Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la "Misfits," but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid.

I remember coming home from school to watch up and coming this was the story of a black family that moves out of the gheto into a up class community the family was name Wilson Frank Wilson man with his own construction business his wife Joyce was a bank manager they had 3 teenage kids Kevin Valerie and Marcus. This was a very good show. it was educational with out being preachie. the show was well written. This show gave us a look at a successful African American before the Cosby Show. A lot a black actor appeared on this show from Ester Role to David Hubberd to 227 Stonnie Jackson to name a few. If you are able to find this show on DVD you should get it for your whole family

I got hooked on this as apparently ABC has licensed this show to Pearl TV in Hong Kong. It caught be my surprise, as it was a break from listening to anything Chinese. But i started getting reeled in, as the cast and the story lines are just NYC enough and thoughtful. Nothing too unbelievable, though I think it's very very stereotypical of them to write Damien as a potential black man with a sheet!!!! That has been the most disappointing aspect. The rest is great and I'm sad to learn on IMDb that i can't look forward to watching season 2 when i get back to the US. I'm am just as disappointed as the other commentators that this showed much promise and quality and taste. But just as shows that show characters getting closer, it's probably harder for people to watch if the start watching several episodes in. Which is apparently a bit too late for the eager networks.

Following on from the huge success of Nick Park and the Aardman team with the Wallace and Gromit short animations we now have the first (hopefully of many) feature with the plasticine characters that so many love. The DVD of the movie has proved to be the most durable and best used of my two children's many Christmas presents by a long way. The plot of the movie is straightforward enough but the beauty of the W & G films for me is the background gags. There are plenty of up front gags and slapstick for kids and adults to enjoy but the background is the killer for me. All in a classy addition to an already classy filmography for Nick Park etal and I would recommend fans and new watchers to see this film....often.

Dooohhh! My Bwainn Hurrrts! Well it certainly does after this endurance test of a film. How on earth I managed to keep going without hitting the fast forward button lord only knows. <br /><br />Maybe it's me!!Maybe I don't get the premise of the film... or maybe I don't appreciate it's alleged mystical atmosphere. In my humble opinion though the film has about as much mystical atmosphere as a trip to McDonalds.<br /><br />In addition the characters were all dreadful and there is more character development in a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Yaarrrghhh! Why do I do it? why do I watch such tripe? It's enough to make one run away and join a monastery or the Foreign Legion!! YAARGH!! An absolutley dreadful film in just about every respect. Apart from that it's not to bad.

This exploration of a unique decade in US cinema begins with the fall of one ailing, out-of-touch empire and culminates with the unstoppable rise of another, equally associated with escapism and box office receipts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Peter Fonda observed in Easy Rider, "We blew it." In between, from Bonnie And Clyde to Star Wars, the young Turks (some under the guerrilla tutelage of Roger Corman) were creeping under the wires to produce some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century. While the story is already familiar from Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls directors Demme and LaGravenese are less concerned with muckraking than in providing a platform for the filmmakers and stars themselves.<br /><br />Everyone from Martin Scorsese to Francis Ford Coppola and Julie Christie is interviewed and a roster of well edited clips places the decade in a socio-cultural and economic context. If their responses are self-congratulatory (to say the least), they're also highly quotable, funny and revealing, making this something of a cinephile's wet dream. Director William Friedkin reveals how the original The Exorcist poster was to feature a little girl's hand holding a bloodied crucifix and the legend 'For God's sake, help her", before he complained. Former Warner Bros.' head John Calley recalls that when he first saw Robert De Niro in Mean Streets he assumed Scorsese had secured a psychopath's day release for the shoot.<br /><br />Happily, a certain amount of hard perspective has crept into the mix, as might be hoped from a politically motivated, consciousness-expanded generation; Hopper stresses "there's a lot of real crap in there too". Julie Christie observes that 1970s US cinema was "not a good time for women". But if Demme responds with a spoonful of sops to women's movies - brief clips of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, They Shoot Horses, Don't They and Klute - we're soon dragged back to the usual male wall-pissing contests.<br /><br />The shift from tough, socially-conscious film-making to no-risk crowd-pleasers like Jaws for 'Nam-weary, fantasy-craving audiences is also documented, though a little rushed. But kudos too, for the inclusion of lesser-sung, but equally relevant films like Panic In Needle Park and Joe. "We weren't handsome," muses Bruce Dern on his contemporaries. "But we were f****** interesting."

IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.

This one is a little better than the first one. It still relies on a lot of its humor which basically keeps saying that the old Bond movies were not realistic. That wears thin after so many parodies. The girls were more interesting in this one.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of total gross out humor. Hopefully one day real comedy will come back.

The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style.

I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.<br /><br />And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.<br /><br />And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.<br /><br />I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie. <br /><br />Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?<br /><br />I am so disappointed it hurts.

This was so much better than i expected, the film oozed proffesionalism compared to other B-moive of this sort of budget. The script was good if a little formulaic but the acting was surprisingly good from all including Lorenzo and you always expect good standards from Scheider and Busey. Aswell as the good plot and acting the action is good especially the car chases and the crashes are A-class. All in all this is a rise above other B-movie thrillers and doesn't have to rely on constant nudity or a flow of cheesy puns to make up for budget and script defficiencies, its certainly worth a rent.

I've often heard people express disappointment that Mazursky's "Tempest" has little to do with Shakespeare's original. In my opinion, that is both true and false, but most of all, it's a bad starting point for offering critique. A work of art should never be criticised for what it isn't, but for what it is. The movie "Tempest" is nothing like a faithful rendition of the play, but to my mind, it is faithful to Shakespeare's work in spirit. What "Tempest" is, then, is perhaps one of the most successful experimental films of all time. No, not experimental as in hand- held camera and mumbled dialogue, but experimental as in exploring the convolutions of a story without undue regard for box office earnings. Mazursky's Tempest is epic, sad, realistic, joyous, full of life, but most of all, it is imaginative. Cassavetes portrayal of Philip/Prospero is in itself worth a 10/10 rating, and when you add Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, a wonderfully deep Molly Ringwald, Raul Julia, the dialogue, the music and the exquisitely suggestive little tableaux scattered throughout the picture... I rest my case. One of the best movies of the 80's. Don't miss it.

I saw it at Cinema MK2 Hautefeuille just one night after its first public projection in Paris. A very pretty film about three 15 years old teenagers, all of them just at about the same psychologically stages. Many of the scenes let us to come back to our adolescence age & our first feelings about sexual relations. it is possible to imagine that the director would like to reduce the first strong sensual feelings of the girls to lesbianism, but even in that case she doesn't corrupt the likelihood of the story. You can sometimes find the film a little slow but it is what creates this intimate atmosphere. I fund the young actresses of talent, special mention with Floriane and Marie, very convincing. There are many small details but this film also enabled me to discover what synchronized swimming is: impressing!

This is another Alien imitation and not a very good one at that.Replace outer space with the South African desert,throw in the same ingredients,a group of people stranded in an inhospitable landscape, have them hunted down by an alien creature and you have the same old story of a very ordinary film trying to ape a classic film. A group of miners and scientists go on a hunt for some missing colleagues and find their bones in the desert stripped clean of flesh.Their vehicle breaks down and they head for civilisation while being stalked by the monster. The African location is pretty enough but that is basically all this film has going for it. There is a vain attempt to build up the tension but I found this didn't really work and made the film rather boring.The creature didn't appear much and when it did it didn't really install a feeling of horror.There is one scene where someone gets the flesh ripped from his arm but that was basically it on the gore front. In conclusion i found this film about as exciting as watching paint dry.I give this film 4/10 and that is only because of the interesting location which alone isn't enough to save this movie from being a total snooze-fest

This movie was very enjoyable, though you'll only like it if: - you hate going to the dentist but aren't afraid of a movie where one of them goes beserk - you love horror movies<br /><br />I particularly liked the fact that some care was given to explaining the brute actions of the main character. The fact that he's totally obsessed by cleanliness (especially in the mouth) and then catches his wives providing some oral pleasure to the mud-covered pool-man is a pretty believable reason to go overboard.<br /><br />Liked it. I give it an 8.

Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10

I'm not a big fan of movie musicals. "Annie" was a stage show I loved but the movie was a flop. The "Phantom Of The Opera movies" (and I believe there were three) failed to match the Weber staging. But I LOVED this. The DVD will take a place of honour among my "keepers." Even though it's a movie adaptation, it somehow captures the flavour and the atmosphere of live theatre. Bette Midler, always a treat, is just exceptional in this role. There's great music, lots of laughs and even a tear or two. I've seen most of the big musicals of the eighties and nineties. Somehow I missed this one so there's no comparison to make. But if it gets revived I shall be first in line for tickets! But this movie is so good, I'll be in the odd position of wondering if the stage production will measure up to the movie.

I cannot comment on this film without discussing its significance to me personally. As a child bad health prevented me from ever going to a cinema. I first encountered movies at the end of WWII through Roger Manvilles splendid Penguin book "Film", which brought me so much pleasure as my health began to improve that I wish I could buy another copy to re-read today. My introduction to many classics films such as The Battleship Potemkin, Drifters (Grierson's magnificent documentary), Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, and Ecstasy; came first through this book and later at my University Art-house cinema. Ecstasy had incurred the wrath of the Vatican, for condoning Eva's desertion of Emil, her subsequent divorce, and the brief swim she took in the buff, but Roger Manville ignored these trivial matters and discussed the film as a triumphant, outstandingly beautiful, visual paean to love - a view echoed by many IMDb users. A very lonely young man, when I saw it, I willingly concurred. No further opportunity to see Ecstasy arose until the introduction of home videos - by then it had become a treasured memory not to be disturbed. Quite recently I finally added Ecstasy to my home video collection and found this assessment very superficial. Ecstasy is much more of a parable on the continuity of human existence, against which individual lives are insignificant - perhaps a tribute to what Bernard Shaw in his aggressively agnostic writings used to term 'The Lifeforce'. <br /><br />Ecstasy portrays a young bride marrying a middle aged man whose sex urge is no longer strong. Disappointed, she returns home and divorces him. Soon after she experiences a strong mutual attraction to a young virile man she meets whilst out horse riding. She makes love for the first time and it is an overwhelming experience. Her former husband cannot face rejection and gives the young man a lift in his car intending that a passing train will kill them both on a level crossing. But the train stops in time and the apparently ill driver is taken to recuperate at a nearby hotel where he later commits suicide by shooting himself. After these exciting climacteric sequences, a bland, predictable and almost inevitable ending emphasises that whilst individual human lives exhibit both joy and tragedy, collectively life continues to carry us all forward in its stream and only through contributing to this stream can we be truly happy. This story is trite, the acting is no more than adequate; and normally such a film would have disappeared into the garbage, as did most of its contemporaries, long ago. What has given Ecstasy its classic status is exceptional cinematography, a continuous lyrical score and very careful loving direction, coupled with something fortuitous but in cinematographic terms very important - it appeared just after the introduction of sound and was probably planned as a silent film. It is sub-titled and its Director has exploited the impact of brief verbal sequences accompanying some sub-titles, and occasionally breaking into the score which so lovingly carries the film forward. This makes it not only almost unique but extremely rewarding to watch. The parable in the tale is stressed continuously but so subtly that only when reflecting after viewing does one become fully aware of it. For example, the names - Eva and Adam; the obsessive behavior of Emil on his wedding night which shows that triviata have become the most important thing in his life and predicate his eventual suicide since he has no adequate purpose to sustain him; the ongoing series of beautiful sequences showing erotic imagery (a bee pollinating a flower, a key entering a lock, a breaking necklace during Eva's virginal lovemaking sequence with Adam, etc.); and the final post-suicide sequences which could have been filmed in many different ways but serve to extol the importance to individuals of performing some type of work that contributes positively to Society, as well as of creating new life to sustain this society after we ourselves pass on. <br /><br />As a 1933 film I would rate this at 9 - even comparing it with contemporary works I would not reduce this below 8. For me the film will always remain a "must see", (although you may feel that my background remarks above indicate some bias in this judgment). Unfortunately in North America contemporary assessments of this film have been distorted by the extreme 1930's reaction to Hedy Kiesler's very brief and relatively unimportant nude scene which she had difficulty living down in Hollywood (some critics, who have clearly not seen such classic films as Hypocrites, Hula, Back to God's Country, Bird of Paradise or some of the early works of D.W. Griffiths and C.B. deMille, have even erroneously referred to this as the first appearance of a nude actress in a feature film). This scene was probably part of the original novel, and the film would have been very little different if the Director had chosen to rewrite it.<br /><br />Two further thoughts; firstly this is a Czech film, released there in 1933. Its final message about hard work generating positive benefits for society must have seemed very superficial to its viewers when a few years later their country became the first victim of Nazi oppression and was virtually destroyed for at least two generations (I do not remember these sequences being screened just after the war when I first saw this film - were they removed from the copy I saw then?). Secondly for me its main message today is that things of real beauty are often very transitory even though their memory may stay with one for a lifetime. We should all be thankful that today some of them can be captured on camera and viewed again at our convenience.

Not only did they get the characters all wrong, not only do the voices suck, not only do the writers seriously need to get girlfriends, not only are the drawings really crude, but it seems like it was mainly created for ages 1-6. The only episode I've ever seen of this show that kept me watching, was "A Mattter Of Family", because I liked the Robin character. And sometimes I think it's just a general copy of Batman The Animated Series. Example: In BTAS, Bruce is friends with Harvey Dent, yeah? Over a two episode story, he transforms into the unlikely villain, TwoFace. In the "Show" Bruce is Friends with that Ethan guy, and over a two episode story, he Transforms into the unlikely villain ClayFace. That was just a small example (That may not even be true), but in short, this is the WORST attempt on a Batman series. And That's saying something.

There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.

I was very lucky to see this film as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival 2005 only a few days ago. I must admit that I am very partial to movies that focus on human relations and especially the ones which concentrate on the tragic side of life. I also love the majority of Scandinavian cinematic offerings, there is often a particular deep quality in the way the story unfolds and the characters are drawn. Character building in this film is extraordinary in its details and its depth. This is despite the fact that we do encounter quite a number of characters all with very particular personal situations and locations within their community. The audience at the end of the screening was very silent and pensive. I am still playing some of those scenes in my mind and I am still amazed at their power and meaningfulness.

From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.

It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is.

There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from "Plan 9 from outer space" and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece "House of Dead", with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.<br /><br />So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like "Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown" or "Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence". No, I'm not kidding.<br /><br />Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the "Rave of the century", rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.<br /><br />To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.<br /><br />With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.<br /><br />I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed "So bad it's good" category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.<br /><br />You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.

This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of "Caribe," a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in "The Ultimate Warrior" (1975), and "The Frisco Kid" (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on "Mystery Science Theatre" it would have been hilarious.

Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.<br /><br />The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.<br /><br />Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.<br /><br />It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.<br /><br />But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.

This show was incredible!!! I've seen all three and this is the best. This movie has suspense,a bit of romance,stunts that will blow your mind (GO BOBBIE), great characters and amazing locations. Where was this filmed? Will there be more? I really liked the story line with her brother. Looking forward to Chameleon 4 and to see how the world is saved yet again.

When I saw the trailers I just HAD to see the film. And when I had, I kinda had a feeling that felt like unsatisfied. It was a great movie, don't get me wrong, but I think the great parts where already in the trailers, if you catch my drift. It went very fast and it rolled on, so I was never bored, and I enjoyed watching it. The humor was absolutely great. My first contact with a sloth (..or something like it).

Well.......in contrast to other comments previously written I have to say that the only good thing about this film is the fact that one guy in it looked a bit like Jason Donavon which reminded me of my youth. I have no idea how it won any awards, and although I'm sure a great deal of effort went into making it it was all fruitless as the final outcome is one which screams of early 90's foreign soap operas. The plot was non-existent, the cinematography was hopeless and the acting was on par with an a-level performance. It was unfortunately long and the sub-plots were incredibly unrealistic....for example....if your best friend slept with your ex-boyfriend of 6 years after only 2 weeks of being broken up you would not all remain the best of friends. It was all fantasy. That's all! Oh yeah, and the weird 90's house/soft core indie was mind numbing!

I saw this in theaters and absolutely adored it. Geoffery Rush gave the best performance as a super villain that I have ever seen since Gene Hackman as Lex Luther. Kel Mitchel and Paul Rubens were a match maid in heaven. This film also introduced me to William H. Macy, who is now one of my favorite actors. Hank was great as the Blue Raja, and I especially loved that the character wasn't really British. The scene with him and telling his mom that he was a superhero almost brought tears to my eyes. I loved the fact that The Bowler talked to the ball. Some of the funniest stuff involved Stiller and his character Mr. Furious's false rage, and the fact that his threats and one-liners were all gibberish, and that they never made any sense. I could barely stop myself from applauding when he said "fraculater, Freinken-puss," was said. But one of the things I most enjoyed was that Captain Amazing actually dies in the movie. I HIGHLY recommend this film for any occasion, and I give it my own personal two-thumbs-up.

This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).<br /><br />This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.<br /><br />Keep away from it, as far as you can.

1904. The North African nation of Morocco is hanging onto a tenuous Independence, as the various European powers - France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Spain, and now the United States - are vying for influence in the region. The Sultan (Marc Zuber) is a weak puppet; his uncle, the Bashaw (Vladek Sheybal), who is being manipulated by the French and Germans, is the real power behind the throne. Enter Berber Chieftan Raisuli (Sean Connery), the leader of the Rif tribe and "the last of the Barbary Pirates", who kidnaps an American missionary, Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen) and her two children and takes them hostage. Back in the US, President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) threatens to go to war over the issue: "Pedecaris Alive or Raisuli Dead!" - seeing the issue as the perfect way to exercise his "Big Stick" diplomacy, though Secretary of State John Hay (John Huston) is not so confident. However, the Raisuli has less sinister plans for the Pedecarises, who are more than capable of handling themselves in any event.<br /><br />John Milius's great historical film, based VERY loosely off of a true story (i.e. Pedecaris was a middle-aged man), is a wonderful bit of escapism. It has some amazing action scenes, a witty, well-written script, a fine cast enjoying themselves with the material, and does not overstay its welcome like, say, "Pirates of the Caribbean" or the "Lord of the Rings" movies. It's not really an "epic" film in the strictest sense, but it's one of the best pure action movies ever made.<br /><br />While the historical context is shaky, the storyline is interesting, and as some reviewers point out, it is even more pertinent today than it was when made. As President Roosevelt says, "America is like a grizzly bear" - fierce, strong, but a little blind and reckless at times. At the time of the film's setting, America has just been propelled onto the world stage as superpower, following their resounding victory in the Spanish-American War - and Roosevelt seizes this incident as a way to prove America's worth. In real life, it didn't quite work out that way, but allegorically it works well. While written from a right-wing perspective, Milius's screenplay is pretty accurate in assessing America and its place in the world. He admires Roosevelt and his method of "big stick" diplomacy, and correctly recognizes (in the words of Roosevelt) that while America may be feared and respected, they'll never be truly "loved" by the world, no matter what they do. And there are some scenes - like Roosevelt's target shooting of European leaders and the almost-comic surprise attack by Marines on the Bashaw's palace - which show America's reckless and violent side, while others - the climactic showdown with the Germans - show their heroism.<br /><br />The historical/political context of the film is, of course, merely meat on the bones of what is essentially a rousing action/adventure film. There are some brilliantly done action scenes, such as Raisuli's rescue of the Pedecaris's from double-crossing tribesmen, which features some of the best swordplay in any film. The opening entrance of the Raisuli and the aforementioned march and attack of the US Marines are brilliantly done bravura set pieces. And the final battle, which combines elements of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Wild Bunch", while a major historical fantasy (a three-way battle between Germans, Americans, and the Rifs), is a superbly staged, adrenaline-pumping sequence.<br /><br />The excellent cast gives some wonderful performances. Everyone seems to be having a fun time with the film, and it shows. Sean Connery is surprisingly convincing as a Berber with a Scottish accent, but manages to pull off his interesting, well-drawn and chivalrous character who comes to respect his hostage and abhors modern, uncivil warfare. Candice Bergen, an actress whom I've never been fond of, gives a fine performance as the feisty Eden Pedecaris, who is every bit as tough as her captor. Brian Keith is an amazingly convincing TR - you really feel he must have been like this, an athletic, blustering, yet practical and intelligent man with an admirable sense of self. The scenes of Roosevelt boxing and target-shooting while discussing foreign policy are some of the greatest "bad ass" moments in movie history - and who can forget lines like "Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?" John Huston provides solid support as the weary, cautious Hay, acting as a perfect foil to the much more impetuous Roosevelt. <br /><br />Among the fine supporting cast, the best are Geoffrey Lewis as Samuel Gummere, the cynical Ambassador caught in the middle of the political intrigue, and Steve Kanaly, as the gung-ho Marine Captain who cheerfully advocates (and carries out) "Military intervention!" as the blunt and simple solution to the whole complex situation. Other familiar faces such as Vladek Sheybal, Nadim Sawalha, Roy Jenson, Larry Cross, Marc Zuber, and Darrell Fetty also do fine work, no matter how small their role. Spaghetti Western fans will recognize Antoine Saint-John ("A Fistful of Dynamite") as the German general and Aldo Sambrell as one of Raisuli's tribesmen.<br /><br />"The Wind and the Lion" is, all around, a wonderfully done adventure film. It has something for everyone: wonderful gun- and swordplay, a lot of humor, a tough, feisty heroine (and her two cute children), a nice (if unconsummated) romance, and an interesting (if fanciful) political/historical context. It's not a masterpiece, but hey, it wasn't trying to be. I give "The Wind and the Lion" a stirring nine stars and my highest recommendation.

very badly made film, the action/violence scenes are ridiculous.<br /><br />1 point for the presence of Burton and Mastroianni + 1 point for the real tragic event of the massacre of the innocent italians: 2/10.

For a long time it seemed like all the good Canadian actors had headed south of the border and (I guessed) all the second rank ones filled the top slots and that left the dregs for the sex comedies.<br /><br />This film was a real surprise: despite the outlandish plots that are typical of farces, the actors seemed to be trying to put something into their characters and what we, the viewer, got back was almost true suspension of belief. When the extras from the music video attacked the evicting police, you almost believed it was possible.<br /><br />If you are a fan of some of the better sex farces (Canadian or not) you should definitely seek this one out. And the big surprise, this sex farce is also loaded with some very good nudity.

This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults.

I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.<br /><br />Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...<br /><br />What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!<br /><br />Just skip this piece of garbage<br /><br />P.S. (sorry for my English)

This was bad enough. I really hope that there is no sequel. Maybe that is giving away part of the plot to let you know that it is open to the possibility, but no, it really isn't.<br /><br />There is really not at all special about this movie. Well, the special effect were fairly good, but nothing to write home about.<br /><br />There were some hot babes in her, especially Elina Madison and Alexandra Ford, but nothing to see folks. PG-13, definitely not an R. That also tells you the slasher aspects were less than spectacular. The shovel to the head was the only thing that was unusual.<br /><br />Tame scare fare.

Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.<br /><br />In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.<br /><br />First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.<br /><br />Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.<br /><br />How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable.

Our Song is a marvelous example of passionate, movie making at its aesthetic best. It is, in fact, a genuine wonder of a movie; a penetrating and insightful work of art that chronicles the lives of three young inner city (Crown Heights, Brooklyn) girls during a particular summer in their lives when the perplexities of their approaching adulthood will compel each of them to make a number of difficult, life altering choices that will likely re-define who each of them is, as well as how they will continue to relate to one another in years to come.<br /><br />Jim McKay's writing/direction is graceful and uncluttered. There is no sappy, gratuitous sentimentality nor are there cliché ridden solutions in this film. What we see here seems, at times, to be heart breakingly real. There is a naturalism - a credibility, if you will - in Our Song that surpasses that of other giants in this genre, including American Graffiti and Cooley High.<br /><br />Much of the credit for the film's spirit goes to its principle actors. The combined presence of Melisa Martinez (Maria), Kerry Washington (Lanisha), and Anna Simpson (Joycelyn) is dazzlingly powerful. It would be easy - and, of course, blatantly obtuse - to dismiss, as some apparently have, the performances of these three as apathetic or unemotional. In fact, their quiet charm, their instinctive sense of dignity and their raw, sometimes unconventional intelligence, throughout the film, are absolutely riveting. One would have to be completely "out of touch" with, or completely indifferent to, the behavior of teenagers to miss the resounding authenticity in what these three young ladies bring to the screen. Likewise, the supporting cast, particularly Marlene Forte as Lanisha's mother, compliments the work of the three girls as well as the overall tone of the film.<br /><br />Our Song is a film not to be missed - by anyone of any age.

Hooray for Title Misspellings! After reading reviews and contemplating, my girlfriend and I confirmed that this movie is an utter piece of trash. This movie lost her as one of those Rare Tarantino fans.I wish it were made on nitrate film, and all the copies piled neatly underneath a chain-smoking Tarantino fanboy. The literally needless violence, the plot holes, Tarantino's table-itis sans drama, and absent character development made this a thoroughly painful, glorified montage. <br /><br />What acting was there? And how much of that was just because I was too busy reading the subtitles? I watch my share of fansubbed anime, and kudos for the attempt at authenticity, but it was overdone for an English-language movie. With the glaring historical inadequacies, the constant reading killed what acting there was.<br /><br />Why pay money for a narrator who will have absolutely no tie to any of the characters, plot, themes, setting, or anything involved in the movie? When the movie needs that sort of off hand explanation, it's foreshadowing the utter filth that follows.<br /><br />Historical Research - while it was sprinkled with interesting factiods, used the proper costumes and props for the soldiers, this movie stretched the truth beyond belief even for historical fiction. Kudos on Mata Hari reference, though using it as foreshadowing was a bit much. Mata Hari was executed by a firing squad, not choked in an isolated room. This ruined any sense that the reference may have had.<br /><br />Other reviews mention more than half a dozen homages to other artists in the first 15 minutes. Considering the audience, all these and other references were completely lost on many who would bother to see this movie, and all who would enjoy it.<br /><br />I'm confused by his choices of when to start a scene, end it, and what needs to be included. In a movie promoted as an action film, why did it take nearly 20 minutes to set up any sort of testosterone? <br /><br />What I believe to be the message was trite. The idea of rats and how we act on a primal nature against them, and "who is the rat?" were at best clichéd, but at worst not realized. Mention of American camps for the Japanese and German Americans would have added legitimacy to this question to the moral high ground. Literally every character in the film that gets a speaking role was caught up in their own legend. Is that the world in which Tarantino lives?<br /><br />I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one. I regret that I bothered to view it at all, even with well-meaning hosts. There was a rich base of ideas to develop, but none were realized.

I stumbled across rerun syndication of this show several years ago, and fell in love with it. It features Téa Leoni and Holland Taylor and kept me laughing, one episode after the next. I guess it didn't make it so big, and was cancelled after a few seasons, but I believe it was a good run, and would suggest watching it...if the opportunity arises.

Now, I realize that most people on here trash YOUNG WARRIORS or hail it as "so bad it's funny" type entertainment, but let me make something clear: It's actually a quality piece of low rent action, if you're willing to watch such cinema without a critical eye. In fact, it's a good deal more entertaining and thought provoking than the bulk of the action films of the 80s.<br /><br />The key is in the film's subject matter. I'm always a sucker for movies that tackle the subject of vigilantism, especially when they ambitiously probe into the psyches of the characters involved. YOUNG WARRIORS may not have the intelligence or sensitivity of the first DEATH WISH film (and yes, I do think the first one had both of those elements), but it's trying to be different from the run-of-the-mill Cannon films of the period in that it's genuinely unique.<br /><br />The plot is simple (don't worry, there won't be spoilers): A group of college student pranksters change their ways when one of their family members is assaulted by a tough street gang. The students take to the streets in an effort to combat general street crime, being that they don't know who the gang responsible is. They eventually acquire some heavy artillery (machine guns and grenades) and prowl the night fully armed. However, these are not Schwarzenegger types; they're vulnerable, inexperienced novices who make sizable blunders nearly each time they set out to clean up the city (usually with their frat mascot dog in tow). They finally figure out who the gang is and go after them, but by then you won't be expecting a standard climax in which the good guys walk away unscathed.<br /><br />One thing about the film that struck me as strange yet effective is that the bulk of the first act offers no indication that we'll be seeing any action or violence later on as it's treated like a goofy frat comedy you'd see on USA's Up All Night (where I believe this was actually shown at one point). The comedy set-up actually lulled me into forgetting that the VHS cover showed a guy riding a motorcycle with a machine gun strapped to his back. Then, when the violence finally arrives, it's not fun or cute at all... it's shockingly disturbing. From that point on the film becomes a full blooded, uncompromising action yarn containing some startling gunfights and gore.<br /><br />The acting, while nothing special, is far more impassioned than I anticipated. James Van Patten, who plays the protagonist, gives his all and his performance is surprisingly good for this type of movie. The rest of the cast is equally invested, including the always dependable Ernest Borgnine as the hero's cop father. The cinematography is also above par and the action scenes are handled with a level of severity that I personally wasn't expecting.<br /><br />I can understand why some people thought this movie was worthless as much of it is extremely dated, but those facets struck me as nothing short of cool in and of themselves. Van Patten's character is studying animation and his patently early 80s style work that's on display in several scenes is a retro film lover's psychedelic wet dream. I'm sure most contemporary viewers would cite those very moments as low points in the movie, but I disagree. Also, Joe Walsh's soundtrack - which sounds like it could have only been recorded in '83 - seemed particularly fitting and enjoyable, regardless of how "old" it seems today.<br /><br />YOUNG WARRIORS is one of my favorite action films of the 80s and I highly urge anyone interested in the genre to take a look. Sadly, however, it's only been released on VHS as of this writing, and it isn't being shown on TV these days. A nice DVD presentation would make me moon-walk around my living room with such intensity that I'm sure my ankles would swell. In the meantime, I implore you all to go on Ebay or Amazon and cough up the ten bucks or whatever for the old big-box tape. It really is a remarkable staple of ambitious trash cinema.

I was in such high hopes of seeing an adaptation of a classic story like the Arabian Nights. Instead i was disappointed in a film that failed to keep my attention from the very beginning, even though i tried watching it twice!! <br /><br />It was a bonus that Caradine was in this movie but it didn't amount to much as the actors lacked likability. For something a little similar Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Bandaras is much better for action, comic moments and overall enjoyability.<br /><br />OK, so Son of the Dragon has many possible fans out there, but if your looking for something to wow about in terms of martial arts and plot line you wont get it. If you just want the kids to settle down on a Sunday afternoon then maybe this it for you along with the 3 ninjas.

Fortunately, I haven't seen this film in a movie, big screen, just on a small screen on video. I doubt that I would have been able to sit through the film in a cinema and watch all the violence present in the film. After watching the first 30 minutes, I became both disappointed and curious.<br /><br />Disappointed because of the hard to follow story line, the hardly understandable screens, the huge amount of aggression - I still don't know why I had been shown the Daesu (main character) pulling out raw the teeth of another person, his beastliness on women, him cutting out his tongue. And also curious, to see what will the film say as a conclusion, what is the ending summary of all this brutality.<br /><br />Unfortunately, though the movie was not boring, I didn't get any answer to all these cruelty that I had to watch from the beginning to the end. To my opinion, if you want blood and want to laugh, there is Kill Bill 1-2, if you want blood with more meaning, you can take any recent war movie, and if you want an Eastern movie, there are much better titles out there. Afterwards I will take the ratings from the Cannes film festival with more precaution, as while Oldboy got a lot of praise from the jury, it had not much to say to me and had only 4/10 on my scale.<br /><br />I am hungry to see something beautiful, harmonious, with true feelings and a clear message.

this film was probably the best "scary film" i've seen in years. chilling might be a more accurate description. the ending was unexpected and therefore took me by surprise. if it has any flaw it would be the overuse of the whole meaning of life concept. since noone truly knows that answer, you definitely sail into murky waters when you incorporate that concept into a movie. put that aside and the movie is quite enjoyable. carly pope should emerge as one of the next bright young stars in the film industry. the rest of the cast were somewhat shaky, however since the focus was on sara novak (carly pope), her performance anchored the movie. the, at times poor acting abilities of her costars were not an issue since it was not their performances that fuelled this movie. (thankfully). watch this movie you should enjoy it.<br /><br />t

This movie was awful, plain and simple. It will probably be revered by those who only see "films" and not "movies" and will therefore feel sorry for me for having such a limited understanding of the theatrical brilliance of this film, but I am secure enough in my intellect to say that this boring, self-aggrandizing and painfully drawn-out movie was a waste of two hours and nine dollars.<br /><br />I was suckered into seeing this by the inexplicable good reviews it had been receiving and came out of the theater thinking that those reviews had to have been written by over-excited film students and the aforementioned group of individuals who shun regular movies, perhaps for fear that they may actually enjoy one someday.<br /><br />The storyline is quite a promising one - a man is imprisoned for 15 years, never knowing his captor nor his crime. He is then abruptly released and given just five days to discover the identity and reason of the man who imprisoned him. However, the great concept soon disintegrates into a pathetic joke as Oh Dae-Su runs around beating people up, trying to have sex with a young girl who is attempting to use the toilet and eating a live, writhing squid (presumably for dramatic effect, as there is absolutely no other reason for it). All the while he is trying to figure out this horrible thing he did to earn himself fifteen years in jail, and when he finally finds out it is both ridiculous and a major letdown. His nemesis, a man who supposedly went to school with him when he was a young man, looks like a Banana Republic model twenty years younger than him. Hey, I know prison has been hard on Oh Dae-Su, but is it too much to ask to find an actor that looks a bit closer to his age? Of all the things wrong with this movie, this one seems like the easiest one to fix.<br /><br />And the big secret - the one that kept me in my seat for 90 minutes when I could have been out doing something productive - is some joke of a plot line involving incest and a rumor started in high school. Come on! Throw us a bone here - was that really the best they could do? I sat through stupid dialogue, over-acting, gloomy sets and gratuitous violence for this? (By the way - I'm not at all against violence in a film if it seems to fit the story, but in this case it seems I was forced to watch our hero knock out someone's front teeth and cut off his own tongue with a pair of scissors in order to distract me from figuring out I was wasting my afternoon watching a pretentious piece of garbage).<br /><br />Take my advice - do something else with your time and money. Or take your nine dollars and go see a lowly "movie" - one that you might actually enjoy.

Maybe I'm biased because the F-16 is my favorite fighter aircraft - although the F-14 is probably second or third - but I liked this movie. The sequels (Iron Eagle II and III) don't measure up acting and plot wise, but the first one - along with Top Gun - have excellent flying and music, along with reasonable plots and acting. II and III clearly have much less of a "flight budget", but their main drawback is plot and acting. I suspect the relative fame and popularity of Iron Eagle compared to Top Gun is almost entirely a reflection of the fame and popularity of Jason Gedrick compared to Tom Cruise. Another plus (for me) is an all too brief appearance by Shawnee Smith. 7/10

Way back when, the X-Files was an intelligent, thought-provoking show. A big part of its appeal was that the writers looked to folklore and science for their ideas, tying the plot to the spooky side of real life.<br /><br />I was incredibly wary of the 8th season when it aired. The show had already provided two perfectly good episodes to bow out on ("One Son" and "Requiem"), and the 7th season had seen a sharp rise in episodes that scraped the barrel for ideas that were far-fetched, implausible, or downright silly. But I figured, hey, give it the benefit of a doubt, maybe they're bringing it back because they've got some great ideas lined up.<br /><br />"Roadrunners" really was upsetting. Following "Patience", which at least offered an interesting angle on the vampire folklore that the show had done well to avoid, the episode sees a strange (alien?) parasitic slug with the power of mind control worshipped by a cult of backwoods Christians. Oh, and they think it's the second coming of Christ, but you only find that out in the last couple of minutes. Seriously. There's never *any* attempt to make sense of this, to explain what the slug is, why anything that's happening is happening, or anything. Even in the show's early years - in fact, *especially* then - you could expect a little bit more depth, a bit of background, or if not that then the opposite - a bit of mystery, some uncertainty about what this was all about. <br /><br />It's Scully that really kills it though. You could put up with the silliness of the premise, but to have a character who has been developed over a good 7 years as a rational skeptic transformed into a gullible maverick purely for the sake of advancing the plot is bizarre to watch. You feel like you're watching some godawful teen horror, except that it's a woman well into her thirties throwing herself into the kind of creepy isolated community that she's spent the best part of a decade uncovering the sinister underbelly of, being either outwitted by very stereotypical hicks or utterly indifferent to her own safety. Oh, and by the way, Doggett, the new Mudler, isn't around. Scully just wandered off into the desert to look into a brutal murder on her own without him. He shows up at the end to save the day - I can't even remember why - but apart from that, he's not really in it. Again: seriously.<br /><br />In short, it feels like either a generic script written for another show, or someone's pet movie project which they've been allowed to shove like a mutant leech into the spine of an existing, long-running show at a time when it was at its most vulnerable. It might've worked on a lesser show, where the characters are more archetypal and the audience expects less. But The X-Files had a good thing going, and Scully was one of the strongest and most idiosyncratic TV characters of the 90s. Deciding that you're going to change her personality for the sake of a story that they must've done on Star Trek a good fifty or so times is pointless.

Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.

In the first Howling, we are introduced to a world where werewolves exist and are somewhat organized. The plot in that film made some sense; a TV reporter investigates this and attempts to uncover the truth. She ends up having to kill many of them including her boyfriend who becomes one. Then she shows the world that they do exist by transforming on live TV. The special effects were just laughable in the first movie and they don't get any better in this one. Whether it's the transformations or the bad puppets or the cheesy computer graphics showing the superpowers.<br /><br />The plot line isn't all that bad; they must kill the leader of the werewolves for some reason. This won't destroy all werewolves and it really doesn't end the threat from werewolves as it...they just want to kill her. I think there was some cloudy reason for this but it really gets lost in the film.<br /><br />After the film "ends" we have a 10 minute montauge of the movie we just watched and every other scene is one where the female werewolf leader rips off her top exposing her large breasts while some Devo-esquire band plays to a crowd of werewolves. <br /><br />The only thing that makes this movie even watchable is Christopher Lee.

I've never really been sure whether I liked this documentary or not. It was shown on Channel 4 before a cut down version of Revelations, and is on the Revelations video tape before the uncut show. The documentary is basically friends of Bill saying how great he was for an hour with video clips of the show mixed in, a bit like a trailer for the film you're about to watch. It also features David Letterman grovelling like a worm for dumping Bill off the his show before he died, the reason? Bill made a joke about how Pro-Life people should picket funerals, and Letterman had Pro-life advertising. Anyway look out for the video as Revelations is Bill at his ranting best :)

Do NOT avoid this movie. Simply because it is so bad that it is absolutely hilarious. It possibly is the worst movie I have ever seen but it was so bad that my friends and I were able to laugh at every single moment of this film. At times we actually debated whether it was this bad on purpose but we're pretty sure that it is not. Characters appear out of nowhere as if they have already been established, the scenery changes mid scene to this warehouse constantly, and the Vampire Assassin ends up having around 6 climactic fights with enemies before finally getting to the head vampire. You will also be able to enjoy the one and only face of the Vampire Assassin as he never changes his expression despite his obvious attempts to. So if you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh histerically then I suggest this one as long as you go in with an open mind. Don't expect a good movie, expect the worst... and it will be even worse than that. I seriously want to buy this movie and place it atop my comedy movie selection. Right next to Anchorman.

You don't need to read this review.<br /><br />An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.<br /><br />Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.<br /><br />The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.<br /><br />I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. <br /><br />This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.<br /><br />The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.<br /><br />Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.<br /><br />It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.<br /><br />Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.<br /><br />Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.<br /><br />Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.<br /><br />The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.<br /><br />It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.<br /><br />This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.<br /><br />The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.<br /><br />A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.<br /><br />Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.<br /><br />Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.<br /><br />This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version.

I have seen this movie many times, (and recently read the book the movie is based on) and every time I see it, I just want to slap all four of them. The fact that they don't clue in to the fact that Tom Hank's character is flipping into his D&D(oops M&M) :) persona ("Oh, he's just acting in character.") outside of the gaming session. That and the fact that after three months of therapy, let's just destroy all that and feed his delusions! These kind of people are what give RPGs a bad name.<br /><br />Also the corny 'love ballad', and the music done by 'cat on a piano' and 'stop us if we get too annoying' are almost enough to set your teeth on edge!

Oh, Man, talk about the effect of advertising. Apparently, all that you have to do to enjoy box office succes is title your movie after a revered 19th century novel. Horrendous acting, directing, and cinematography in this sham of an effort.

This is a pretty good made for TV flick of the 'what if' variety. As in, what if terrorists exploded a 'dirty bomb' in a big city, in this case, London. Lots of poking at folks that say 'we're all set in the event of an emergency' that then reveal that they're not exactly telling the full story. And is anyone prepared for something like this? You can bet not. This shows the material for the bombs being smuggled into the country, the making of the bombs, the secrecy and double lives that the people behind it lead, etc. It also shows public servants (i.e., firemen) giving their all to save people when they aren't getting any help, when the government doesn't want to send anyone else into the affected area. Also shows how woefully inadequate 'preparations' are for any such occurrence, as the government talks everything up but then stands there with their mouths hanging open as the tragedy unfolds. And could this happen right here in the good old USA? Well, unless you've been living in caves for the past 20 years something already has, to an extent, and don't bet that anyone would be prepared for something of this nature. This is fairly realistic and yes, even scary. Well worth seeing but just hope nothing like this ever really happens. 8 out of 10.

Terrible writing, highly contrived, from a "do-gooder" who knows absolutely nothing about race relations in L.A., or the USA in the present day. The gushing positive reviews are a mystery to me - but could only be provided by folks who think that someone's "good" intentions should be applauded regardless of how shallow, simpleminded and just totally unrealistic the results are. If you want to see a film which deals realistically with modern day L.A. race issues - the movie you need to see (and probably already saw) is Pulp Fiction. There's more honesty and realism regarding race in any two minutes of that film than there are in the full 4 hours (oh I'm sorry, it just felt like 4 hours) of this stinker. <br /><br />If anyone ever needs proof that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - then this is the movie for you.

Just a note to add to the above comment. Fear of a Black Hat doesn't have the criminal who's image has been ripped off by the band, that's in CB4. Easily confused as the two films are so similar, but Black Hat is vastly the superior of the two..... yeah.

True, the idea for this TV series may have sprung from the immense success which Ally McBeal is enjoying worldwide, even here in Germany. However, this said, Edel & Starck is very different from Ally McBeal in many ways.<br /><br />The two main characters work beautifully together. Felix Edel (Felix Noble), played by well-known German actor, Christoph M. Ohrt and Sandra Starck (Sandra Strong - Noble & Strong, get it ???), played by charming Rebecca Immanuel, exchange quick romantic repartees and continually spy on each other while engaging in sitcom-like criminal cases in Berlin and surroundings. Further, they are aided by a magnificent cast of co-stars, most notably their secretary, played by Isabel Tuengerthal, who is a rare gem with GREAT comic potential. Also the shady wheeler-dealer, Otto, and the noble childhood pal of Felix, Frank, work very well, not to forget Sandra's best friend and room-mate, Patricia, played by the beautiful Barbara Demmer.<br /><br />All-in-all a joy to watch on Monday nites: no wonder that the series and its stars have received several prizes. Will Felix get Sandra ?<br /><br />I hope that we will have to wait for many more episodes to find out......

This almost perfect cinematic rendition of Edith Nesbit's popular children's novel follows the lives of Roberta (Bobbie), Phyllis, and Peter, and their mother, after their father is unfairly accused of treason and sent to prison. They go to live in an almost uninhabitable house in the country which stands near a railway line – mum writes stories to make enough money for food and candles, while the children spend much of their time around the railway station and, specifically, waving to one particular train to 'send their love to father'.<br /><br />Always an involving and clever novel, the characters are here brought to life under the perceptive direction of Lionel Jeffries (better known as a fine character actor). Jenny Agutter plays Bobbie, while Sally Thomsett and Gary Warren are her sister and brother. Their mother is Dinah Sheridan, while the other memorable characters are played by Bernard Cribbins (Perks the railway-man) and William Mervyn (the old gentleman on the train).<br /><br />'The Railway Children' is gentle entertainment from another age, but does its job beautifully. As we watch Bobbie grow up with the worries of an absent parent jostling against her own needs both to be alone and to have fun, we can only rejoice when events come together at the close of the picture. Throughout we have a sense of time and place – be it from the steam trains, the university paper chase, or the red flannelette petticoats worn by the girls (and used to avert disaster!).

I'm not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: "A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary." Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.<br /><br />--Shelly

There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.<br /><br />I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.<br /><br />The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).<br /><br />The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.<br /><br />Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."<br /><br />Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."<br /><br />This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. <br /><br />But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.<br /><br />This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination."

I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.

This Film is the One which you fall in love with. Alfred Hitchcock shall always remain over the top of any directors of his time. The most influential aspects about his films are sheer Simplicity & Gripping Drama. The another best thing about Hitchcock's films is a Definite & Gripping End.<br /><br />Any thing said about "The Man who knew too much" is less. The Cinematography, Acting, Dialogs & Camera Works are magnificent in this Movie. The Song "Que Sera Sera" at the end shall remain in our memories for life time. The film is so enjoyable from start to end that we never know when it ends. Rarely would Hitchcock include humor in his films, this film has comic scenes which fits in to the movie. <br /><br />This film is absolutely brilliant & as good as Vertigo.

i expected this movie to be absolutely god awful. Like "What Dreams May Come" or "The Truman Show" or something. Well they were selling it off for £3.99 in my local HMV and it had Giovanni Ribisi on the cover, you know you cant help but love him, and so my friends dared me to buy it. and i was sure it was going to be trash. maybe thats the only reason i could sit through this movie, because my standards were never that high.

Titanic directed by James Cameron presents a fictional love story on the historical setting of the Titanic. The plot is simple, noncomplicated, or not for those who love plots that twist and turn and keep you in suspense. The end of the movie can be figured out within minutes of the start of the film, but the love story is an interesting one, however. Kate Winslett is wonderful as Rose, an aristocratic young lady betrothed by Cal (Billy Zane). Early on the voyage Rose meets Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a lower class artist on his way to America after winning his ticket aboard Titanic in a poker game. If he wants something, he goes and gets it unlike the upper class who are so concerned with their social worries. The two fall in love and the audience sees the sinking of the Titanic primarily through their eyes.<br /><br />The movie begins in modern times with the exploration of the wreck by a group searching for treasures, that sunk with the Titanic, which has recently occurred. One of the survivors of the Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater, who had heard of the exploration of the wreck on television and is flown to the boat where the search is being led from to tell of what she remembers to help the search. She gets to telling her memory of the one and only voyage of the Titanic. With this, the scene shifts to Southhampton, Ireland where the Titanic set sail from on April 10, 1912 as all the passengers are boarding. After another stop on the Irish coast Titanic went out to see on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic bound for New York. Historically the first few days of the voyage went by uneventful, but the fictional plot of the story is developed during this time as Rose sees the hopeless entrapement of an engagement that she is in to the wealthy Cal Hockley and falls in love with third class passenger, Jack Dawson. Captain Smith alledgedly as shown in the movie was urged by the White Star Line Director to increase the speed of the ship so they would make the newspaper headlines and receive extra publicity by arriving in New York on Thursday night and not on Friday morning as planned. Smith then ordered the fateful decision going against his thirty-two years of experience to stretch the Titanic's legs out to full speed. The Titanic had reports that the waters in the Atlantic they were sailing in were full of icebergs, but they ignored these warnings and proceeded at full speed as shown in the movie. On April 15, 1912 at 11:39, an iceberg was sighted. They attempted to shut off the engines and turn the ship out of the path of the iceberg but there was not enough time and the ship hit the iceberg on the starboard side as depicted in the film. The portrayal of the many small holes in the side of the ship and not one large gash along the side is accurate. The crew of Titanic sent out distress calls and set off distress rockets as shown until 2:18 when the lights finally failed. The lights of the California were spotted six miles away but they failed to realize what was going on and did not respond to Titanic's many pleas for help. The California had tried earlier in the day to warn Titanic of the severe ice that had caused them to stop their trip but Titanic had brushed them off causing the California to turn off its radio and leave the Titanic on its own. The first class women and children were the first as depicted to be put into the twenty lifeboats that were on the ship. Overwhelmingly the third class passengers suffered the most amount of deaths of any class and the crew was hit hard in this tragedy too. The word of White Star Line employees and first class passengers was believed over that of second and third class passengers when authorities were trying to gain information of the sinking. Also, the metal that was used to build the Titanic has been found in recent years under conditions of severe cold, which were experienced the night Titanic sank to be extremely brittle. Overall, the basic plot is very accurate in its portayal of the events and the times at which these events took place on the Titanic.<br /><br />Many of the characters in the story were not real and created simply for the purpose of the movie or as composite characters to represent possible characteristics and ideas of people on the ship. The core group of Rose, Jack, Cal, and Rose's mother all were fictional characters added into the story as they represent different groups of people from the time. Yet many characters such as the Unsinkable Molly Brown; Captain Edward Smith; the ship designer, Thomas Andrew; the White Star Line Representative, Bruce Ismay; and all of the Titanic's officers were real. The maiden voyage was going to be Captain Edward Smith's last voyage anyway as he planned to retire afterwards. He had been a part of the White Star Line since 1880 where he worked his way up to his status as the Millionaire's Captain when the Titanic sunk. The portrayals of the officers is accurate as only four survived the tragedy except for the officer who threatened to kill all of the passengers of the ship with his pistol. He is on record as acting heroicly and was misportrayed to the point that James Cameron apologized and evoked a monument in his honor in the officer's former Canadian hometown. As shown in the movie there was a language problem between the crew and many of the lower-class passengers from non-English speaking nations. In addition, Officer Lowe was the only officer who came back in the lifeboat as depicted. The old people shown in their bed as the water came in their room were based on the Strauss'. Not wanting to leave her husband's side Mrs. Strauss refused to get in her lifeboat and died with her husband on the Titanic. Furthermore, Mr. Goggenheim who was shown sipping his brandy and smoking a cigar reportedly did go out like this dressed in his best. The richest man on the ship, John Jacob Astor, who owned most of Manhattan died nonetheless as well, but his much younger wife was saved in a lifeboat. In addition, Molly Brown was saved and later had medals made up for the crew of the Carpethia that picked the survivors of Titanic up from the water. Her ticket on the Titanic had cost over four-thousand dollars and by the end of her life she ended up broke. All of the interiors of the ship were masterfully replacated down to the last pieces of china and silverware. The gymnasium, which is hardly seen is recreated perfectly with all of the machines reproduced to match those seen in old photographs. The wonderful outfits and costuming were an excellent re-creation of the Post-Victorian era of 1912. The rich at this time practically ruled everything, as the women's suffrage movement had not quite gotten moving yet. Women during this time often married for financial security as Rose was considering doing and normally took a back seast status to their husbands as Cal wished for Rose to do. The rich did not take well to `new money' such as Molly Brown as depicted. Everything of the time was very formal. Women had to be escorted to dinner by a male figure as seen with in the dining scenes. Smoking was not very common among women of the time but holders of cigarettes, which were just coming in at the time were used as seen with Rose in the movie. Men of the time generally smoked cigars not cigarettes. Women were constained physically by their corsets and socially by society. Although James Cameron had no background in historical films he brought in experts of Titanic coupled with two years spent cross-referencing the history of the Titanic and few liberties were taken. The beautiful cinematography and special effects also helped to make the film even more breathtaking.<br /><br />A recognizable message can be seen in the movie Titanic as the people on the ship had about three hours to contemplate their demise. The director, James Cameron, shows the various reactions to this time of crisis in people's lives. Everyone reacts differently and he gets you to think of how you might have reacted had you been in that situation on the Titanic on that fateful night. In addition, this film is a reflection of the 1990's when it was produced as it gives a look into the wreck of the Titanic. Only in the past fifteen years has the site of the actual Titanic been found and explored. This movie was able to give us a deeper look into a disaster that many would not have viewed. However, the moral question of whether people today should be taking treasures from the wreck of an underwater graveyard is posed. There have been attempts to stop treasure seeking missions such as the one portrayed in Titanic but all have failed. As it stands today anyone can make a voyage to the Titanic and take whatever valuables they as portrayed in the film showing the general values of our time on this matter.<br /><br />Technically the film is very well done. To get footage of the wreck at the bottom of the ocean it took twelve dives to get all of the footage needed for the movie. In addition, a special camera had to be created to withstand the intense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Cameron did not plan on using the probe to go as far inside Titanic as anyone has in the 88 years since the ship sunk but it worked out that this provided an unique perspective into the ship. Furthermore, throughout the film fade ins and outs from the wreck of Titanic to the scene of Titanic during its actual voyage. This shift between the modern scene to the past scene during the voyage works as an excellent transition that makes the story easy to follow in aclear manner. At the very beginning of the movie a septune recreation is used to recreate the scene when the actual people left the European coast on Titanic giving it distinction from the rest of the events of the film.<br /><br />Titanic plays almost like a historical biography and is like a work of art, a true epic. Like most history novels, we know the ending, but it doesn't take away from the wonderful treats that can be found in this picture. Certain aspects of this film are Academy Award material including costuming, sound, cintematography, and editing. If you like interesting characters that will give you an insight into the life of characters in the early 1900's and how they face disaster, then this movie definitely is for you.<br /><br />

If you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.

I don't think anyone besides Terrence Malick and maybe Tran Anh Hung makes cinema on a purer level than Claire Denis. That said, I don't love this, her newest film, quite as much as her 2001 masterpiece "Trouble Every Day" (although it comes very close), which itself is one of my absolute favorite films. It it only because the narrative here is possibly slightly too elliptical for it's own good. Don't get me wrong, the fact that this film barely has a plot at all is really one of the best things about it, but I think Denis took it about one degree farther than it needed to go and consequently the film does flirt with incomprehensibility, and a few key plot points should have been clarified somehow (like that the main character goes to South Korea to get his heart transplant, instead of just showing him there all of a sudden without any explanation of where he is or why he is there). Also some of the other characters seemed unnecessary and as if they were just excuses for Denis to use actors she likes yet again (Beatrice Dalle's character in particular is a little distracting because you keep expecting that she is going to have some significance). Still, the film is incredibly absorbing and the cinematography is beyond amazing. It is definitely very much a masterpiece in it's own way. At least as good as Denis' more highly-acclaimed "Beau travail", if not better. Claire Denis has to be my favorite French director at this point, better than Leos Carax even. Also I have to admit that the South Korean sequence really does do "Lost in Translation" better than that film itself does (and I, unlike some, am a huge fan of that film as well).

Andreas arrives in a strange, inhuman place, where everything seems perfect. He's given a good work, everyone is kind to him and to everyone, and he really doesn't trouble too much even in finding a beautiful girlfriend. But in this no-named city Andreas finds soon that a perfect commercials-type world is really not a paradise. Really one of the better movies i've seen this year. The attractive plot is perfectly supported by a smart direction where every single component (cool desaturated photography; cold symmetrical design; unemotional acting; slow, highly controlled camera movements) helps in building an unique weird atmosphere that will keep the audience suspended until the end. A sarcastic, ironic, bitter comedy that made me laugh ant think, as only best films are able to do. Nothing new, probably, in the analysis of the modern de-humanizer civilization, but really a smart work with great surprising ideas that will hardly be forgotten from whom had the luck to see it. Simply beautiful the amazing scene in the metro underground.

This cartoon is short on plot, but is a visually stunning piece of work. There will be very, very minor spoilers: <br /><br />This short has a "story" that's incredibly slight-gnomes underground are responsible for the return of spring each year, yet must contend with a winter not yet ready to withdraw. Both the gnomes and the storm have their own songs. That's pretty much the plot, such as it is. But this cartoon isn't about the plot-it's about the color and animation. The visuals are exceptional. Back in 1936, such bright color was still something of a novelty and there's some incredibly inspired work here.<br /><br />My favorite moments of the short surround the movement of the liquefied colors through pipes. At more than one point, there are a series of pipes aligned in a row, from the shortest to the tallest and the colors move through the pipes and the musical track makes it seem as though the row is a pipe organ.<br /><br />The visuals of the battle between the emerging greenery and the winter storm which refuses to leave quietly are exceedingly well executed. These types of shorts were things which Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising are noted for, but they probably also helped lead to their ultimate departure from MGM, because this cartoon probably went over budget and MGM finally decided that they could control costs better if the animation department were managed by someone a little more conscious of cost than Harman and Ising were.<br /><br />This is truly a beautiful cartoon and is well worth seeing. It's available on the DVD Attack of the '30s Characters. Recommended, particularly if you like good animation.

"The Shop Around the Corner" is one of the great films from director Ernst Lubitsch. In addition to the talents of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, it's filled with a terrific cast of top character actors such as Frank Morgan and Felix Bressart .They're the type of character actors that Hollywood sadly no longer employs. In fact, the film itself is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. (The makers of "You've Got Mail" claim their film to be a remake, but that's just nothing but a lot of inflated self praise.) Anyway, if you have an affection for romantic comedies of the 1940's, you'll find "The Shop Around the Corner" to be nothing short of wonderful. Just as good with repeat viewings. Enjoy!

Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments – I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) – but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing – 2/10.

I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information.

Incredibly hilarious mid-70's Italian Rootsploitation with lots of non-consensual S&M, lesbian sex, gratuitous racial cruelty etc...Few redeeming cinematic qualities, except for the fairly cool theme music with dubby "African" drums and flute. Brilliant sample dialog: <br /><br />White Slave Owner (to White Plantation Manager): "You're so dumb, I'll bet you forgot to interrogate that n****r midwife!"<br /><br />White Plantation Manager: "Not only did I interrogate her, I did it so well she died before I could get any answers from her!"<br /><br />All the black actors have 70's afros, and say "yes, massa" in a high-pitched voice. The female lead has sex with everybody on the plantation. 10 Stars for fans of tasteless sleaze.

Brilliant actors and brilliant picture!! I love the chopper scene with the music in the beginning, it is just SO touching and at the same time real but at the same time surrealistic! The Vietnam War was far from human and I believe this movie kind of shows have terrible human beings can act under certain circumstances. Modern war movies are spending so much money on effects. This is just a straight forward smart movie that takes you beyond your imagination. A movie that really pictures evil and hate mixed in fearness and fate. How insane the world is and the power of will and friendship, love and passion. A must seen movie and without any doubts the best war movie ever! Many tried to copy but still there are no movie even close as good as this!!

demonicus rocked, you guys need to understand how hard it rocked, unfortunately, the words needed to explain the extent of the rocking have not been discovered. for a tiny idea, pop like 50 hits of E, watch Death Factory while on the phone with Jesus, wait, Jesus is on call waiting, you're having phone sex with Will Smith on the primary line. seriously, that movie... so good. you need to watch it at least a 4 times to catch all the subtleties... well, not so much subtleties as much as it takes the length of the movie, times 4 in order to ponder why the people at full moon are allowed to A, live, and B, reproduce. what is our world coming to?

I consented to watching this movie with a group of friends despite my extreme dislike for horror movies. However, it was not the shock of a monster that turned me off this movie, it was the horrendous acting and absolutely disgusting ending. Within, or the Cavern, has no redeeming qualities- it is poorly made, laughably scripted, sickeningly bloody and the inclusion of the gratuitous final scene repulses me. No, it is not my dislike for horror movies that makes me hate this film-I've seen such wonderful teen horrors as "House of Wax", its the fact that the film leaves you with the awful understanding that by renting the video, you are supporting the creators of Within

Of life in (some) colleges. Of course there were artistic licenses taken, but some of what you saw in this film go on in some colleges.<br /><br />I went to colleges in Southern California where the races pretty much hang around with their own. It's funny because these are schools that want racial unity, equality etc. and I can honestly say, that it's there. But the thing is when class lets out, or when they're just hanging out waiting for class, they (students) seem to just hang around with people of their own race or ethnicity. Is that bad? Not really. Everyone needs a feeling of belonging. But like the school paper of one of the schools I attended once wrote about that, "we should all try to hang around with students of other ethnicities and try to know them." Otherwise you're creating your own segregation.<br /><br />Racism certainly existed in one of those schools I attended. One time someone put leaflets around campus talking about the glories of the Aryan Race and had the symbols of some of those racist organizations. Fortunately, nothing happened like the incident in the movie where the young Caucasian man went off and started shooting at a multiculturalism gathering.<br /><br />I can only hope and pray that nothing like that ever will happen.<br /><br />So is "Higher Learning" overly dramatic? Exaggerated? Maybe. Is it way "off mark?" It depends on where you went to or go to school. The race thing where the ethnicities just hang around with their own DOES happen. Minus the Hollywood exaggerations, the race thing hit pretty close to home for me.

This film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece.

This is a beautiful movie that is wonderfully acted by all players. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The very end of the movie gets me to mist up every time. If you want to see a great movie, this is it. Jimmy Stewert supplies a wonderfully witty performance and Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek is spellbinding. Morgan's diversity of character is nothing short of amazing. William Tracy as Pepi is terrific comic relief and delivers some of the movies most important lines and performances. Felix Bressart delivers a fantastic performance as Perovitch, a stumbling bumbling shop worker who's life's ambition is to please those he works with. It is a simple story of how close co-workers can become and how two people who have great animosity towards each other fall in love though unusual circumstances.

Irwin Allen's first venture into all star spectacle was one all star disaster. The Story of Mankind contains some of the most incredible casting decisions of all time. Virginia Mayo as the blond Cleopatra, Dennis Hopper chewing the scenery with Napoleon, Peter Lorre dining on the scenery for weeks as Nero, Marie Wilson as Marie Antoinette as a roadshow Marilyn Monroe, that's just some of them.<br /><br />The film also is known for being the last film which featured all three of the Marx Brothers though they all have different roles. Chico plays a monk who is Christopher Columbus's confidante, Groucho euchres the Indians out of Manhattan island as Peter Minuit, and most astonishing of all, Harpo Marx as Sir Isaac Newton who discovers gravity when an apple conks him on the bean. <br /><br />Holding all these portrayals together is a story where mankind itself is being judged. A super H Bomb is about to be discovered and let loose will do in the world's population. It's Judgement Day a coming.<br /><br />But mankind has its advocates and detractors. Speaking for the prosecution is Old Scratch who's been bringing the worst out in man for centuries in the form of Vincent Price. But man has his good side as well and who better than Ronald Colman to demonstrate man at his most civilized best. Colman and Price plead their case before The Judge played by Cedric Hardwicke. <br /><br />In those three individuals you have some of the finest speaking voices the English language ever knew. When the film is on them as they each bring out the exhibits for their case it's a pleasure to listen to. Then when the focus is on the individual stories, you want to scream in agony.<br /><br />What was Irwin Allen driving at, I'm still trying to figure it out. Was he deliberately camping it up with some of these casting decisions? If it was satire, it just doesn't get off the ground.<br /><br />This was Ronald Colman's farewell film and while it's hardly something I'd like to go out on, I can't think of any man who could have stated the case for civilization any better. <br /><br />So when you see The Story of Mankind, fast forward through some of the exhibits and treasure every moment the advocates are before the judge.

'A Tale of Two Sisters', or 'Janghwa, Hongryeon', is a true masterpiece. Brilliant psychological thriller, heart-wrenching drama, and gripping horror all wrapped up in one beautifully orchestrated package. From the intricate plot, to the beautiful cinematography, to the absolutely perfect casting, every aspect of this film is extraordinary.<br /><br />For fear of revealing too much concerning the plot, I will just say it is very satisfying. While it may appear to be a little difficult to understand at first, it does a good job of explaining things in the end. And whether you prefer psychological thriller, drama, or horror, I promise you will not be disappointed.<br /><br />From a technical standpoint, its nearly flawless. The set, the cinematography, lighting, and especially the soundtrack, all are captivating. The waltz seemed an odd choice at first, but proved to be an ingenious choice.<br /><br />As for the casting, we're talking absolute perfection. I'm Su-jeong is totally convincing as the defiant, yet troubled Su-mi. Mun Keun- yeong is equally convincing as her emotionally traumatized sister Su-yeon. These two girls were magical on the screen. I will certainly be looking into their other films. Yeom Jeong-ah is deceitfully cheerful and hauntingly evil as the stepmother. Finally, Kap-su Kim gives an excellent performance as the weary, broken father.<br /><br />I truly love this film. If you have yet to see 'A Tale Of Two Sisters', I strongly recommend locating a copy. It is a real gem, worthy of anyone's collection.<br /><br />(10/10)

For those of you who have a few kind words for this film, I suspect you didn't see it when it was released as "Parts: The Clonus Horror." <br /><br />It was a dreadfully boring movie. It missed the mark in at least three ways. It wasn't good enough to be scary; it wasn't bad enough to be funny (although MST3K took care of that); and, even in 1979, the plot was unoriginal.<br /><br />Earlier contenders are "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" (1971). It's the same idea (clones as spare parts). The movie is entertaining, and it had a fine cast. Another is "Sleeper" (1973). Yes, the Woody Allen movie. Remember the flattened nose? And "Clones" (1973). The last two plots aren't as similar to Clonus as the first one, but they predate Clonus.<br /><br />They are also several fiction books from decades earlier that deal with the idea, although often, the word "clone" isn't used.

The Karen Carpenter Story shows a little more about singer Karen Carpenter's complex life. Though it fails in giving accurate facts, and details.<br /><br />Cynthia Gibb (portrays Karen) was not a fine election. She is a good actress , but plays a very naive and sort of dumb Karen Carpenter. I think that the role needed a stronger character. Someone with a stronger personality.<br /><br />Louise Fletcher role as Agnes Carpenter is terrific, she does a great job as Karen's mother.<br /><br />It has great songs, which could have been included in a soundtrack album. Unfortunately they weren't, though this movie was on the top of the ratings in USA and other several countries

Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.<br /><br />That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.<br /><br />Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".<br /><br />There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.<br /><br />Rating:- * 1/2/*****

I kind of consider myself as the #1 fan of Hidden Frontier, seeing as I am among a somewhat small group of fans who have actually met most of these guys - well, not counting conventions, of course. I have been watching Hidden Frontier since 2001, and I must say I continue to be impressed by what these guys have come up with.<br /><br />Hidden Frontier is the brainchild of Rob Caves and his self-made studio, Areakt Pictures, which operates out of the back room of his house. While not as "fancy" as, say, the TOS-based series New Voyages (which sometimes gets some of the actors/writers from the original series, like Walter Koenig, aka Mr. Chekov), Rob and the cast and crew of HF manage to create a series worthy of replacing that ghastly experiment we called "Enterprise". The most controversial and successful story arc has been the introduction of Star Trek's first openly gay character, Corey Aster (who was introduced in the second season), and his search to find a soul mate. Somewhere later in the series, he meets Jorian Zen, the Excelsior's Trill helm officer. In the recent story lines with these two characters (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER! Do not read if you have not watched the series up to this point!), Zen is joined to an exiled symbiont, causing a great deal of change and some conflict in his relationship with Aster. Though the future is uncertain - seeing as the most recent episode, "Beachhead", was just shown to HF fans in the chat room last night - I think that this relationship will endure, but only time will tell.<br /><br />Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek with the intention that the story be more about his characters rather than flashy space battles. Rob Caves created Hidden Frontier for that same reason - and this is what has made this series as popular as it is. As the previous comment stated, I wish I could give it a rating higher than 10, but it will have to suffice. Although next season will be the last - keeping in the tradition of seven season shows started by Star Trek: The Next Generation - I am willing to bet that we will hear much about Hidden Frontier after that final episode.

The only good thing about Persepolis is the shadows created in the German Expressionism-style of animation and a hint of history. This movie bored me. It was about a woman dissatisfied with her culture who tries everything else and then goes back to her roots. Here she finds great discontentment once again and finally leaves for final to let everyone else in her country figure out the situation and what they will do now that she is not there to support them. It comes to no conclusion and leaves us with a feeling that this woman has no loyalties. Mind you, she is torn between cultures and doesn't have enough of a background it seems to figure what is important and real. She is listening to ever-so-many voices and will most likely end up a world citizen of some kind than one with any ties to her native culture of Iran. The only thing I received from this movie was angst.

Well I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't even get that. I am a huge Rainn Wilson fan and this is the first time I was extremely disappointed by his performance. Neither Luke Wilosn or Uma Thurman's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, Seven Nights for example) This movie was NOT worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. I guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over.

Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.<br /><br />Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.<br /><br />The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.<br /><br />Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.<br /><br />Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".

If another Hitler ever arises, it will be thanks in part to nonsense like this film, which propagates the absurd notion that he was a visibly deranged lunatic from the start. Far from following such a person and electing him to the highest office in the land, sane people would cross the street to avoid him, and he would have died in a ditch, nameless and unknown.<br /><br />Anyone who reads the accounts of Hitler's close companions - the autobiography of his secretary Traudl Junge for instance - will be struck by the fact that people found him a kindly, intelligent, generous man. He was also a brilliant orator, and the fact that his speeches seem overblown and ranting to modern ears ignores the times in which they were made, when strutting pomposity was common in political speeches. Ditto the overstated anti-Semitism, which was neither a central plank of the early Nazis - who were primarily anti-communist - nor uncommon or unusual for the times. The film makes it look as though Hitler's sole ambition from the start was the Holocaust.<br /><br />If you want to identify the next person who will cause the death of tens of millions, you can ignore fleck-lipped ravers life the one portrayed here. Look instead for a charming, charismatic man whose compelling speeches inspire the entire nation, and whose political work visibly and materially benefits the country. I'm afraid his personality will be much more like Barack Obama's than Fred Phelps'.<br /><br />I hoped for much here, and got nothing but caricature. The fools who made this thing perpetrated a crime against reality. This is the historical equivalent of 'Reefer Madness'.

Half Past Dead was unlike any Steven Segal film I've ever seen. Very little of Segal, himself in action and I agree with the last review I read, Nia Peeples steals the show.<br /><br />I saw nothing really new here, just the same old stuff from other flicks changed around a little. The best action scenes were Nia's as she once again kicked butt. It was interesting seeing her as the bad guy after watching her for two seasons on Walker, Texas Ranger, still kicking butt, but for the good guys.<br /><br />

well, i hated knocked up, i despised 40-year-old virgin, and this little gem is a worthless piece of trash movie. do yourself a favor, and skip it. i admit, i don't like the actors in this movie, and after my 18-year-old son showed me the cover of the DVD, i was like, "i wouldn't like that movie," but at his insistence, i decided to give it a try, unfortunately. <br /><br />about two minutes into the movie i turned it off, i was so offended. it's just disgusting. any decent person would be offended by the filth in this movie. call me old fashioned, but shoving your pussy juice-covered hand into your friend's face so he will know you "got some" is over the line of decency, in my opinion. yeah, that's how this putrid little film starts, and i can only imagine it gets much worse from there. another real winner for Mr. Rudd. i bet he's proud as punch. imagine if you could only get worthless roles like he gets, would you stay in movies? despite the pay, i wouldn't. <br /><br />i should have known better; next time i will.

Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.

It's rare to see film that strikes out in every aspect but "Caligula" surely must hold this title. I'm not sure what is more horrendous; the violence, the sexual perverseness, the acting or the plot (or severe lack thereof).<br /><br />The two and a half hours basically follows the ascension of the infamous Roman Caesar "Caligula" to to throne in 37AD and shows the atrocities and perverseness he supposedly committed whilst in power. The acting is lifeless and dull - but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously knowing that this film was severely lacking of anything legitimately interesting, the directors decided to throw in as much nudity and orgy scenes as was conceivably possible. But don't be fooled, these scenes don't ease or take focus away from the hideousness of this film. The camera work is shoddy, dialog is laughable in fact you'd have to congratulate Malcolm McDowell (playing Caligula) for keeping a straight face through such farcical lines. And then there's the violence....<br /><br />If you are about to see the film be prepared. Some atrocities are committed in the film (not just through the writing) but through disgusting violent acts which are of little point or purpose other than to repulse the viewer. This is only objective this movie achieved. One must wonder how the makers of this film thought that bestiality, necrophilia and castration (just to name a few) would be appealing to anyone. When it belatedly ends after two and a half hours you take nothing from this film other than some disturbing images and the knowledge that you may have witnessed the worst film ever.<br /><br />You've been warned

This is why i so love this website ! I saw this film in the 1980's on British television. Over the years it is one i have wished i knew more about as it has stayed with me as one of the single most extraordinary things i have ever seen in my life. With barely a few key words to remember it by, i traced the film here, and much information, including the fact it's about to become an off-Broadway musical !<br /><br />Interestingly, unlike the previous comment maker, i do not remember finding this film sad, or exploitative. On the contrary, the extraordinary relationship between the mother and daughter stuck in the mind as a testimony of great strength, honour and dignity. Ironic you may think, considering the squalor of their lives. Maybe it's because i live in Britain, where fading grandeur has an established language in the lives of old money, where squalor is often tolerated as evidence of good breeding; I saw it as a rare and unique portrayal of enormous spirit, deep and profound humour, whose utterly fragile and delicately balanced fabric gave it poise and respect. In a way i was sorry to see it being discussed as a 'cult'. Over the years, as it faded in my mind, it shone the brightest, above all others as a one off brilliant & outstanding televisual experience. It was such a deeply private expose, it seems odd to think of it becoming so public as to be a New York musical. But perhaps somewhere, the daughter will be amused by such an outcome. It is she who will have the last laugh maybe..(They made a musical out of her before you Jackie O' )

If you love Chan-wook Park, you know what to expect. His films are brutal, poetic, tragic, and artistic, with splashes of very grim humor. THIRST is clearly Park's style, and I loved every second of it, from the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous and creative) to the story, which blends Shakespearean tragedy, murderous love, Gothic horror, and layered character drama. The characters are complex and there is plenty of moral ambiguity to go around. Even the most sociopathic character evokes sympathy. The direction is restrained and the performances are nuanced - like SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, there are too many subtleties to take in on the first viewing. Chan-wook Park is an intelligent, bold, consistently surprising filmmaker. It's unpredictable - scenes go from brutal and heart-wrenching to laugh-out-loud hilarious in an instant. This is closer to LADY VENGEANCE then SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE as far as being over-the-top and comical. But, like LADY VENGEANCE, it's incredibly rich, thought-provoking, and rewarding.<br /><br />If you like beautifully told vampire stories (LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) or are a fan of Chan-wook Park, seeing THIRST should be obvious. Easily one of the best films of 2009.

This movie packs a punch. There are a few every now and then that make me think deeply, and disturb me a lot. I could see myself in this same predicament - passively allowing things to happen around me, not standing up for the right and decent thing, just trying to avoid trouble. How often do we avoid making waves or sticking our necks out? How often does our inaction condone the evil actions of others. We would never join them, we tell ourselves, we recognize that what they are doing is bad, but do we do anything about it? <br /><br />Lawrence Newman (William H. Macey) is a low-key, nerdy office worker who has paid off his home in Brooklyn, NY in the waning days of World War II. He rarely gets engaged in what is going on around him, has never married, rarely socializes, just goes to work and cares for his invalid mother. Then a series of events in his very "white" little neighborhood pull him out of his complacent shell into a maelstrom of events. It starts as he witness from his bedroom window the rape of a Puerto Rican girl by the son of his neighbor. Soon after he gets glasses because of poor vision. As he is now better able to see, he becomes less able to deal with the circumstances of his life. The one bright spot is a new love in his life, and he marries, hoping to continue on in his normalcy. Then the virulent anti-semitism on that street catches him, despite his credentials as a Presbyterian WASP. As things spiral further out of control, he discovers he must make an important decision - does he take a stand or does he simply go away.<br /><br />I cannot how anybody can view this movie without being affected and having to think very much about themselves and what they really stand for. Post war anti-semitism is the setting here, but there is injustice at all times and in all places. It is for the individual to decide where he or she stands.

One of the most successful shows in television history is back. Now I admit I never got into the original show.... Okay, so I never watched it at all. But the new show is impressive.<br /><br />Sci-Fi has premiered the first two episodes, "Rose" and "The End of the World," this weekend. We meet Rose, a twenty-something clerk who is chased by remote controlled mannequins. She is rescued by a mysterious stranger who calls himself the Doctor. Using the Internet, she finds a conspiracy buff who warns her that wherever the Doctor goes, death follows. When her geeky boyfriend Mickey is replaced by an impostor, the Doctor informs her of a plot to use Earth as a breeding ground for more of these plastic monsters, whom the Doctor has been fighting across space and time, traveling in a Tardis disguised a 50s-style police call box.<br /><br />She helps him save the world--there wouldn't be a show otherwise--and decides to join him. But when he puts her life in danger, he is distraught, and questions whether her company was worth the risk.<br /><br />Although the special effects are kinda lame, and the some of the scenes are a bit choppy, "Doctor Who" is (after two episodes aired in the US) a smart, well-written work. Apparently, the second season has already aired in the UK, so I predict the same success here.

"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.

I would have liked to write about the story, but there wasn't any. I would have liked to quote a couple of hard hitting dialogs from the movie but "hinglish" is only funny for like 5 minutes, after that its overkill. I would have liked to swoon over the 'keep-u-guessing suspense' but it was as predictable as... um mm, a Yash raj movie (?). I would have liked to talk of the edge-of-the-seat action, but I don't like cartoons much. <br /><br />*sigh*<br /><br />All in all, this movie is perfect for: 1. people attempting suicide - I promise it'll push you over the edge 2. Sado-masochists- this movie is way more effective than the barbed wire that Silas guy in the Da-Vinci code wore. 3. People researching alternative ways to spread terrorism - I swear the audience leaving the hall seemed to be in a mood to kill someone 4. Movie Piraters: More power to them. If any movies deserves to not have the audience spending money to watch - this is it. 5.Barnacles, most types of plankton & green algae - Because almost all other living things would require an IQ factor somewhat greater than what the movie offers. Afterthought: The director of the movie, obviously, is a species of his own. ( And i hope to god that he is the only one of his kind..one is enough)<br /><br />Things that could have made this a better movie: 1. A story 2. A choreographer 3. A Screenplay writer 4. A stunt coordinator 5. A story (Did I already say that?) 6. A director - preferably one who is not mentally challenged (although even one who was challenged could have done a better job) 7. Anil Kapoor=Bubonic plague - Avoid at all costs 8. A statutory warning - "Watching Yash Raj movies is Injurious to your mental health" ?<br /><br />Things I liked about the movie: 1. Kareena Kapoor - For obvious reasons 2. The English sub-titles - "Mera Dil Kho Gaya" becomes - "My heart is in a void" , "Chaliya Chaliya Chaliya" turns into "Im a flirt, Im a lover, Im a vagabond" ..priceless.<br /><br />In short, Tashan to me, is like the opposite of a Rubrics cube - The cube is supposed to increase the IQ of the player, Tashan promises to lower your IQ, and that.. in a mere 2.5 hours! Woot!<br /><br />*sigh*..But thats just me. I could be wrong You've been warned anyways.