Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.<br /><br />Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be.

Spoiler alert – although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can… It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.<br /><br />Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.<br /><br />The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.

Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this.

Describing this film is a difficult task. On the one hand, it's an over-the-top vampire spookfest, complete with cobwebs, eerie music, a hypnotic medallion, and of course a coffin with a creaky lid.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is one of the silliest scripts this side of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Produced by the same people who gave us "The Bloody Vampire," "Invasion of the Vampires," and this film's predecessor, the modestly-titled "The Vampire," the movie sticks close to the lack of logic that characterizes the other films.<br /><br />As I mentioned, this film is a sequel to "The Vampire," which I have not seen. But no matter...it's real easy to imagine what happened. Dr. Enrique, played by Abel "The Brainiac" Salazar, is befuddled when the well-intentioned but misguided Dr. Marion brings back the staked body of his vampiric enemy, Count Karol de Lavud (I suppose there is a rule somewhere that all vampires must be Counts of some sort). Dr. Marion complains that all important doctors throughout history have had to resort to some sort of grave robbing in order to advance their medical studies, and he hopes to use the vampire's corpse to study such phenomena as the vampire's lack of a normal reflection (at which point he holds a mirror up to the vampire and instead of no reflection, we see the vampire's skeleton. ???).<br /><br />Enrique is not pleased, and seems determined to pass off the events of the first film as mere fantasy and superstition. "This man was no vampire...I'll admit that he liked to drink a little blood, but that's all!" he states. Also confusing matters is the fragile Martha, a part-time nurse and part-time showgirl (!) who happens to be Enrique's object of affection. Martha narrowly escaped de Lavud's clutches in the first film, and apparently Enrique has spent a great deal of time "healing her mind" and getting her to think that everything that she experienced was not real.<br /><br />OK, so if you were the scriptwriter for this film, you would need a way to get someone dumb enough to pull the stake out of the vampire, right? Well, how about the greedy con man who helped Marion steal the coffin? After getting a glimpse de Lavud's body, he sets his sights on the expensive-looking brooch that the Count is wearing, and he conveniently returns to steal it when the doctors aren't looking. But darn it...he can't remove the brooch because of the stake, so...you guessed it. De Lavud is on the loose again, this time with the shady con as his human henchman.<br /><br />OK, so of course the vampire is after Martha again, and meanwhile the doctors are really confused about what they believe. At first they are determined to prove that there is no such thing as a real vampire, then by the end of the film they are trying to get the police to put an all-points bulletin out for "a man who is dead but still alive!".<br /><br />You can probably imagine the rest of the plot from here, but the filmmakers do throw in a few pleasing twists. One of the sets for the movie is a spooky wax museum (is there any other kind in these types of films?), complete with a fully-equipped torture chamber...with REAL torture and execution equipment. The movie has a very keen sense of style, and not just in the campy cobwebs. One effectively creepy sequence has de Lavud chasing a victim down a seemingly endless series of streets and alleyways, following their progress alongside vague buildings with no doors while lighting the scene like a German expressionist nightmare ("The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" seems to be an influence).<br /><br />But the rest of the film is juvenile, particularly in the film's climax. The special effects are quite crude, even for the year that this was made, and the climactic fight with de Lavud in bat form is laughable enough...but the director feels the need to ask us to believe that Martha would faint and collapse directly over top of a guillotine, positioned so that her head was in the perfect location to be chopped off by the blade, which is in danger of falling because the restraining rope has suddenly begun to fray RIGHT AT THAT VERY MINUTE! What an unfortunate coincidence! To make matters worse, he cuts away from the fraying rope to scenes of Enrique trying to dodge the swooping rubber bat, basically standing still and waving his arms around. It's definitely an Ed Wood moment if ever there was one, especially when Martha seems to revive on her own and rises groggily to her feet just as the blade slams down. Whew! What a relief! In terms of kookiness, "The Vampire's Coffin" does not have the lunacy factor of "The Bloody Vampire" or "Invasion of the Vampires", but fans of these types of old horror films will appreciate the atmospheric photography, and the fact that the director manages to wring some real chills from this material has to "Count" for something (haw haw).

This movie was a suprise for me while I was surfing from channel to channel... I don't know why but it filled in me with warmth and happiness. This is what a high budget movie can not do mostly. I liked it, this is "a must see" one...<br /><br />

Sam Lion (Jean Paul Belmondo) discovers he needs to take some time off as everybody around him relies to much on him and stages his own death. When he discovers those he loved ans still loves are in need, he gets Albert Duvivier (Richard Anconina) to help them. In search of his own past, of his own desires, this fabulous film by Claude Lelouch is a man's quest for himself at a ripe age.<br /><br />Built like all Lelouch films, the film's beginning with constant flashbacks may be puzzling, especially scenes where Paul Belmondo (who looks a huge lot like his father) is playing a young Sam Lion while Sam Lion stands in the same room - a flashback sequence which takes a second to grasp.<br /><br />One of Lelouch's most elaborate works, L'itineraire d'un infant gate is a must-see tale of self fulfilment.

Generally I like something light and fun, so this film shouldn't have appealed to me. But it grabbed me from the start. The story of a family's choices and challenges seem obvious, but it raises the question over and over: "What if it was my family? My choice?" I cried and laughed when they did because I really felt what the people involved felt. It was in places difficult to watch, but more difficult to turn away. The story is true, and life is sometimes difficult to watch! It shows what film-makers can do without sex, violence, or special effects: a good story is a good story all by itself. The best and most unpredictable stories are all true ones. Like real life, you really don't know what'll happen next, or why people do the things that they do!

I am shocked and amazed to find reviews short of miserable for this horrible film. I rented this "movie" or feces, whatever you wish to call it, with several friends and after thirty minutes we had to stop watching. Just listening to the dialog left a horrible taste of sour milk in my mouth. This film was about as intelligent as an ass pimple.I hope I never see that bra-less, raggedy Anne look alike (Julianne Nicholson) again.It was like watching the most putrid pilot for a sitcom that will never make it to television, but instead of being a quick but painful 30 minutes( all I could bare)this was an excruciating 90 minutes.

God bless Joe D'Amato...I love Italian horror, cheese (movie-wise ;)), sci-fi, etc.<br /><br />This one, admittedly, was a bit harder to watch, but another fun BAD movie.<br /><br />I like how people preface a negative review with "I normally enjoy bad movies, but..." No buts, this was a bad movie FOR people who love bad movies. It's one of my top bad movies.<br /><br />Miles O'Keefe was a poor man's Conan, but oh what fun. Who can't have fun with a primitive nuclear bomb, a hangglider and a cheesy rubber monster? It's fine to hate this movie if you only like Hollywood drek like "Titanic" or "Pretty Woman" but if you truly, I mean TRULY love bad movies, check this one out.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that are fun to rent for a beerbust or when you have a couple buddies around and looking for a little mindless fun.<br /><br />My rating 8/10.

I loved this excellent movie. Farrah Fawcett played the part phenomenally and with good heart. She plays a woman who is driven to extreme measures to protect herself and her friends after she is attacked by a stranger. After being rejected by the police she realizes she is on her own.<br /><br />Then one day when she at home alone the stranger breaks into her home and attacks her again. Not being about to call the police or get him out she is forced to spray him in the eyes and imprisons him in her fireplace.<br /><br />I think there is a need for a wake up call to the laws of the land. They are too easy on these criminals. It's time for more harsh punishments.

A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all... <br /><br />Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.

While some scenes of training were realistic, too many of them depicted military instructors as ex-Nazi types. Obviously, the people who wrote the screen play were either anti-military types or writing a film for that audience.<br /><br />I am a Viet Nam vet and, even during this period, military instructors who behaved in the manner some of these did would probably still be serving time in military prison.<br /><br />And I really loved the scene where the "hero" and his buddy (both privates) are sitting down in the Captain's office, smoking cigarettes and talking and cussing with the Captain as if he were their buddy. This sort of thing never happened in training or in a formal situation, as was the purpose for the scene.<br /><br />At the end I asked myself, "What was this film about?" as it seemed to wander around all over the place with no focus except "I hate all authority." Thank God I got it from the library and did not pay to rent it.

Not really a big box office draw, but I was pleasently surprised<br /><br />with this movie. James "I did some things to Farrah Fawcett" Orr <br /><br />co-wrote and directed this movie about an ordinary, average guy<br /><br />named Larry Burrows who thinks his life would have been<br /><br />incredibly different if he hit a homerun at a key baseball game<br /><br />when he was 15. But thanks to mysterious and magical bartender<br /><br />Mike, Larry gets his wish, yet soon realizes that his new life<br /><br />isn't exactly as he hoped it would be.<br /><br />I must say, this movie really impressed me. Critics have given<br /><br />it mixed, and I must say the concept is really interesting and<br /><br />pulled off well. Yes, it is a little standard, but packs enough<br /><br />funny moments, drama and excellent acting to make it really<br /><br />good. James Belushi (I think) was Oscar worthy for his role. Jon<br /><br />Lovitz is perfect, and Linda Hamilton plus Renee Russo shine in<br /><br />their roles. Michael Caine is perfect as the bartender. It's<br /><br />just a good movie with a good lesson. If you've never seen, I<br /><br />highly recommend you check

The premise to this movie was one which focused on the polarization of of ideologies in the United States.. This was a highly combustible scenario in America whereby two entirely different cultures collided. What justified such heinously depraved actions anyway?.. As this film presents the scene,(while Hickock and Smith drank) these two men were not intoxicated, nor were they under any kind of influence of drugs!! It was a clear cut case of cold and calculated deliberation.. Basically, these violent acts were the end result of emotional and social neglect... Anytime past 1975, we as a nation have nurtured an empathy for deviates who have been victimized by their environment... However, this incident takes place in 1959!! This dreadful revelation sideswiped us, and mired the nation into a tailspin of conflicting ethics!! With the recent release of the movie "Capote" based on Truman Capote, who was the creator of the documentary "In Cold Blood", the American people have cultivated a new found fascination with this film!! Robert Blake played the role of Perry Smith, one of the villains in this movie... This is seemingly appropriate given the notoriety he has been involved with concerning his personal life!! "In Cold Blood" centers on the element of the unexplained... There was no vengeance involved, there was no material gain to be acquired, there was no potential for social advancement here either, this is merely an instance of a latent and insidiously belligerent anger which ends certainly did not justify the means!! The situational diatribes which Hickock and Smith lamented about were always ambiguous!! Under the circumstances, why then should they take their frustrations out on an anonymously unsuspecting and innocent Kansas family?.. Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) plays the prosecuting attorney who is sickened by this act of macabre capriciousness!! His argument is thoroughly convincing... His contention being: "These two men who demonstrated no mercy are now asking for yours" This is a line of logic which would induce me to render a verdict of a conviction if I were to be one of the members of the jury!! Absolute disdain for your precarious plight in life does not serve as vindication for orchestrating a capital crime!! It was Capote's instincts that dictated that such a deranged act of violence should have been brought to the American public's attention!! As it turn out, it was a harbinger of things to come.. "In Cold Blood" did just that!! This incident was the calm before the storm relating to a pertinent aspect of emergence to the radical 1960's!! Such a lethal charade also served as an insight to the isolated interests which would besiege many typical Americans for the future!!!<br /><br />Truman Capote does a tremendous job on authenticating this savage occurrence with his book, (which was a best seller) and, with this documentary as well... The acting in this film by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as well as people like John Forsythe, was incredible!! The director, Richard Brooks, ("Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", "Blackboard Jungle" "Elmer Gantry" and "Key Largo" to name but a few!!) was outstanding in his collaborative efforts in this movie!! I think that "In Cold Blood" is one of the best films in the history of movies!! The film depicts two reprehensible spawns of depravity who delved into demented theatrics, and wound up captivating a trite gratification for being acknowledged at a pejorative nationwide level!!.... This movie pinpoints a psychological discontentment which spurs on an emerging bevy of counter culture purveyors of violence!! Our nation's ideologies are incredibly different now, than they were in 1959!! This movie introduces the American people to the emotional and vacillating culprits who initiated such a precarious metamorphosis in our overall value system!! I recommend to everyone that they see this movie..."In Cold Blood" was the focal point to the film "Capote"! Think about it, making a movie about a movie constitutes a rare and coveted accolade in Hollywood!! In the case of "In Cold Blood" it is an extreme example of a movie which is vicariously clairvoyant, intellectually elevating, and, of course, it goes without saying, "In Cold Blood" was utterly spellbinding, as well as a totally remarkable movie!!

And you'd be right. Black Mama, White Mama, also known as 'Women in Chains,' is exactly the kind of trashy and crappy b-movie that the premise suggests. Pam Grier has been thrown into a prison on a small island with a lot of other women, and this place seriously makes the summer camp where Martha Stewart is locked up right now look like a maximum-security prison. It's not five minutes into the movie that one of the hottie guards utters the line 'Strip 'em and get 'em wet,' and then we are introduced to a prison life that resembles some college freshman's fantasy of what the inside of a sorority house is like. <br /><br />The prisoners soap and rub and wrestle with each other in the shower like it's a Girls Gone Wild shoot, then they all hang out together in their dorm, openly smoking pot and discussing in a big group what would be the best ways to escape. I've never been to prison myself, but I have a feeling that escape plans are the kind of thing that you want as few people as possible to know about, prisoners or guards or otherwise. The biggest difference between this prison life and some fantasy sorority life is that the women in this movie all wear orange cardigans (and no pants. Go figure) that say PRISON on the back. Must be those generic prison outfits for prisons that can't afford pricey accessories like their prison name or prisoner numbers for their uniforms.<br /><br />And as is to be expected, a prison that can't afford to put prisoner identification on the backs of the uniforms can obviously not expect to be able to find guards that are interested in guarding the prisoners as much as they are in having sex with the prisoners and each other.<br /><br />The conflict of the movie's title refers to the fact that Lee Daniels (Pam Grier) spends much of the time handcuffed to a blonde prisoner named Karen as they are on the run from the cops after escaping from the prison. I won't go into details about how they escape except to say that you might have seen something like it in The Fugitive had they been unable to afford to stage a train wreck, and it leads into the muddled story of the conflicting interests also chasing these two women for different reasons. Karen and Lee both have their own gangs of people each hoping to rescue their respective escaped prisoner, and the cops are after both of them all the while.<br /><br />(spoilers) So Karen is involved with a bunch of hippies that want to Revolutionize Life As They Know It. Meanwhile, Karen just wants to get off the island, something she's been trying to do for years, and isn't it just perfect that they each need to go to completely opposite sides of the island in order to fulfill their goals. So we get this odd couple pairing and, since they are an odd couple, it's not hard to predict that they will hate each other for the vast majority of the film but grow fond of each other by the end.<br /><br />In a movie with so many conflicting interests, especially when those conflicting interests not only propel the two main characters in opposite directions as they pursue their goals, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a climactic moment involving the rival gangs at some point in the movie. Not about to leave anyone unsatisfied, they throw in a stupid gang standoff at the end of the movie, where everyone shoots machine guns at each other, killing each other en masse while the two women paddle safely and calmly across the river in a little boat. Nice. <br /><br />Even better, at the end of the movie, after a huge massacre in which lots of people get shot and spurt bright red paint all over the place, the Captain of the police looks over the masses of dead criminals covered in awful, awful special effects, and we learn that he will be a Major before dinner. Not a bad way to end the movie, the criminals all kill each other off and the cops get all the credit, but here is the last line in the film – 'It's better to win, isn't it?' <br /><br />Is THAT why the Captain is going to get promoted to Major? Because he figured that out???

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.

my friend made me watch this awful film.. ugh.. it was so stupid... <br /><br />its about some black guy who gets a plane company and turns it into a stupid pimp thing<br /><br />with snoop dog acting as pilot for god knows why.. this movie is trashing white people and having many racist stereotypical events making fun of <br /><br />Asains white people and trying to make the movie seem like all black people are cool pimps and all white people a losers... and black people get all the girls blah blah blah and so forth..<br /><br />i despise my friend for making me watch this movie.. i kept saying "GOD TURN IT OFF!!" and he's like "NO I BET SOMETHING FUNNY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN" we did end up finally turning it off half way through.. thank god...<br /><br />i recommend this movie to people with very very poor taste in humor..

In this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like "Plan 9!") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.

Everything I can say, is that it's one of the best documentary movies of the ocean ever seen. It impresses immensely by professional filming, scenery and idea! What I've seen during those 50 minutes cannot be compared to any other visions of the blue planet

As a young lass, beautiful Joan Woodbury (as Rita Adams) was orphaned, after her "stool pigeon" father was shot to death. As a young woman, Ms. Woodbury finds herself struggling to keep a job, as her murdered father's ex-convict status makes Woodbury a bad business risk. Woodbury rooms with understanding songstress Linda Ware (as Donna Andrews), who advises Woodbury to get in touch with old orphanage friends John Archer (as Bob Elliott) and Jack La Rue (as Mickey Roman). But, none of her friends can help when Woodbury is the victim of a scam, which lands her in prison. Upon release, Woodbury decides to give the male mobsters a run for their money… <br /><br />Re-titled "Gangs, Inc.", this is an obviously weak, cheap mobster melodrama. Still, it's a lot of fun to watch Woodbury work wonders with inferior material. She plays the innocent growing more sophisticated "Rita" quite convincingly; and, she tosses in a great bit as a blonde hooker. Woodbury must be added to the list of unfortunately underutilized Hollywood actresses of the past. "Paper Bullets" also features an early Alan Ladd (as Jimmy Kelly aka Bill Dugan). Ms. Ware, who sang the hit "An Apple for the Teacher" with Bing Crosby, sings a couple of fair '40s numbers nicely. But, mainly, it's Woodbury's show.<br /><br />**** Paper Bullets (1941) Phil Rosen ~ Joan Woodbury, Linda Ware, Alan Ladd

Glenn Ford, a New York boy who has been saving his cash, thumbs and hobos his way to the Arizona ranch he has bought, where he hopes to find HEAVEN WITH A BARBED WIRE FENCE.<br /><br />A film with a Dalton Trumbo script and story, directed by villain extraordinaire Ricardo Cortez, and starring the frequently twitchy Glenn Ford and the restless Richard Conte just shouldn't be so bloody nice. Though the system -- mostly seen as mean cops and railroad bulls and real estate con men -- is as awful as one might expect from the leftish Mr. Trumbo, every single proletarian is just so sweet and nice and salt of the earth that one feels nausea. It doesn't help that the heroine -- a sweet blonde thing who is an illegal alien refugee fleeing Franco's Spain -- is annoying for reasons of both scripting and acting.<br /><br />So why watch? Richard Conte, in his first role, already has his persona and a pretty good part. And there are some moments of 30s leftist camp that are pretty astonishing. (Did Dalton absolutely have to set a major portion of the movie in the Russian Worker's mission? All that was missing was a portrait of a beaming Joe Stalin!) Also, this is Glenn Ford's first substantive role (though his performance isn't good).<br /><br />Why not watch? Essentially, the movie offers an unconvincing vision, is wedded to a political viewpoint that is risible, and the two leads have made much better movies. Also, the strengths of Dalton Trumbo as a screenwriter are nowhere in evidence. Instead, we get a film that the Coen Brothers Barton Fink could have written in a flash (and avoided that hellish bout with writer's block).

Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think.

Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.<br /><br />The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy.

A warning to potential viewers of this experimental film: the nature of the imagery and the effects are such that this is one of those types of films that should really be seen ON film, projected. The pixellation created by digital transfers sucks a lot of depth and adds a lot of noise to already abstract and grainy film. However, since this movie is pretty much unavailable in any format, I suppose you'll have to make do with what you can.<br /><br />Anyway, this most excellent artistic endeavor comes courtesy of the guy who would eventually give us Shadow of the Vampire. It's a dark and dirty film of the genesis of the elements (as far as I can glean from the character names) through a process horrifying and surreal. Begotten is a very good example of what is known as abject art, a stylistic approach that seeks meaning through the visceral more than the thematic.<br /><br />And visceral describes it. Not very much stuff happens in the movie technically, but the levels of emotion it'll put you through are innumerable. The very repetitiveness of some of the imagery creates a mesmerizing catch over the senses. The sound editing and score in particular are immaculate, and serve the imagery incredibly well.<br /><br />Fans of this film would do well to check out the collections of short films released through Other Cinema DVD, Experiments in Terror I, II, and III. Movies such as these make me more and more certain that the realm of true horror resides in the abstract, abject, and non-narrative, rather than in spooky tales of ghosts and axe-murderers.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB

Come on, let's get real. The Knights of Christ, Ordo Templi, or the Knights Templar as they are more commonly called did not even exist until the early 12th century. The story is so laughable that it's pathetic. Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored. And besides, if you wanted to have a real-life Templar, why not just use the Knights of Christ, who are still in existence in Portugal. At least they should have taken history into account. The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces. The acting was bad, the storyline appalling, the action horrible, and the props were okay.

This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.

I am quite the Mitchell Leisen fan so it was a great anticipation that I rented this movie but the print I got was extremely bad, so worn down from use and scorched seemingly beyond repair, the movie was so dark. So dark that in certain scenes that are cinematographed in the dark, you can't see a single thing. That said, I believe I share the same opinion as the first review of this movie. It starts out unusually and does not tote the lines and rhythms of your typical Hollywood 30's movie. Heck, not even your typical Hollywod movie of any era. It seems the director has been influenced by the Europeans because there is a certain caustic realism to the proceedings from the opening shot which is so crafted in camera movement and placement as Maggie (Carole Lombard) and Skid (Fred Macmurray) meet. You half expect them to start singing "Make believe" from Show boat.It starts with a few laughs and poor Anthony in a one scene role where he speaks not a word of English gets slapped around by Freddie. Skids is a bum who doesn't care that he's a bum. That's why he signs up in the army where he can hide from the world. He's just been released though and in a set of screenplay shenanigans, she misses her boat for New York. This is when the movie kicks into high gear and we begin to get those French movie of the sixties vibes to the whole proceedings. The scenes are so well acted by Lombard and Cecil Cunningham, the movie gains a pulse. MacMurray is good too as he and Lombard fall for each other as she nurtures his talent for the trumpet. Then the temptress arrives in the form of Dorothy Lamour. Enough with plot. The movie has fantastic montage sequences that dazzled me. They are very good. And Lombard scores a home run in this movie but in the second half, a bit more is called of Freddie and he fails to deliver the goods. With a heavily melodramatic ending and an actor you don't believe, the movie falls short but since it is not your typical movie in structure, set design, and direction. It is worth a look. For what is what it was one of the 37 hits of the 1936-37 season. I don't know its exact rank though.

First of all, I too was expecting another Hero--a fantastic work of art for the action genre. I've only seen parts of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but I can imagine that it is better than HoFD.<br /><br />Basic elements from Hero are found in HoFD: Great landscapes, mesmerizing cinematography, and sincere acting (I mean, if you can't understand a word they are saying, without the subtitles, but you still care--that's good acting)<br /><br />What went wrong? What begins with political intrigue wanders into a love story. Worse, it's a soap opera-like love triangle. You have three characters who, I guess, fall in love with each other- for no good reasons. This movie basically falls apart after the escape from the jail (I fell asleep about forty minutes into it). It's almost as if they changed writers at that point. The remainder of the movie is about how a character is "like the wind." Ick. Also, you really have to stretch your suspension of disbelief to believe the action set pieces. This isn't unique to this genre, but since the story is weak, you can't wait for the action, and then, when the fighting does breaks out, it really wasn't that good. The beginning grabs you, but then this movie just runs out of gas.

There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.<br /><br />The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).<br /><br />When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia.

I did not know what to expect when I decided to watch this documentary. I knew it was about an ex-Viet Nam POW in Laos who escaped, but I didn't know much else. In reality, I wasn't expecting too much. Oh what a surprise! The story of this man's life is very interesting in itself, but what sets this film apart from other biography-type docs is that Dieter himself tells most of the story himself. Dieter is very comfortable in front of the camera. His personality really shines. He tells his story about his life growing up in Germany during WWII and the hardships. We are there with him in that same small town as he describes his family, inspirations, and struggles. We follow him to America and his path to fulfilling his dream to be a pilot. Then later Dieter describes his story of capture, escape, and survival in the Laotian jungle. We are again with him in that very jungle as he describes and re-enacts his imprisonment and path to freedom with great detail. We see the same primitive huts, villagers, and forms of detainment he dealt with that really hasn't changed for 30 years. We see the thick jungle, mountain terrain, and rivers Dieter faced during his escape. It helps us to understand his emotions, pain, and plight. I enjoyed the man, the story, and the style. Job well done!

A very great movie.<br /><br />A big love story. Lots of sword fighting. Huge battle scenes. Heros and villains. Real history.<br /><br />Few in the West know much Chinese history. Chin Zchaundi founded China. The country is in fact named after him. Some are familiar with the terra cotta army recently unearthed. This is a historical epic of how he ended the Period of Contending States and unified China. He founded a dynasty that only last 14 years but it was immediately replaced by the Han dynasty that permanently defined Chinese civilization ever since.<br /><br />Chin (or the King of Zheng as he was known before he founded the empire)was roughly contemporaneous with Scipio, Hannibal, and Fabius in the West. The parallel Roman world dominance (West and East worlds) was achieved without a single towering personality like Chin. It would not be for another century before the West produced Caesar - the nearest comparable Western figure.<br /><br />Chin is shown very sympathetically here in the beginning but he develops over the course of the film into a ruthless despot. History only records the ruthless despot part but the sympathetic beginning leaves room for real character development over the course of this long film. The famous story about the meeting with the assassin is as true as any two thousand year old anecdote can be. Gong Li is lovely. She is the emotional core of the story. It all makes for great movie making.

but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.

When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or "preachy" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, "matter-of-fact" way. I hope to show it to my daughter.

Mute Witness is a modest, yet very solid thriller that never really received the attention or good comments it deserves. The film – written and directed entirely by Anthony Waller – is a tense, action-packed thriller with black comedy aspects and horror influences. No pointless mumbo-jumbo or endless plot-twists…just straight to the point mystery. Mute Witness handles about the vicious topic of `snuff'-movies and is effectively set in Russia. *** SPOILERS *** Since the production costs are cheaper there, a US film crew temporarily moves to Russia for shooting a horror film. An old hangar is used as film location. The female make-up artist of the team accidentally gets locked up overnight and while trying to find a way out, she witnesses the recordings of an authentic snuff-movie! She's caught and tries to escape but, since she's a mute, she can't cry for help and neither can she explain what she saw to the police properly. The girl's life is in real danger now, since there's a whole hidden network behind these snuff productions and they don't want the witnesses to be alive… *** End Spoilers ***. Mute Witness contains multiple highly exiting action sequences and is rather bloody. Some of the mystery clues are effectively kept secret till the very end. Regarding the similar topic, I'd say it's definitely better than the more famous `8 mm', directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Nicolas Cage. The acting in Mute Witness isn't great, but the leading actress (who's Russian herself) looks really cute. Sir Alec Guinness makes a special appearance, too. And a very cool one, I may say. Surely recommended with guaranteed fun and scares.

I went to the cinema in 1973 when the film was released, I was 11 at the time. I remember how much I enjoyed it and wanted to live in Shangri-la, that's how naive and young I was. I recently came across a video of the film I had recorded off television some years ago. I watched it again and am not ashamed to admit I still enjoy it as much now as I did 29 years ago. I also enjoy listening to the words of the songs, because it makes me think that one day we could live in a place where the sound of guns don't pound in our ears and if we look at our reflection - we should be happy with what we see. This is what I call a "feel good" film because I feel happy after watching it. Maybe I am still naive but it makes me happy and I'm sure it will make you happy if you watch it with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is - a good, family film. I must be one of the few people who has this film on VHS PAL video - and DVD (self-made). I recorded it on DVD as the videotape recording from TV was starting to wear thin. I still watch it from time to time.

I kind of like Bam Margera, so I was curious. <br /><br />But watching a home production with somebody elses friends and family, with a decent camera and a sound guy, just isn't good film-making. <br /><br />Writing, direction, acting and editing is abysmal at best. But I sat through half of it. And why?<br /><br />This film gives perfect examples of what not to do, it is a film student's dream of what to avoid at every stage of the process. Cram it into film school curiculums all over the joint!<br /><br />So thanx Bam! Now I know Jackass is for real - cause you ain't looking to win an Oscar, dude:)

I was looking forward to watching this movie, and it does contain very interesting perspectives from Iraqis all over the country, not just in major areas.<br /><br />However, as the film went on, and as it seemed to become increasingly more one-sided, I started wondering who had edited the film. To get several hundreds of hours down to just 80 minutes, obviously decisions had to be made.<br /><br />I would have really enjoyed a film that showed how everyday Iraqis felt on all sides of the issues, but with the newspaper headlines in contrast to what people were saying, and with everyone in the movie having the same opinion at the end, I thought it was obvious that the editing was done with a pre-conceived bias.<br /><br />It could have been such a great film.

More of a character study then a movie, COMMITTED is yet just another relationship romp with the trimmings specifically made for a young, target audience. The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed. COMMITTED is watchable at times and there is a small feeling of originality from Lisa Krueger.<br /><br />COMMITTED is completely aimless for the first twenty minutes. We get to know Joline but the movie picks up when her husband disappears. Joline sets off to find him.<br /><br />Some parts are strange. Other times the movie drags. The second half is more humorous as we see Joline's spiritual antics take a turn for the more intense. The annoying guitar music is awful, but perhaps a necessary evil as COMMITTED offers very little anyway. An average movie hampered by some completely pointless moments, COMMITTED 's only asset is Heather Graham and Patricia Velazquez.

While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie.

Kay Pollak's 2004 heart-warmer Så som i himmelen/ As it is in Heaven contains every stereotype of Swedish humanity and inhumanity yet manages to be a crowd-pleaser. It contains plenty of ammunition for cynical critics, continuity error-spotters and for saccharine-debunkers, yet manages to depict the colours of life in a small community evocatively. The film also runs the gamut of proverbial messages about 'finding one's own voice' and 'just doing it despite one's fear', without completely removing the lump from the throats of the cynics.<br /><br />Its success as a crowd pleaser comes from two facts. Firstly, small films about strangers bringing new life to rural Christian communities provide plenty of scope for the exposure of hypocrisy while at the same time allowing repressed characters to break out of their hairshirts. The same year and with a similarly Swedish breeze, The Queen of Sheba's Pearls did it, and Babette's Feast also comes to mind. Secondly, any film about small communities taking on the whole wide world will strike a human chord in our increasingly individual/self- focused and impersonalized world. This film's structural similarity with the likes of The Full Monty, Brassed Off, Calendar Girls and On a Clear Day shows its indebtedness to the formula. But it is a formula with life left in it yet, and this seems to be because people need positive- message films that evoke a sense of community almost in spite of themselves.<br /><br />The stranger is burned-out maestro Daniel Daréus on a quest for self-rediscovery. The town he visits, or rather revisits, is, unbeknownst to the townsfolk, the place of his childhood. He was bullied mercilessly by classmates here, supposedly because he was a sensitive musician without aspiration to drive a truck. Here, he takes the job of cantor/choirmaster, despite the usual suspicions of artists and outsiders. The place is, of course, populated by a wide range of recognizable types whose character arcs can be predicted: the broken-hearted, fair-haired girl so beautiful she nearly glows; the cellphone-ringing local businessman; the woman whose beauty is lost amidst domestic abuse; the steely pastor and his less austere wife, who at first seem right out of Ingmar Bergman. Also present: jealous, uptight spinster (Siv) (check); geriatric whose soul still sings (check); elderly couple who may have repressed desires for each other since kindergarten (check); obese person whose function is to point out we should not laugh and say 'fatty' (check); intellectually handicapped boy who proves able to sing a good 'A' (check).<br /><br />Pollak's film is not all warm fuzzies, however. It diverts from the 'let's put on a show despite setbacks and moral opposition' sub-genre. It contains violence and an ending that might well be a metaphor for dying after achieving creative nirvana. The violence of the film is mostly a function of male anger and repression, but in never delves deeply into why the school bully who grows up into a wife beater is like this. Similarly, the small town Pastor so closely adheres to the moralistic, black-wearing super-Protestant stereotype, that his secret indulgence in girlie magazines is hardly surprising. His repressions and hypocrisies are just there, dangling unrelated to psychological reality. Perhaps the unexplained photograph of a young boy, a lost son perhaps, glimpsed once over his shoulder, holds the secret.<br /><br />Perhaps these holes are functions of the editing, like several inconsistencies and continuity glitches that can be spotted, such as Siv's unexplained reappearance in the choir (twice) after moralistic outbursts. In fact none of the hitches in the film last very long and all seem resolved within a scene. Apart from in some awkward love scenes, the film's 127 minutes seldom drag, but there is a feeling that things may have been left on the cutting room floor.<br /><br />The film remains solid three-star-fare despite the holes that can be picked in it. This is simply because in a world of technology-focused flicks and materialistic self-seeking, any glimpse of human community is, deep down, welcome for anyone, even the cynical.

The most disturbing thing about this film is not that it's a load of hogwash (the CPUSA was never really as much an espionage threat as the movie makes out). The troubling aspect is the way that it whitewashes the wholly unsavory tactics of the FBI and the UnAmerican Activities Committee. Secret informants, gossip turned into accusations, warrantless searches - these are the kind of things secret police thugs like the KGB did, and presumably, what the good patriotic Americans were fighting. Yet the FBI did them and didn't bat an eye. That's the only realistic part of this movie, and they present it with no sense of shame at all. Add to this undermining the Constitution itself by having only Communists invoke the Bill of Rights. The film also makes thinly veiled accusations that the black civil rights movement was communist-inspired, another pack of lies. It's extremely difficult in this day to excuse such outrageous propaganda, even understanding the paranoia of the times, when one realizes how damaging it was to real people then.

I don't think it's necessary to outline the plot for you, because the site and other users have done a superb job of that already. That said, here's my take. This is by far the worst movie of 2005, and there have been some really, really bad ones. I don't even need to go into detail because there is NOTHING redeeming about this movie. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, bad special effects-you name it. If it doesn't stand alone as the worst film ever made, it's tied with some other piece of crap. I'd be embarrassed to have my friends know I was in this movie. But hey, most people that are gonna see it will do so no matter what reviews it gets, so more power to ya. When you feel the gaping void between your neurons two hours into your evening, don't blame me.

I rented this movie because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.

This interesting film noir features three very good performances: Sanders, Patrick, and Blackmer. The scenes between Sanders and Patrick are particularly outstanding. Demming, as the detective, is unfortunately not nearly as good. He lacks the intelligence, strength, and cynical world view of a Bogart. Had Humphrey played this part, we could have had a classic.<br /><br />Pace, location (a library), and atmosphere are all good. But there are a few plot holes. Sanders strongly fears Blackmer and the ruthless organization (Nazis) he represents. Yet after mistakenly killing Blackmer, Sanders seems to experience no anxiety or remorse. Sanders then seizes the library and its occupants by using the ruse that he and his men are detectives investigating the murder. However, Sanders' hit man later tries to kill Demming by shooting him (without a silencer), even though the many other detainees could have been expected to hear, and become alarmed by, the noise. Finally, Sanders' hit man tries to kill Roberts, who has discovered the truth, but when she faints, he inexplicably does not. <br /><br />What bothered me the most, however, was that the chance for a great and unexpected conclusion was wasted. Throughout the film Patrick is portrayed as a smart, hard-as-nails sociopath fearing nothing. Yet at the end, she flees panic-stricken from the last surviving Nazi, a brutish thug. By the time the cops find him, he has killed her. And she ends up being just another weak, stereotypical victim. What should have happened is this: the cops find the Nazi thug, but he is dead. She has cleverly killed him, and then vanished -- to continue her evil ways.

What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie.

I watch most movies that Nick Mancuso is in because, frankly, I love the guy, even though as he ages he is typically cast as the baddie (long-time fans should note that he is for some reason blond in this flick). It's a fairly familiar movie in terms of plot (but then most movies these days aren't exactly original), but Rick Roberts is appealing as the imperfect husband, Martha MacIsaac is equally appealing as the daughter, and Mitzi Kapture does a good job, if that was her goal, of being angry and sometimes pretty hard to like. Nick has still got it in terms of being able to demonstrate both charm and psychosis. However, too much of the plot takes place off-screen -- like motivation, prior behaviors, good times and bad times -- and things that seem apparent to the characters never quite make it to the audience (i.e., me). The final scene leaves everything to be desired in the "but what about..." category, and overall, I can't say that I cared much about any of the characters. That being said, it was what it was -- a reasonably entertaining way to spend the afternoon -- and I still like Nick.

From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?

I think I can safely say (without really giving anything away), that this movie had no robots in it. The guys in "robot" costumes didn't act or speak as such, and the evil entity behind the whole "plot" isn't a robot either.<br /><br />The whole thing looks like it was shot in a city park somewhere, with photos dropped in the background when the director needed a custom set. I can't even use words to describe the acting...<br /><br />This couldn't even offer the hilarious ending of "Star Crystal". In short, it is clearly one of the worst sci-fi movies of the 80's and I would be so bold as to say "of all time".

I thought this movie was horrible. I was bored and had to use all the self control I have to not scream at the screen. Mod Squad was beyond cheesy, beyond cliche, and utterly predictable.

Just been on sci-fi channel UK, 5th July, its was ****. Shame on JRD! May be he was bored one week ! He cant be skint after LOTR. I suppose he wasn't to blame. Mr Sheppird was. I turned off after 50 minutes, couldn't bear it. The cgi ship was bad and the creature looked like a large 5 foot bat. Who funded this project? I think the whole thing must have cost $250 bucks. Avoid at all costs, don't think about buying the DVD if they release one, I cant imagine they would spend dollars on producing one. Lets hope someone makes a decent Chupra film and a decent BIGFOOT movie. Sasquatch was okay, poor Lance. Its a shame a big studio and direct wont risk it, no more super hero films please!

Sorry, not good.<br /><br />It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.<br /><br />It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance. <br /><br />It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.<br /><br />The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)<br /><br />To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.

Valley Girl will always hold a special place in my heart: I would say this is certainly the best of the 80's teen-sex-comedies, but that is a back-handed compliment. This is a good movie, period. It is very specific in time and place--nearly twenty years later this is a marvelous snapshot--yet its story remains timeless. (This is just Romeo and Juliet, minus the death, after all!) Nicolas Cage is wonderful, showing all the early promise that, it turns out, he has squandered on overblown action crapola. Deborah Foreman is the revelation of this movie, and I can't believe she didn't go on to have a bigger career; someone rediscover her QUICK. This is sweeter and gentler than most films of the genre--the requisite nudity seems thrown in by contractual obligation--and, while not groundbreaking, it certainly is nice to see this kind of movie that respects its characters and doesn't crucify its shallow young girls for having fun--even Foreman's crew of best friends, misguided by peer pressure, are never presented as villains. (Indeed, her friend Stacy, forced to doubledate w/ Cage's friend Fred, has a good time despite her protests, and makes out w/ Fred in the backseat.) This will take you back to the early 80's if you were there, but it holds up quite well today. Warning to those unfamiliar with the movie: do NOT watch one of VH1's seemingly continual showings of it--go rent it in its unedited glory. Otherwise, you are missing some of the movies' most potent, time-specific dialogue. And one can't write about Valley Girl and not mention the fabu soundtrack of great 80's tunes--most of them by one-hit wonders, which are not only integral to the sense of time and place in this movie, but thematically well-chosen. See it--awesome little flick! Fer shur!!

It is great to see a film starring kids whose idea of "acting adult" is not engaging in sensuality. Instead, these kids see a problem in their community and take responsibility for helping to solve it. Hoot is a film aimed squarely at families looking for a fun day at the cinema. The production values are good, especially sweeping shots of Montana and Florida. The soundtrack by Jimmy Buffet is a perfect fit. The young actors are spirited and refreshing.<br /><br />The plot, about a trio of kids who work together to save some burrowing owls from death at the hands of an unscrupulous pancake house empire builder, will engage kids. So many films make children appear powerless, it is nice to see a movie that shows children working hard to make a difference. And even though parents are absent or temporarily distracted, it was pleasant to see kids who want to follow in their parents footsteps and try to right injustices.<br /><br />If you are tired of all of the self-indulgent story lines about children that fill the cinema, give Hoot a shot. Then take some time to talk to your kids about the adventure of serving others and caring about the world they live in. A positive message from a positive film.

Spending an hour seeing this brilliant Dan Finnerty and his "Dan Band" perform their special on Bravo is the most enjoyable hour I've ever spent watching TV. This young man (Dan) is such an incredible talent, as a singer, performer and even dancer. He can go from the cheesiest of ballad pop songs, all of which have only been sung by women, to hip-hop, rock, also songs written for women.. This guy can do anything. I've seen him live at least 11 times, so I was not expecting just how well that his show would adapt to a television or film format, but all reservations went away instantly when the show started because of Dan's overwhelming star quality.Do yourself a favor and watch this, or better yet, buy it.

I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point")

After the mysterious death of an old friend,a group of teenagers find themselves in the possession of Stay Alive,a horror survival video game based on the gruesome story of Erzebet Bathory known as The Blood Countess.The group begins to play the grisly game and soon they are murdered one by one in the same method as the character they played in the game.As the line between the game world and the reality disappears,our heroes must find a way to defeat vicious Blood Countess. "Stay Alive" is an incredibly poor teen slasher flick without any iota of suspense.Writer-director William Brent Bell doesn't have the damn clue how to make a watchable horror movie.The jump scares are irritating,the blood/gore level is almost non-existent and the story doesn't make sense.The dialogue is utterly bad and the acting of all involved is embarrassing."Stay Alive" is easily one of the worst mainstream horror flicks of 2006.Stay away from this stinking turd.

This movie has got to be the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with a film. The acting is horrific, the suspense build up minimal, and the plot overall is ridiculous. I found myself rooting for the victim to just hurry up and become a victim, because she obviously needed to be put out of her misery. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the world works will immediately be disgusted at the leaps we're asked to make in logic, and the so-called suspenseful buildup would be lucky to get a 3 year old to be mildly worried. I'm dismayed that a sequel is planned, because it means they'll be asking us to once again swallow a sub par plot line. If this is an example of Raw Feed's work, I think I'll be avoiding any and all future films by them.

This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.

For me, "Late Chrysanthemums" was interesting not only because it was my first film of Naruse I completely enjoyed, but because it was technically as modern and innovative as his 30s work I've seen. This doesn't mean innovative editing in the way Godard would introduce it with "Breathless" in 1959, but quite the opposite.<br /><br />The editing was as fluent as in the best of Hollywood films from the 30s/40s, but at the same time incredibly fitting regarding the way he was telling his story. Unlike them, it never purposefully accentuated anything or tried to make itself "invisible" but, together with the cinematography, made me feel like I was traveling on a gentle stream, constantly feeling the waves beneath me, like a gentle stroke of the hand or the almost unnoticeable rocking of a cradle. In this sense the film was comparable to Ozu's and Mizoguchi's work, but somehow even more subtle.<br /><br />What was so modern was the fact that the editing seemed almost a character in itself, similar to the remarkable camera-work in Dreyer's Ordet (1954) or Vredens dag (1943) which is revealing us a deeper understanding of the film and its characters rather than simply showing them to us.<br /><br />I feel that Naruse's editing and cinematography are the most interesting aspects of his films, elevating the stories significance beyond the obvious. The wonderful sets and settings shouldn't be forgotten either! I found the story itself to be rather conventional.<br /><br />The narrative and its characters were introduced in a very interesting way, and I thought that the first half of the film was setting up a delicately ingenious spectrum of emotions and interrelations. Unfortunately the second half of the film and its resolution were rather didactic and and formulaic compared to the set up (though by itself it would have been perfectly fitting in any other - less complex - film). Somehow I felt that he failed a bit in trying to dissolve the many layers he had woven. Maybe he should have kept them intact. This criticism might seem a bit harsh to a viewer of this film, especially since the procedure is again reminiscent to the way Ozu dealt with the plot in his films. Unfortunately I haven't yet the feeling that Naruse was able to elevate the story and its characters in his films' conclusions in a similarly sublime fashion. The best efforts I have seen to date - Ukigumo (Floating Clouds / 1955) and Midaregumo (Scattered Clouds / 1967) - sustained the energy he had built throughout the narrative, while delivering poignant and resonant endings.<br /><br />This is already more than most director's are able to do, and in my opinion the basis for a real mastery of the cinematic medium. In this regard, and considering the resonance of the last two films I've seen by him, he may have already become one of my favorites.<br /><br />The only problem I have at the moment, is where I'm going to see more of his films on the big screen.

This has to be one of the most powerful message-sending movies i saw lately, it was absolutely flawless all the way, amazingly original and thought provoking. Story is unusual and original, and the characters make this story very very powerful. It's about a guy who kills his ex-girlfriend's retarded kid brother, and as he is sent to juvenile prison, through many memory flashbacks you get a grip on a story and you don't let it go until the very end. Murder he commits changes the course of life for every member of his family and the family of deceased, and as you watch and realize that everyone has its own story and its own dark side you just appreciate this movie even more, it's a total tour de force, cause those actions cannot be described by simple words. His motive of committing murder is left incompletely explained, and it makes viewers think. Acting was pretty much flawless, and the cast was very good, it contains many familiar faces. If you like the movies that are thought provoking and that just make u think during them(e.g. 'Donnie Darko', 'Mulholland Dr.') then 'The United States of Leland' is an excellent movie choice for you, otherwise you should pass this movie and watch it when you're in the mood for serious thought provoking movie.<br /><br />10/10

This movie is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the "Good" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. Peace.<br /><br />