Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

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

I'm not sure how this could have been better, so I gave it a 10. The acting was excellent - the main woman was so HOT - the chap who played Darwyn was a smouldering, pensive character who showed the inner turmoil he was suffering (the truck driver's death is one example)excellently. The storyline was believable and the series length was just about right (i.e. I love Lost, but will it ever end?). As a Brit i tend to think of Yanks as gung ho. The LAPD were in their ill advised attempts to arrest him, but the other agencies were portrayed positively. My main thought about programmes like this (and the also excellent 24) is - could it happen? Would it happen? Is it happening now? Possibly, probably.<br /><br />I hope they do another series, but after reading some of the previous comments, it would appear not.<br /><br />To summarise - If you haven't seen it, make sure you do.

I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well.

If you have never viewed this film and like old time veteran actors, this is the film for you. Seeing Frank Sinatra when he was very young and extremely thin with sunken in cheeks and a wonderful voice which sang some great old songs. Michele Morgan, (Millie Pico) gave an outstanding performance with plenty of dance and musical numbers. Leon Errol, (Cyrus Drake) gave a great supporting role along with Victor Borge, (Sir Victor Fitzroy Victor) who performed classical piano and no slap stick comedy like he did in his career. This is not a great musical, but Frank Sinatra was a great joy to see at the beginning of his career in the 1940's.

In a Morocco completely invaded by Europeans and Americans, in the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the Moroccan leader Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the Magnificent (Sean Connery) kidnaps the American Eden Pedecaris (Candice Bergen), her son and her daughter. His intention is to get some money and rifles as ransom for them, to fight against the corrupt Sultan of Moroco (Marc Zuber). In times of election, the American President Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) agrees with the proposal. However, Raisuli is betrayed and Eden helps him to be released from the prison with the American soldiers. I do not like films about explicit colonialism and lack of respect to the sovereignty of other countries, but `The Lion and the Wind' is indeed a great adventure. The action scenes are very realistic. Candice Bergen, the most beautiful American actress in the 70´s, is wonderful, performing an abducted woman like in the remarkable movie `Soldier Blue'. Sean Connery is perfect, as usual, as an honest and nationalist religious leader. Brian Keith is great as the American president. I do not know much about the Morocco history to analyze whether there is any truth in this story, but this movie is a worthwhile entertainment. In Brazil it is only available on VHS. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `O Vento e o Leão' (`The Lion and the Wind')<br /><br />

Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series.

A novel by Remarque. A cast that looks great on paper. A left-wing refugee struggling to remain in Paris between the wars. A Gestapo officer undercover.<br /><br />It's a pity there's no synergy here. The bits and pieces never coalesce.<br /><br />Stories about left-wing refugees in France don't have to be this dull. Read Arthur Koestler's memoir "Scum of the Earth" (if you can find it). Or his chilling "Dialogue With Death" (ditto).<br /><br />To me, the only interest in this film lies in some of the incidental details.<br /><br />The leads spend a lot of time drinking calvados, the Norman apple brandy. I welcome any prompting to have a nip of calvados myself. It certainly made this film appear to pass more quickly. But, according to the film, it's only sold in cheap, low-class saloons. Vive le tabac parisien! That's what I say. References to intoxicating liquors do abound here; that would seem to be a preoccupation of the scenarists.<br /><br />I enjoy films set in France because it can be amusing waiting for the inevitable full-size alcohol ad to pop up on a wall in the background. I wasn't disappointed. This time it was for Byrrh, a very unusual choice. This film would rate a 10 if only we were judging it on the refinement of its booze murals.<br /><br />The film's indifferent score is by Louis Gruenberg. Gruenberg is best known -- if you can call it that -- for his opera "The Emperor Jones", based on the O'Neill play. It premièred at roughly the same time as the film version starring Paul Robeson. The opera survives today in a recording or two by Lawrence Tibbett. It should surface again soon though; they're running out of potentially marketable operas to revive.<br /><br />Opera seems an appropriate subject to mention here since Charles Boyer's character operates under his "Czech" aliases. Two of them are "Wozzeck" and "Gunther", both prominent roles in German opera. Is that just coincidence?<br /><br />Name-dropping just seems to be part of this film. Notice that they call up "Himmelstoss" on the phone. Himmelstoss happens to be one of the main characters in Remarque's earlier "All Quiet on the Western Front".<br /><br />Well, the in-jokes are all in place; guess there wasn't time to develop any drama.

Fantastic series, one of my few favorites (Miami Vice and Tour of Duty are the other two, and this series is right up there with them).<br /><br />These guys aren't into wearing frilly tights - they dress more like woodsmen. Everything about this series breathes an aire of realism, artistic license or not.<br /><br />It paints a picture of a Europe only slightly out of the grasp of paganism, as most of the villagers still have their local deities, and there are Satan worshipping nuns, and magi, witches and sorcerers casting spells.<br /><br />However, what comes to the fore most, is that it's a series of it's time. Rather than the version of the fifties, which was a lament against centralized government and the McCarthy era persecutions, this series is thoroughly grounded in the 1980s, Thatcherist bleakness, and has a strong environmentalist leaning. Robin's protector is a nature worshipper called Hern The Hunter, who often appears wearing the head of a deer, and is a personification (as is this Robin) of The Green Man, an alternative version of Osiris (the Egyptian god of vegetation and resurrection - it is interesting to note that in these series, Robin In The Hood isn't a person, but a concept; when the old one is killed, a new one is summoned telepathically by Hern - the person may die, but Robin In The Hood will live forever, hence the concept of resurrection).<br /><br />The music and score are really outstanding, and performed by the Irish formation, Clannad. When watching it, I couldn't help but think how _boring_ authentic medieval Anglosaxon folk music would have been. :-)<br /><br />All this is beautifully shot in the lush forrests of Wales, which pass for The New Forrest.<br /><br />The only down side is that in the initial episodes of both series, the actors have to overcome their own skepsis, and convince themselves that this really is a serious work. After that, they get into it and the acting is great! Michael Praed as the first Robin (the second is played by Sean Connery's son, Jason), Judi Trott makes a beautiful and fragile redheaded Marion, Phil Rose as the portly and really kind-hearted friar Tuck, Ray Winstone as the volatile and lovelorn Scarlet, Clive Mantle as the giant shepard Little John, Peter Llewellyn Williams as Little John's bumpkin friend and fellow shepard, and Mark Ryan as the ex-Hashashin/Assassin Nazir - all of them giving great performances. Also great are the steady Bad Guys, Nicholas Grace as the bug-eyed, scheming Sheriff of Nottingham, and his aristocratic, bumbling sidekick (and Robin's half brother, as it turns out) Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne. Really cool too is fashion designer Richard O'Brien, as the evil Lord Owen of Clun's (Olliver Cotton) magician Gulnar (he appears near the end of the first series and later in the second).<br /><br />The Tithe Barn in Bradford on Avon stood in for the Sheriff's castle. (Check it out on bradfordonavon.co.uk under "places of interest".)<br /><br />So, if you're at all into mythology, the Middle Ages, romanticism, don't waste your time on Xena or Hercules - this is the real thing, so go out and watch it!<br /><br />Alex

As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes! <br /><br />Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted. <br /><br />Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy.

This is a very fine and poetic story. Beautiful scenery. Magnificent music score. I've been twice in Japan last year and the movie gave me this typical Japanese feeling. The movement of the camera is superb, as well as the actors. It goes deep into your feelings without becoming melodramatic. Japanese people are very sensitive and kind and it's all very well brought onto the screen here. The director is playing superb with light an colors and shows the audience that it is also possible to let them enjoy a movie with subtle and fine details. Once you've seen this movie you will want to see more from the same director. It's a real feel good movie and I can only recommend it to everybody.

There's a good story well hidden and never really used! <br /><br />The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.<br /><br />Turn off your brain and watch—you will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.<br /><br />Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental.

When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10

Whenever I hear a movie being touted because it has no sex, violence, bad language, special effects, and so on, my b.s. detector goes off. Usually, a movie like that is sentimental hogwash which panders to people who don't want anything to surprise them, but to affirm how superior they are to us craven folk. So when David Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY began getting those kinds of reviews, I was apprehensive, especially since I was not a fan of his other "uplifting" story, THE ELEPHANT MAN. For all the stunning images and the good acting in that film, it seemed more interested in preaching to us than inspiring us.<br /><br />I needn't have worried. THE STRAIGHT STORY is an honest movie rather than a saccharine one. Most of that is due to the fact that Lynch and writers John Roach and Mary Sweeney tell it straight and simple for the most part. There are a couple of homilies by Straight I could have done without, and the shots of grain being harvested are repeated a little too much, but those are only quibbles. There's no heavy-handed message, no sentimental strings to jerk our emotions, and no condescension towards us and its characters. Instead, they depend on the story to build its own power, and it does, so by the final scene, we are genuinely moved.<br /><br />Of course, casting Richard Farnsworth adds realism to the part. He really is someone who looks like he's lived through a lot but still perseveres, and except for those homilies, the desire he has to get back together with his brother doesn't seem overly sentimental, because you can sense here is someone who's lived too long and seen too much to be driven by anger for long. And he knows his time is running out, so he wants to make some peace, not only with his brother, but with his life. Sissy Spacek also does fine, unmannered work as Straight's daughter. And although I am a city and suburban boy, the Iowa and Wisconsin landscape are beautifully shot, making me want at least to visit some day.

Wow. Simply awful. I was a fan of the original movie, and begrudgingly sat through part 2, 3 was and improvement. 4,5 and Freddy's Dead were pretty bad. But NOTHING is as bad as Freddy's Nightmares. Freddy acts as a Rod Serlingesq host of this anthology series.<br /><br />I can accept how Freddy became one punchline after another, but at least in the movies the appeal of Freddy carried the movies, but here these were so poorly made, they looked like high school productions of a horror series. The poor actors, if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. I'm nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. Ones just starting on the Hollywood ladder, brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week, or seasoned actors on their way down the Hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week.<br /><br />I half expected Dana Plato to guest star, but she was already dead by the time this was in production.<br /><br />To paraphrase Nancy's line in the original Elm St,"What ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this."

After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer<br /><br />RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about<br /><br />The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled<br /><br />The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family<br /><br />The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization<br /><br />RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore<br /><br />Music is boring<br /><br />Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times<br /><br />Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams<br /><br />Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes<br /><br />Bhumika emerges the best of the lot<br /><br />The rest are okay

Someone asked why it was canceled I tell you why Because "reality" makes money. the show surface was canceled so that they could replace it with a "reality" show, this will haunt NBC, I and about half of my high school, about 1000 people total have vowed to boycott NBC, until they bring this show back. in my area (I don't know about other places) but they had a great thing going with the Sci-Fi channel where the Sci-Fi channel would show last weeks episode at 7:00 and then NBC would show the week's new episode at 8:00 this was great because it gave you a little refresher as to what happened in the last episode. I was so angry when I learned that the show was canceled and they were going to just leave them on top of the church like that!

Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**)

This movie reminded me a lot of a song by the Dead Kennedys called "Straight A's." However, unlike this film, the hero of the DK's song turns to suicide. You'll wish this bozo had resorted to killing himself instead of doing the crime he did. The whole thing was convoluted and in the beginning, you sympathize with the hero of the film, then he quickly betrays your sympathies. The long sequences of just showing the hero's face while he delivers a monologue drag the film down quite a bit. Avoid this if possible.

1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury". <br /><br />2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people. <br /><br />3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid." <br /><br />4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P." <br /><br />5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more.

Worst DCOM I have seen. Ever. Well, maybe not as bad as Smart House. This was just bad. The acting and story was fine, but the effects SUCKED!<br /><br />They were so fake! The only good fight scene was between the brother and Shen. That was probably the only scene in which I was excited.<br /><br />Overall, I found this movie very boring and the film kind of ended suddenly. <br /><br />I will give it a four for Brenda Song who is a very funny actress and that one fight scene.<br /><br />4/10

This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series"Heartbeat" soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character.

Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.<br /><br />William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.<br /><br />The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters.<br /><br />"Shoot Or Be Shot" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform "action" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.<br /><br />I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?<br /><br />Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written.

SOME MAJOR SPOILERS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED<br /><br />I saw this movie yesterday at Venice's film festival, and I must admit that, being a fan, it was REALLY IMPRESSIVE. Excellent graphic, excellent music, excellent dubbing, excellent action sequences and so on... BUT there's a but. ALL the film was thought EXCLUSIVELY for the gamers that have loved it, and that can therefore enjoy every single reference, character, inside joke (you should see a joke with winning music that's particularly comic) etc. A poor man not inside the world of FF will obviously see the magnificence of technical part, but CANNOT grasp the inner satisfaction of seeing, e.g., Barret appearing and shooting Bahamut TOTALLY OUT OF NOWHERE. He'll ask himself, "WHO'S THIS GUY?", and I cannot blame him. He cannot even understand what a gamer feels when in the OPENING SEQUENCE there's game's opening music, Nanaki running in the canyon with his two cubs, howling at Midgar's ruins, and then "498 years ago...". Almost all characters have made an appearance or quote (including Reeve, Tseng and Elena), and Reno & Rude were really goofy and comic to see, but the final impression the movie left to me was "hardcore gamer's final dream, but far less for a MOVIE fan...".

Thank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.

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.

Although the movie is clearly dated, audiences can still easily identify with the plight of hapless Buster in this timeless and very funny underdog tale. Buster fights against unkindly odds in three different ages: the Stone Age, The Roman Age, and the Moden Age, playing almost the same character with just a change of scenery to help us identify the different "ages". In this movie we see one of the earliest comedic depictions of the "caveman" stereotype, who wins his love not by romance but by brute force, as well as a funny twist on Roman gladiatorial combat, two comedic sketches that long predate such spoofs as Mel Brooks' "History of the World: Part I". The underlying theme of the movie is simple yet convincing: Although the times may have-a-changed, we still face the same struggles even in modern times that we fought in prehistoric times in order to "win the girl" (keep in mind this is the theme of 1923 America, a time when chauvinism was still en vogue). It is interesting to look at this movie over eighty years later, and consider how dramatically things have changed from this movie's "modern times" to now.

This is a clever and entertaining film about the backroom battling that went on to choose a successor to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. However, the movie's ultimate thesis, that David Letterman's superior comedic talents were overlooked because of his controversial nature, and the show diminished by the enthronement of an inferior Jay Leno in the leading comedy program on television is simply untrue, as anyone who has watched both Leno and Letterman perform can see for themselves. The hard and simple truth is exactly as one NBC exec stated in the film "Jay Leno is the funniest man in America." And David Letterman is not. Once you realize this, then much of the machinations in the film become irrelevant. Ultimately, the whole film amounts to little more than sour grapes by Letterman fans, who just cannot accept that the better comic was chosen by people whose business it is to know these kind of things. The final proof is that despite Letterman's early lead, possibly because of the hype that emerged from the battle for Tonight Show succession, Leno's show has consistently proved to be the more popular, thus, in my mind at least, refuting Letterman's claims to be unfairly robbed of his rightful inheritance.

This picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.<br /><br />I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of "The Admirable Crighton" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.<br /><br />The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like "A League of Their own" was quite good and enjoyable and "Who's That Girl" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from "Who's That Girl" I like the music from these two films however "Swept away" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.<br /><br />everyone has a bomb right?

Nice way to relax. I am packing my suitcase now so I can go and be with Caroline Munroe. Phony monsters and scenery make for 89 minutes of harmless fun. Something you can enjoy with your family and not be offended.

I know a lot of people have said don't bother with this movie because its not a good fighting flick and hard with the subtitles. That is a really lazy way to think of a movie. If you want to focus on that part of the movie you should go find something else, and also learn to to respect cinema as a form of art, this being a masterful piece of work. If you want to watch this, its not about the fighting really. There are good fight scenes sometimes that are filmed rather well with good camera work, but the story itself is what holds the story together and is the important part. This is not the basic Kung-fu movie. The story is really the central focus and not the fights, and the combination of the two make an excellent movie thats well worth watching, and is even better in the original language with subtitles.

Charlotte Beal arrives at an isolated country mental hospital to become a full-time nurse there. She is confronted with a motley group of crazies and a seemingly crazier supervisor. Is Dr. Masters all she seems to be?<br /><br />DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is one of the best low-budget movies in the genre and why people always put it down is beyond me. The acting is excellent, my favorite performance being by Betty Chandler as Allyson the nymphomaniac. The chills just jump right off the screen. You probably won't have to say "It's only a movie, it's only a movie", it isn't that scary, but it should appeal to any horror fan who respects the low-budget horror genre, which I do. It is very hard to make a creepy film on a low budget and few actually succeed. AXE is another cheap film that is looked down upon. Maybe people are so spoiled by the big budgets of recent films that any movie that doesn't have excellent effects and/or isn't considered a classic doesn't have a chance with an audience. But I think that after people see this movie, they will see how important the low-budget horror genre is and this movie is a classic that stands out among the other rubbish.

This movie was really bad, plain and simple. How a movie like this gets wide release is a wonder to me.<br /><br />It's a decent idea, but it just didn't flesh out. Edward Burns is a decent actor though. I liked his small role in Saving Private Ryan.<br /><br />Let's get down to the big issue here.<br /><br />The visuals were so incredibly bad, I thought I was watching an old "Dinosaurs In 3D" CDROM point-and-click adventure demo on Windows 3.1 I mean, I've seen cut-scenes in console games from pre-2000 that have better looking dinosaurs than this. I mean, heck... the original Tomb Raider T-Rex looked better than this one.<br /><br />The lizard-monkeys were laughable. I thought they were some sort of ripoff creation from "Killer Instinct" I've seen better sock-puppet monsters now that I think about it.<br /><br />You know, there's a ton of made-for-TV movies that are better than this. How does a gem like Scifi Channels "The Shining" get such a small audience, but this load of "CGI, easy to make 4 Kidz" gets put out in the open? I don't care if it's a Ray Bradbury story. Lameeeee

The film tells you to be aware and conscientious. It also destroys any and all things, the Bible claims to be true. To people like me the first episode was interesting and the second was disastrous. It has been called "blasphemy", and it is, if you are a believer. It is sad to hear, that many people think of it as a good sequel to the Bible. However, the film shows you a lot of things and subjects, that can be interpreted as a filmic version of the "Revelation". Some of us think, that such things are not to be abused. One good thing about the film is, that it strongly encourages ethical awareness and makes you consider your actions twice. The director just seems to forget, that some people act that way already solely based on the fact, that they believe and love as prescribed in the Bible... Why attempt to change that, unless you be the Devil yourself?

Producer Joel Schumacher who also directed "Phone Booth",'02, and many other great films showed in great detail how no one person can really be trained to be a killing machine with out destroying their own personalities and the real fears that a person has to face when going into COMBAT!! Colin Farrell(Roland Bozz),"Intermission",'03, gave one of his best performances and actually carried this entire picture on his back. Matthew Davis(Jim Paxton),"Blue Crush",'02, gave a great supporting role and Shea Whigham(Pvt.Wilson),"All The Real Girls",'03, showed his true acting skills in the role that he played. There was two brief scenes where the soldiers were able to find some hot romance on a short leave in the local town and had to pay for their love and sexual desires. One Army Veteran instructor from Viet Nam told the soldiers how to really torture the enemy by using electrical wires in all the wrong places on a human male body. Enjoyable and entertaining film to view.

The music is by Stravinsky (and not by stupid incompetent Philip Glass) and was written ten years before glass' unfortunate birth. The staging is simply extraordinary. The narrative in Japanese adds a threatening quality and intensity that the Latin version does not have. cf. Terzieff's version. The giant heads and hands are totally justified by the mythic aspect of the tale. The props and make up used for the plague are simply spot on. It's Taymor's best work. The singers are very good, especially Terfel. Langridge is quite moving and clean, and Norman finds the right expression, and her beauty is magnified here and finds its right place: larger than life. Simply a must.

The movie opens up with a long single shot of aisles in factory crammed with workers. My, what we've done to the planet you might think. I hope we get to see other things like this.<br /><br />That's very rare. When you're not looking at a horribly filmed angle of the narrator at a lecture hall, you're watching him set up his camera to take pictures in different locations. It'd be nice if chose areas that were more fitting with his topic but he doesn't. So, then you'll hear some more narration, watch a few pictures go by and watch him set up his camera. Why not use the filming camera to show more of the landscapes instead? It really kills any sense of pacing and paints the guy as more of vain jerk.<br /><br />I could read tips on how someone set up their camera, fast forward through this whole movie and waste a lot less time.

Awlright, damn it, the MooCow will grudgingly admit the truth: I kinda' like this cheap, cheesy 70's parody. The idea that vast hordes of killer tomatoes are destroying the US is a great idea, and in spite of itself, the moovie does provide some decent chuckles, moostly the sight of terrified extras running away from large, obviously fake tomatoes. This film, along with The Kentucky Fried Moovie, is one of the earlier attempts at spoofs, which became so popular in the 80's & 90's, thanks largely to Airplane!. This one, like moost spoofs, is pretty poor. Many attempts at humor are dismal failures, and will induce much groaning. But thanks to the ravenous tomatoes hordes, the obnoxious "Puberty Love" song, and the awesome helicopter crash scene, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes does provide some goods, though largely for the wrong reasons. There are sooooo many things wrong with this film...and so right, it's hard to explain. Enough people must also have enjoyed it as the Tomatoes made a comeback in 2 moore films, and a cartoon series!! Large chunks of time spent away from the tomatoes are pretty dull. And dig those 70's clothes, dude!! ;=8) This tomato is seedy and cheesy, but worth a chuckle or two; the MooCow says grab a pizza and pop in the Tomatoes!! :

A less-than-subtle poke at the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church is given a darker shade of death near the end of the show. Throughout the show, dark humour plays a medium through which several commonly heard rhetoric questions are asked, especially "If God is so good, why does he allow evil to exist in the world?"<br /><br />Diane Keaton is excellent in her role as an exaggerated version (though some might disagree) of they stereotyped religious teacher who spouts the "company line" and condemns half the world to burn in Hell. To celebrate her school's 25th anniversary, she invites her first students to return and perform their Christmas pageant.<br /><br />However, when the quartet "update" their play to parody Sister Mary's "fallacious" teachings, the nun is pushed over the edge, sending the story spiralling into a chain of unhappy events. The ending finally leaves the audience with a sick feeling in their hearts.<br /><br />Not recommended. Go watch the play instead.

Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.<br /><br />The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.<br /><br />Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.

Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of "Corky Romano." But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of "Joe Dirt" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film? <br /><br />As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like "Corky Romano." I didn't like Falk's last movie "Made" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role. <br /><br />I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)

I had always heard about this great mini-series, but viewed it for the first time this week, July of 2007. I can see why it started the careers of so many young actors. The story is intriguing and gives wonderful insights into the period before and during the Civil War. I cared about the characters and how their lives evolved during this period. Some of them were stereotypes, but they still helped me see how people thought during the 1800's. Many historical facts were thrown into the story and it was interesting to see history books come to life. The costumes and sets were gorgeous! I thoroughly enjoyed watching both parts I and II. Part III is a disappointment.

This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.<br /><br />The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!

An interesting companion piece to true documentaries of John C. Holmes. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with what ultimately killed Holmes, and it certainly could have benefited from doing so. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg got the most praise for this, but I felt the true stars were Julianne Moore as the cocaine-sniffing mother wannabe, Don Cheadle as a black man struggling with identity as pornstar/stereo-salesman in some wild getups and William H. Macy, who's wife is the ultimate slut. Not to mention a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina. Macy's new year's eve bash and Cheadle's chance for a better life after a donut shop robbery gone wildly wrong are probably the two best scenes in the movie, or at least the two best shot. What this movie does best is show how power can easily corrupt in its various forms. However, none of the characters apparently learn anything from their dark downward spiral as they all rebound and return to their normal lives.

So then... this is what passes as high art for the likes of SXSW Film Festival and Sundance, eh? Well, I suppose I can relate as long as story, script, dialog, acting (save for Ms. Aselton), cinematography and editing are completely irrelevant.<br /><br />I remember telling other film-making friends some years ago that the biggest problem with digital video was that we were now going to have to wade through a future sea of crap to get to anything worth watching now that anyone and his brother (or brothers in the case of the Duplass') could run out and make a movie. "The Puffy Chair." Need I say more?<br /><br />This feature length video is yet another chapter in the dismal, ever-expanding world of "dudeology" movies; young guns armed with a DVX100A, a few thousand dollars, a hastily written, shallow script, and some friends they call actors who decide one afternoon to make a movie and voilà!, instant feature video-makers. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about independent cinema (i.e. Hollywierd sucks). But having said that, you can't argue with some of the realities of that system. <br /><br />If the Duplass Brothers would've had to have gone out and raised a real budget and bring on real producers, its clear a script like this would never have been green-lighted! And therein lies the problem. There is no longer such a thing as a vetting process for getting films (sorry... videos) ready for production. Just grab a DV/P2 camera and off you go! And what makes it worse is that high-profile festivals like the aforementioned actually embrace and encourage this kind of nonsense. And why? Precisely because its no-budget. <br /><br />I think its important, especially in todays climate of indie films, to quit allowing video-makers to high-jack the language by labeling themselves, "filmmakers." There is quite a difference in my book. When you have to go out and actually put your script on the line, asking friends and family or business people for real money to make a feature "film", knowing the potentially losses at stake, then you will know what it means to be a "filmmaker." But dropping a few hundred at Sam's Club for some DV tapes, some soda and chips doesn't cut it. <br /><br />Oh... and by the way... I have to mention how utterly annoying it was to listen to a female being addressed as "dude" throughout the entire movie. Even Mark Borchardt reserves that intensely-overused moniker for his male friends only where it is at least endearing where his buddy Mike is concerned!<br /><br />I think its high time the indie film community started to call out these shoddy, no-budget videos for what they are, and simultaneously scold prestigious festivals for giving such casual efforts, high praise. Either that or ask these festivals to at least have the courtesy to add a new category to their festival line ups... "Dude Films."

I remember this game. It was always sitting on the shelves alone, until one day I decided to try something new for a change, and got this game. I stared in awe at it, since it was the first ever game for the PS1 that I owned that had 4 discs. When I played it, I couldn't put the controller down, seriously.<br /><br />The storyline of this game is so good and twisted, it's almost as good as the Final Fantasy VII Storyline, and that is hard to accomplish. When you play the game, you get so involved with the characters it's unbelievable that it's only a PS1 game, as It feels like a movie. And I believe it should be made into a movie.<br /><br />Too bad this game is a very unheard of game and barely no one has played or liked it, as it is one of those games that is sitting on the ends of the shelves, with a 50% off sign sitting on it, trying to sell. Well I am one of those people who always look at those on the ends, and try them out and most of them turn out to be really good. Heck, that is how I got into final Fantasy VII, looking in a catalog, and finding it. But this is different than Final Fantasy.<br /><br />Legend of Dragoon, is the only game or RPG that is better than most Square Enix games, surprisingly. I wouldn't be surprised if it was made by Square Enix but it's not. Hardly any games I play are better than the Final Fantasy series, or the Dragon Quest series, but this one is. But what really bugs me is why it is very little known and is not praised, which it should be.<br /><br />Graphics are pretty good for a PS1 game, but what can you expect from it? It's PS1 man, made in 1999. Story I have already mentioned is amazing, almost beats VII. Characters are a amazing, you get involved so much with them, and their actions.<br /><br />A definite 10 out of 10. Definitely deserved more praise, and a very well done RPG by a company other than Square Enix.

Pushing Daisies truly is a landmark in Television as an art form. Everything seems to pay homage to Amelie and Tim Burton, but so what, in a world where fresh ideas are distinctly rare, this show will guarantee that you do not care about whether its fresh or not. It is just Brilliant.<br /><br />I have been captivated from the start, the intelligent writing, the Directing to the backdrops and dialogue make this show the most incredible masterpiece since The Shield and The Wire (ok not exactly good comparisons but the beauty of Pushing Daisies is that it has no comparisons on television).<br /><br />Truly addictive and an absolute pleasure. Perhaps like one of the Piemakers pies that get mentioned in such tantalising ways.

This is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like "freeing" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.

This title seems more like a filming exercise than a film that should have been released to be seen by the public. For Dafoe and his wife it must have been fun working together in a film for the first time, without taking into consideration that people might actually watch it. I felt like it was 90mins wasted as I waited anxiously for a plot to develop, or even begin.<br /><br />Try to fit this film into a genre and you won't, because it lacks a beginning, middle or ending. I've seen 'arty' movies before and this doesn't even come close to being arty, abstract or original, it just seems to me to be completely pointless.<br /><br />I think it speaks for itself when the only persons that rated this film a 10 were the under 18 age group. No doubt for the constant pointless erotic scenes that the film was insistent on throwing at us. That is if you can call it erotic. It certainly didn't have taste.

I was really horrified by this eerie movie. What an unusual dark atmosphere. And such a creepy musical score. Really promising! Indeed, after ten minutes you really start sweating, and feeling uncomfortable, for you start fearing the worst. This movie has the atmosphere of a true nightmare, and what's worse-it all comes out. For one hour and a half I have been trying to fight complete boredom and falling asleep, but the monstrous soundtrack kept me awake. Nuit Noire is a truly horrifying picture - for your eyes, your ears, your intelligence, and most of all: your wallet, since the thought of spending precious money on a movie ticket for this cheap amateuristic homevideo is the biggest horror of all.

Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.

Mix exotic tropical locations, babes in skimpy attire, explosions, good-looking Dudley Do-Right clones, a movie star with his best years behind him (Martin Sheen), a little martial arts and a sexy villainess (Tracy Lor.....er, sorry...Tracy ELIZABETH Lords) and you'd think you'd be in for some escapist fun. Not so! This is a dreary TV movie and even though it likes to promote itself as a "Charlie's Angels" deal,it is nowhere near as good as the original series or even the gawdawful, irretrievably stupid, recent C.A. movies. This abomination is best described as a THIRD RATE Andy Sidaris film. Nowhere near as much fun as Andy's "Hard Ticket To Hawaii", although some of the fight scenes are decent enough. The girls spend too much time posing and trying too look prissy and it gets annoying after a while. There's better genre stuff that this out there. Oh yeah, and the "babes" aren't as hot as they like to think they are. Terrible soundtrack...when it's there.

HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.

This movie had a great ensemble of adult actors along with a cast of youthful actors that are going to be in movies for a long while if there is any justice. The directing and editing was great. I may look up the book that this was adapted from, it must have been great. (I liked it.) Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, and Tim Blake Nelson were a blast to watch! Henry Winkler and Nathan Davis were not seen enough, but were fun when they were onscreen. The kids at the camp couldn't have been better. (as I said, I liked it!)

Where to begin? How about with the erroneous synopsis: <br /><br />"X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's epically violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program."<br /><br />His epically violent past turns out to exceptionally non-violent.<br /><br />His relationship with Creed is so glossed over it's difficult to understand how they have any connection at all. We are thrown from one point in the opening scene that shows them as children on the run, to a montage of war scenes that they have fought in throughout their long lifespan, and finally to the present where they are a part of a hardcore government team of assassins.<br /><br />There is nothing by way of showing their relationship as brothers at all. Nothing complex is laid down for us to believe is authentic or even loving. <br /><br />The romantic element of the movie between Silverfox and Wolverine was forced and abrupt. We are thrown into a romance so fast that it's over before you can blink an eye. Having just introduced the character, Silverfox is killed off roughly fifteen minutes later. We are left wondering why we should care about this. Who was she anyway?<br /><br />For a pivotal element of this weak revenge driven story, the romance is surprisingly unexplored. It was rushed in simply because it was required.<br /><br />Oddly enough, when Wolverine finds that his love is dead he leaves her in the woods to rot as he goes off to find Sabertooth. Being the romantic that he is this was out of character for him yet necessary to serve the plot in pulling off a very predictable surprise.<br /><br />As for the weapon X program, lets just say that after the painfully crippling procedure Wolverine is up and running. Eventually he arrives at the home of a conveniently old yet overwhelmingly loving couple. Surprisingly Ma and Pa Kent aren't alarmed when finding a naked sweaty man in their barn. Is it any wonder what fate awaits them?<br /><br />In the previous films and the comic books, the main reason that Wolverines' amnesia plagued him partly hinged on the fact that he was said to have been viciously evil and coldblooded.<br /><br />Knowing this was the case...did he really want to remember such horrors or keep them hidden and continue his current more positive lifestyle of fighting against the villains of the world alongside his team mates?<br /><br />As hinted to in X2: X-men United when Stryker gives up some of his secrets it is said that Wolverine would be disturbed if he had known of the evil works they committed together. This film sets up the team fairly well only they don't really do much of anything. No disturbing violence, no ruthless actions, they merely harass a few natives in foreign lands for the ten or fifteen minutes they are on screen. <br /><br />It seems that Wolverine wasn't an evil man under Stryker at all. Instead he was constantly trying to put a leash on his brother Sabertooth which consequently WAS the violent agent we all thought Wolverine was. Eventually he just leaves all together.<br /><br />No conflict of duality here at all.<br /><br />Idiotically REMOVING that character conflict of good and evil DULLED the story immensely. They may as well have given him rubber claws.<br /><br />There were a ton of other errors in this film that contradicted the X-Men trilogy, including the introduction of one of the lamest Deus Ex Machinas to ever hit a script.<br /><br />Magic memory-erasing bullets. <br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Apparently they are the only thing to bring down Wolverine. Yet this was apparently forgotten when agent after agent was sent to bring him down with bullets and bombs that would surely not work on him at all.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that it tried to focus on Wolverine while throwing in a ton of other mutants which did little to nothing at all. Interesting characters were mere window dressing and did nothing for the story. Most were in the film for 5-10 minutes max and yet you find yourself wishing we saw more of them and less of Wolverine.<br /><br />Fred Dukes (the Blob but not the comic version) can punch a launched tank missile with little to no physical damage to him at all, but a simple headbutt from Wolverines metal noggin is enough to daze him?<br /><br />Cyclops optic beams (which instead of being concussive force are now more akin to lasers) can burn through buildings but when fired at Sabertooth directly it simply smashes him into the ground without even damaging his clothes. Adamantium trench coats anyone?<br /><br />The (gravity defying) mutant Gambit, instead of utilizing his signature cards, is made into some sort of crazy acrobat. In one poorly edited scene he is knocked unconscious by Wolverine...then amazingly enough a few minutes later he is on a rooftop running TOWARDS Wolverine. How he regained consciousness, ran away a few blocks, climbed up a building, then ran back to Wolverine and Sabertooth in the middle of a scratching match is a mystery yet to be explained.<br /><br />Some have excused this films weakness by claiming it was made from a comic and therefore should be weak on character and heavy on flash. The idea that this movie being a comic film is flimsy and superficial because of that fact is incorrect.<br /><br />The comic book source material, the REAL origin of Wolverine...is a story worth bringing to the screen. It doesn't sugar coat his past nor treat the reader like mindless CGI junkies. It is a well crafted story and although retold and readjusted over time, began with WEAPON X by Barry Windsor-Smith. A much more intense and exciting story.<br /><br />This FOX film should seriously be forgotten. <br /><br />Anyone have that magic gun?<br /><br />4/10

First of all, I liked very much the central idea of locating the '' intruders'', Others in the fragile Self, on various levels - mainly subconscious but sometimes more allegorical. In fact the intruders are omnipresent throughout the film : in the Swiss-French border where the pretagonist leads secluded life; in the his recurring daydream and nightmare; inside his ailing body after heart transplantation.... In the last half of the film, he becomes intruder himself, returning in ancient french colony in the hope of atoning for the past. <br /><br />The overall tone is bitter rather than pathetic, full of regrets and guilts, sense of failure being more or less dominant. This is a quite grim picture of an old age, ostensibly self-dependent but hopelessly void and lonely inside. The directer composes the images more to convey passing sensations of anxiety and desire than any explicit meanings. Some of them are mesmerizing, not devoid of humor though, kind of absurdist play only somnambulist can visualize.

I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait. <br /><br />I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life.

A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.<br /><br />It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.<br /><br />This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.<br /><br />Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.

This movie attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , "is that all" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about it.

A bunch of full-length movies featuring the Muppets, created by Jim Henson & Co, have been made, but "The Muppet Movie" was the first one of them all, and the first in the original trilogy, which also features "The Great Muppet Caper" and "The Muppets Take Manhattan". It was released seven years before I was born, so I obviously didn't get to see it at the time (nor did I get to see its two successors when they were first released). However, I saw a lot of the Muppets during my childhood, mostly after Henson's premature death in 1990. I finally got around to seeing this movie for the first time around the mid-nineties, after hearing the soundtrack. Unsurprisingly, I liked it at the time, and revisiting it in recent years hasn't exactly been disappointing.<br /><br />One day, while Kermit the Frog sits in a swamp with his banjo after singing "Rainbow Connection", a Hollywood agent named Bernie comes by in a boat and urges him to pursue a career in Tinseltown. Kermit takes his advice and goes west. He soon meets Fozzie Bear, an unsuccessful stand-up comedian in a restaurant, and convinces him to come along. The frog is also noticed by Doc Hopper, the owner of a frog leg restaurant chain who wants Kermit to be his mascot. As a frog, Kermit is disgusted by this, so he refuses and leaves with Fozzie. On their road trip across the country, Kermit and Fozzie meet other Muppets who join them, including Miss Piggy (who soon becomes Kermit's love interest) and Gonzo. Unfortunately, as they all try to make their way to Hollywood, Doc Hopper, assisted by Max, is willing to do anything to force Kermit to become his restaurant chain's mascot, so Kermit finds himself in increasing danger! <br /><br />One thing many people praise this film for is the songs, and I can understand why. There is, of course, the Oscar-nominated "Rainbow Connection" at the beginning, and more good tunes follow, such as Kermit and Fozzie's catchy road song, "Movin' Right Along", and "I'm Going to Go Back There Someday", a poignant ballad sung by Gonzo. "Never Before, Never Again", the song Miss Piggy sings when she first sees Kermit, is the only one I would consider rather weak, and their romance seems awfully sudden. The Muppets in this movie are generally lovable, just like they are on TV, and some of them provide a lot of the humour, including Fozzie, making his first appearance in the film hopelessly trying to entertain people in a restaurant with his stand-up, and, well, if you're familiar with these famous Muppets, you should know what to expect from each of them. Some of the live actors who appear briefly in the film can also be funny, such as Dom DeLuise as Bernie the Agent and Steve Martin as the "Insolent Waiter." Also, it's not 100% comedy. There are serious parts of the film which they also did well.<br /><br />Watching this original Muppet movie again this year was my first time watching any of them since seeing "Muppets from Space" (one of the Muppet movies made after Henson's death, released in 1999) for the first time last year. I was very disappointed when I saw that film, which had never happened before when I watched any film or TV show featuring the popular puppet characters! Not only is that movie not very funny, I also think it's a tad too dark and cruel for the Muppets, as I stated in my review of it! However, I can't say I think the same of any of that movie's predecessors, including this one, released twenty years earlier. "The Muppet Movie" seems to be the most popular of the bunch, and since it has so much to like, not just for kids, that's understandable. I highly doubt there's much left to say about "The Muppet Movie" that hasn't been said at some point in the past thirty years, but today, it remains good family entertainment.

I've watched a few episodes of this show and have found certain elements of it to be rather interesting, considering medical facts that can be learned. But this is totally upstaged and wrecked by the neverending immoral relationships of the show's characters. Everybody seems to have slept with just about everyone, even during office hours, which is ridiculously unrealistic. There doesn't seem to be one solid, lasting marriage or relationship in the entire show - everyone is broken up and on the prowl - hardly a true reflection of all Americans. Indeed, there is a total lack of respect for marriage or monogamy and it's truly fulsome.<br /><br />Then we are presented with endless little moral 'dilemmas' and they're generally solved in such a way that belittles anyone who doesn't agree with the all-knowing degenerate management and staff of the private practice. For instance, in one of the latest episodes we're presented with an exceedingly rare situation of a baby who is born with an uncertain gender and Addison absolutely refuses to perform the surgery because we're supposed to let the baby decide his gender later on. Anyone who disagrees with this is portrayed as immature and stupid.<br /><br />And I think that anyone opposed to abortion would be offended by the way the show treats pro-lifers. Addison made the comment that no man was allowed to have an opinion on the issue and only one black character was given dignity for opposing abortion on moral grounds. The general feeling was that if you opposed abortion, you're a freak - hardly the popular sentiment in the US. Two of the main characters in the show nonchalantly mention that they had abortions when they were younger and had no apologies or regrets, in spite of the fact that research has shown women can undergo intense depression. What's more a young girl comes to the clinic for an abortion and then thanks the staff on the way out and someone talks about it as how they were helping this young person and it was like something to exult in. The script could have been written by Planned Parenthood.<br /><br />All in all, this is a cheap show that lacks much of a future unless it decides to present more real relationships rather than just totally unbelievable soap opera relationships and far-fetched medical situations throughout the whole show.

This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......<br /><br />Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.<br /><br />There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.<br /><br />The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.<br /><br />The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.<br /><br />I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.<br /><br />Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.<br /><br />This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.

Okay, I'm sorry to the cast and crew for this review, but this movie is by far the worst I've seen yet...First off, the acting was okay. It could of been better (especially in some parts), but it was "okay". Then, there was the cheapest video camera (which they used). The violence was pretty good. If it were paced faster, it would be awesome, but they didn't (*sigh*)...Scares. The scares were well written (in the script), but not well done. For instance...(SPOILER HERE!) In the loft, a girl is half way in it and the other half is in the dark, bottom area of the barn house, then she gets it. The monster yanks her down and then you hear someones guts getting ripped out. The scares could have been better if the music wasn't ripped from a cheap horror sounds CD. The blood effects were pretty good, but the blood was like that of "Kill Bill". K.B. pulled it off, because it was meant to resemble old kung-fu movies, but when the crew can't tell the difference between red and pink....it's sad. The ripped up bodies in the movie were good, but the scarecrow costumes were something you would see for 25 bucks at a halloween store. Don't let the cover fool you, the costumes suck! My overall grade is a 3/10. If you are interested in independent movies, are easily satisfied, or just have 3 bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go to Blockbuster and see the horror of failure.

I saw this movie just recently, and I said to myself: "This movie is bad!" William Shatner is a great actor, but he is no director! <br /><br />It's not just that the acting is bad, it's terrible. And instead of a plot, we have a very bad storyline that is called a plot! What I really thought was bad was at the beginning where Kirk and McCoy were teaching Spock how to sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat!"<br /><br />Do I have something against William Shatner? I do not. But when it comes to being a director, he sucks! This film is not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. But it is the worst of the Star Trek series! <br /><br />I noticed that after this Shatner did not return to direct another film in the series. They apparently did not want him to direct another film again after this happened! <br /><br />Overall, this movie sucks! <br /><br />2/10

"Holes" is my all-time favorite movie! So far I have seen this movie three times in theaters and am looking forward to purchasing it on DVD this upcoming September. I read the book after seeing the movie and was amazed at how alike the book and movie were. The director of this film did an excellent job of re-creating the book into movie form. Also, all of the actors selected to play the roles did wonderful playing their characters, especially Max Kasch as ZigZag. Props to all those involved in making this movie, it was a real success! 10 out of 10 stars, I definitely recommend it for everyone to see!

OK where do i begin?... This movie changed my life! The plot was seamless. James Cahill has out done himself. Initially after a first viewing i was disappointed that i hadn't seen it on the silver screen. However this was before exploring the DVD's many features!!!! Oh my god Jakes Cahill's commentary of the film was almost as flawless as his acting. he told of industry secrets used in the film that you only get with experience.<br /><br />I was so impressed by the other actors. The scene where the security guard is talking to the girl in the hallway, reminded me of some of my favorite blue (pornographic) movies. I am certainly with Gangsta when he expresses his disappointment with no sequel.<br /><br />I am still blown away with each viewing of the martial arts skills involved, matched only by the sign indicating the location of the library at the school... and possibly the guy playing a retard! All in all a timeless classic and the best film to come out of Europe in years! where my Oscars at dawn!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.

I can't really condemn the movie because it does work. There is enough film noir elements to consider it a noir movie, but I think it's only just in the category.<br /><br />There's nothing sinister in this piece, and that's where the noir elements fail. Sure, the disease might be considered sinister, but I have a hard time seeing that. The movie hints at a darker side: Blackie may be trafficking human beings, the New Orleans police are only too willing to arrest a reporter, the specter of the plague hangs over all of the people in the movie... but those are really only hints.<br /><br />There's no attempt made to question Reed's motivations, as one with do with Marlowe or Spade, nor is there any attempt to bring a humans side to Blackie, which would make him even more contemptuous if the human trafficking was actually played out.<br /><br />That lack of depth is what fails the movie in the end.<br /><br />The story is decent, the acting is good, the writing and direction are well done... but there is nothing to make this a movie you should return to over and over. Worth watching once, maybe twice if you don't remember it from years ago, and then putting away.

This is a treat for fans of Z-grade movies. Here you will find writing and acting bad enough to rival anything Ed Wood ever produced. Veteran bad movie actor Cameron Mitchell is a former makeup man from "Paragon Studios" who, after a nasty acid-in-the-face incident at a social gathering, becomes an embittered Mad Scientist (tm) with a rubber scar on his face who takes revenge by kidnapping Paragon actors and turning them into living statues in his Secret Laboratory (tm) handily located in the local wax museum. Or are they zombies who do his bidding? He's not sure. <br /><br />Happily, many of your favourite movie clichés are here. Check out the villain's lab! Are those mysterious steaming vats of liquid? Test tubes of coloured water with no explained purpose? Yay! And what ho, do we see spare arms and legs arranged kinda casual-like on a wooden rack? You betcha! Marvel at the bumbling detectives acting with straight out of Plan Nine! Now, enjoy a stupidly tame car chase, and hear more dizzy bimbo screaming than you could possibly want. Raise an eyebrow at the screwy plot line, made even more opaque by the totally meaningless ending that seems to have no connection to the rest of the movie. <br /><br />Cheesy trash and much fun for the bad movie connoisseur.

The story is about a little girl growing up in colonial Africa, but it is so much more than that.<br /><br />Anyone growing up in the South would experience the same things. A longing for another, one of a different race, that cannot be consummated. Even a glance is forbidden. There are no words needed. Their facial expressions say everything.<br /><br />It is the story of a black servant, Protée (Isaach De Bankolé) and a white woman, Aimée (Giulia Boschi). Their desire for each other is so strong that they torture each other because they cannot have each other.<br /><br />The little girl, France (Cécile Ducasse) is lonely and spends all her time with Protée. She really can't see this dance.<br /><br />One of the more irritating aspects of the film is the laziness of the colonials. They cannot even get undressed for bed by themselves. There world is about to end; they just don't know it yet. Their racist attitudes will be erased with their presence.<br /><br />I think I would like to visit this Africa. It seems so quiet; especially at night when you only hear the animals.

House of Dracula was made towards the end of Universal's horror cycle of the 1940's and I've seen this a couple of times.<br /><br />A mad Doctor, Edelman is breeding plants for a serum that cures people. Count Dracula arrives for a cure for his vampirism and Lawrence Talbot then comes to see if he can cure him from turning into a werewolf at full moon. Frankenstein's monster is then discovered and Edelman brings him back to life just as the villagers descend on the castle and set it on fire. Talbot, now cured and one of Edelman's female assistants are safe though.<br /><br />Like a lot of movies of its kind, we have a hunchback assistant and thunderstorm to keep it moving.<br /><br />The cast includes Universal horror regulars Lon Chaney Jr (The Wolf Man), John Carradine (House of Frankenstein) and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's monster. Also starring Onslow Stevens (Them!), Lionel Atwill (The Vampire Bat) and Martha O'Driscoll .<br /><br />House of Dracula is a must see for all old horror fans out there. Great fun.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

I haven't liked many TV shows post 1990, but THAT 70S SHOW is great. Never seeing it during it's first run, thinking a gimmicky period piece, I was wrong! I started watching in reruns and the more I watched, the more I liked! Now, it is the only show premiering post-1990 that I watch regularly.<br /><br />Although THAT 70S SHOW mimics some of the styles, attitudes, music, and tastes of the 70s, it does not mire itself in that decade by going overboard with the references and look of the 70s. It contains so much funny, witty, biting dialogue that is delivered with confidence and certainty by its main cast that it overcomes any 70s clichés by just being humorous. The humor is what keeps the show eternally watchable.<br /><br />Although a hilarious sitcom, no matter what time period, the uniqueness of mocking the 70s does work in its favor as it gives the show a signature identity. But its the focus on universal issues (family problems, teen angst, marital issues, peer pressure), dealing with all of them with comic aplomb, that gives the show a mass appeal.<br /><br />The show's center is one Eric Forman (played to absolute comic perfection by future superstar Topher Grace). Eric is a super-skinny, geeky-looking, non-athletic teen and still comes off as super-cool due to Grace's brilliant self-deprecation of the character. Eric has 5 friends Donna, Hyde, Kelso, Jackie, and Fez (played respectively in hilarious fashion by Laura Prepon, Danny Masterson, Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis, and Wilmer Valderama). We get to see life in Point Place, Wisconsin through the eyes of these 6 teens and boy do we get a lot to see! Donna, a forward-thinking feminist, is the object of Eric's affection and these 2 have the core relationship of the show. They become a couple pretty soon after the show starts and they are NEVER a boring couple. Most of the shows eps end with them having a meaningful conversation about them and their future and it works as a great insightful bookend, which works as a perfect counter to the prior hilarity. Hyde is Eric's best friend and soon moves in with the Formans when his mother abandons him; Hyde is the mellow, zen, cool one of the group and just sits back, observes, and makes fun of his fellow friends with easygoing aplomb. Kelso is the dumb one of the group and Kutcher plays it the absolute hilt, displaying amazing physical comedy as well as telling some of the most absurdly hilarious ideas and stories ever! Jackie, who starts out as Kelso's girlfriend, is a verbose, self-absorbed debutante cheerleader and is at first only accepted as part of the group b/c of Kelso, but she manages to ingratiate herself to the point where they all HAVE to accept her! And finally, Fez! Fez is the foreign exchange student from some unknown country (we never know exactly where) and he is a scene-stealer! "I said good day!" "You son of a b*tch!" Valderama is only sporting a foreign accent here as he hasn't one in reality and he is always in character and creates one of the most unique characters I have ever seen. His scene-stealing moments often help make the show for me.<br /><br />The show constantly takes us into the minds and thoughts of these characters through engaging fantasy scenes of how they would like or imagine things to be. The gang repeatedly gets into trouble (most of it on purpose). They constantly play gags on the Point Place residents as well as each other. They hang out most of the time in Eric's basement plotting, pontificating, or just plain playing around.<br /><br />Also figuring prominently in the show are Eric's parents, the menacing, commie-hating Red and the lovable, happy-go-lucky Kitty (played memorably by Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp). These 2 adults give the show a much-needed mature point-of-view and constantly berate and advise the 6 ne'er do-wells. Red and Kitty are ably supported by Donna's parents, the buffoonish Bob (played wonderfully for the full run by Don Stark) and blonde bimbo daft Midge (the super-sexy Tanya Roberts, who was on the show for about half it's run). Additionally, for 3 full seasons, Eric's sister from hell Laurie (played brilliantly by the wickedly sexy Farrah-Fawcett lookalike Lisa Robin Kelly) was a major refreshing relief to counter the shenanigans of the main 6 and to be the thorn in Eric and her parents' sides! Kelly came back as a guest character for a few Season 5 eps. But, unfortunately, Kelly's personal problems led to her being replaced by a terrible new actress in Season 6. The newbie didn't last, thankfully, and was gone after a few Season 6 eps!<br /><br />Sadly, at the end of Season 7, Topher Grace (Eric) and early in Season 8, Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) left the show and it never recovered as Season 8 turned out to be it's last. Grace and Kutcher returned for the series finale, though, giving the show a satisfying end. <br /><br />A lot of great supporting and cameo characters would help keep the show fresh through added nostalgia and humor. Top notch supporting players were eternally high Leo (played to the hilt by Tommy Chong), Pastor Dave, Roy (the terrific comic Jim Gaffigan), Big Rhonda, Mitch, Earl, etc. They also got legends Marion Ross (HAPPY DAYS) and Betty White (THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW) to play Red and Kitty's mothers, respectively. Many celebrity cameos from the 70s made appearances as well, from Shirley Jones (PARTRIDGE FAMILY) to Pamela Sue Martin (NANCY DREW) to Charo to Ted Nugent to K.I.S.S! It goes on and on!<br /><br />With great nostalgic 70s homages and references, hilarious dialogue and delivery and a nonsensical, take-no-prisoners style of comedic storytelling, THAT 70S SHOW is a television classic!

This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. <br /><br />I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.<br /><br />I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.<br /><br />Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.<br /><br />Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. <br /><br />Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.<br /><br />*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-

I rented this for my son who is recently found interest in 9/11. He was a Kindergartener at the time and had no idea what was unfolding. I liked the way it was told as a "documentary." If there was one movie that I would recommend to see concerning 9/11, this would be THE one! Normally you see a movie it has actors that are well known. This movie had nobody known. Also, you see a movie concerning 9/11, you hear about a fire-fighter or two losing their lives saving people. I didn't feel this had any of that! I only rented this movie and would definitely consider adding it to my collection! Very well done indeed! My heart goes out to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11!

Oh where to begin. The cinematography was great. When the movie first started because of the initial landscape scenes I thought that I was in for a good movie. Then the cgi Bigfoot showed up .It looked like a cartoon drawing of the Lion king and king Kong's love child.It totally took away from the believability of the character.Now I knew there wasn't a Bigfoot chasing people hiking around the woods for no apparent reason but a cheesy cgi cartoon.So from then on the whole movie was shot for me.The money they flushed down the toilet for the cgi they could of spent on a costume like roger Patterson did. His was the best Bigfoot costume ever no one else could match his.I am a hardcore cheesy Bigfoot movie fan and I was warned about this movie but my compulsion led me to watching this movie and I was disappointed like the previous reviews warned me about. I know after you read this review you will still say "I must watch Sasquatch hunters,must watch Sasquatch hunters." Then you will say why did I waste my good hard earned money on such a excruciatingly bad boring movie!

All of the reviews here about how much ZP lacks plot, the acting is wooden, the orgy scene makes no sense, etc., all miss the main point.<br /><br />Let's be honest. This is a movie made in the heady times of late 1960s and early 1970s Los Angeles. It is a movie meant to be watched while your are H-I-G-H out of your mind on some psychedelic substance.<br /><br />Find some kind bud and smoke up, or get a mild hit of acid. Seriously, these straight and sober reviews of ZP miss the point. You can't get anything out of this movie in a straight frame of mind.<br /><br />Until you've watched this movie on the big screen (which I am lucky to have done three times in the 1990s when ZP was quite rare) tripping out, you have no idea what this movie is all about.<br /><br />If you insist on watching it not intoxicated, you can at least appreciate the ending when the crap blows up to the soundtrack of Pink Floyd's wonderful re-working of "Careful With That Axe, Eugene," "Come in Number 51, Your Time Is Up."

Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega are the mismatched pair who get in the car and go about doing errands according to the need of one or the other. Morgan Freeman is superbly human, relating with one and all, while Paz Vega is the edgy cashier behind the "10 Items or Less" check out line, intimidating customers and bored out of her mind. Together they explore, discover, and learn from each other. To do that of course they must be vulnerable, interested in change, and have a sense of humour, all of which they both have. I wish this film was realistic, I wish this type of story happened more often, I wish we didn't have to go to the movies to realize that we can indeed connect with each other even if we come from vastly different backgrounds. The film's message is based in the open heart, and makes us wonder about the possibility of another world where we meet each other from there - a world where peace could be a possibility.

There are moments in the film that are so dreadful, your teeth ache. But knowing that there were only weeks left before the Code made movies innocuous and bland, Paramount rushed this into production before innuendo and leering went out of style. Vanities is so horrifically anti-female that it's delicious. As Kitty Carlisle sings, women are displayed with price tags that would insult a Bronx hooker. They emerge from clams (nudge,nudge;wink,wink) in postures of absolute submission. Minions of the law, so stupid they cannot find the door, get to look up their skirts and snicker. Bare-breasted chorus girls sit uncomfortably in giant cacti (Could they be a source of hallucinogens, perhaps?) while we listen to "Sweet Marijuana" and watch as blood falls on a chorines's breast.<br /><br />Sure, Carl Brisson learned his lines phonetically and doesn't seem to have a clue what he is saying. But it's all worth it as Norma steals the show while no one is looking.<br /><br />Taking one moment of this fragile fluff seriously is missing the point of the whole exercise. Watch this with a charter member of NOW and prepare to justify the whole Hollywood machismo sch tick between body blows.<br /><br />Toby Wing, by the way, is the icing on the cake. And Duke Ellington doesn't hurt either.<br /><br />A must stroll down Memory Lane.

Only saw this show a few times, but will live in my memory. <br /><br />It is very frustrating that it is so difficult to find this anywhere to purchase and yet there seem to be endless repeats of stuff like Friends! Especially even more difficult to obtain being in England I guess..?<br /><br />They say it was low ratings or was it a complaint from the Bakersfield PD themselves? Maybe it was just too clever for certain people? <br /><br />Anyhow, just about the one comedy I would love to see again but is almost impossible to find. I hear it is being or has been repeated on another network? But alas not over here!!<br /><br />Summary: Ingenious.

The problem this film has is the same problem the TV series had and that`s the laddish Stan and Jack . There`s nothing wrong with laddish characters but Stan and Jack are played by actors who seem to be in their late 40s/ early 50s ! And there`s something objectionable - not to mention crediblity defying - as they cop off with girls young enough to be their daughters<br /><br />As for the rest of HOLIDAY ON THE BUSES , I found it instantly forgettable . It`s basically a 30 minute episode spun out to 90 minutes with having all the action take place at a holiday camp instead of a bus station<br /><br />Amazingly almost a third of voters on this site have given it a 10 ! Come on guys , this film doesn`t deserve more than a 5

A man is pulled off a London Street and taken to some foreign country where he is tortured as a terror suspect. Dull, banal film bored the hell out of me. More an idea then a film. I was half way into this 77 minute film when I realized I had no idea who anyone on screen was. It was as if they took every other similar film and pulled out all of the ideas and put them in one place with out the real notion of character. Certainly its well acted with passion but there is no emotional center, there is just an everyman of sorts which the filmmakers feel is enough. Its not. And while the story presented id in theory important as a warning the film is too dull to convince anyone of it, especially if one has seen the other, better films of a similar ilk (rendition with Reese Witherspoon for example)

This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America.

There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.<br /><br />(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life)

De Grot is a very good film. The great plot comes from the novel by Tim Krabbé, who also adapted this story for the screen. Some really top-class acting, not only by Van Huêt, but especially by Marcel Hensema, who mostly did TV-work prior to his performance of Axel van de Graaf. The film seems to kick of as a thriller, and sets an excellent mood. Then we start to learn about Egon Wagter and Axel van de Graaf, and the story is revealed bit by bit in a very compelling flash-back structure, which adds to the more romantic aspect and the character-driven drama of the movie. In the end this all culminates into an emotional ending, that will grab audiences by their throats. Make sure you know as little as possible about the plot when you are going to see this movie. A must-see, especially if you liked 'Spoorloos' (The Vanishing's original screen adaptation).

This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.<br /><br />Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.<br /><br />Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.<br /><br />Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.<br /><br />It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.<br /><br />If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other.

I absolutely loved this movie. I bought it as soon as I could find a copy of it. This movie had so much emotion, and felt so real, I could really sympathize with the characters. Every time I watch it, the ending makes me cry. I can really identify with Busy Phillip's character, and how I would feel if the same thing had happened to me.<br /><br />I think that all high schools should show this movie, maybe it will keep people from wanting to do the same thing. I recommend this movie to everybody and anybody. Especially those who have been affected by any school shooting.<br /><br />It truly is one of the greatest movies of all time.

There is a reason to call this a teen flick. Out of 100 possible points I would put it somewhere in the teens. It is predictable, the acting is horrible, especially the minor roles, and above all else it is super predictable. The ending is so hokey that I should have left early and maybe it would have passed. By the way, could you call the male lead a pervert? I bet if it really happened, someone in my school district would have said so. Finally, in the school I grew up in, even though the average class had over 1000 students, we could have picked out a chump like Josie as being a fraud and we would have singled her out of the crowd. My final word is save your time, when it comes on TV watch something better, like the stock quotes.

This movie draws you in and gets you hooked on keeping your eyes on the screen. The writer/director is brilliant with the narrative parts and the use of creative and interesting camera angles and perspectives which all add to the gripping hold it will have on you. Insomniac's Nightmare is original and refreshingly different from any other movie you have seen. Is it a dream or reality? This indie will have you discussing the twists and turns it takes through the conscious and subconscious. It has an eery feel with it's dark interpretations of illusions. Dominic Monaghan really became the insomniac. He is a great actor who is not hard on the eyes either! He really poured his whole being into this role. From the storyline to the way it is shot makes this indie one of my favorites. I recommend it highly and eagerly await to see more from this innovative, creative writer/director/cinematographer!!!

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (sound familiar), water has become the most precious commodity (this has got to sound familiar) and a small minority control its distribution (what a surprise, just have a heart attack and die from that surprise). A group of ice pirates (water renegades?…wet bandits?...oh wait, that last one's been used) try to discover the route to a fabled unlimited supply of water with a lovely but spoiled (Druish?) princess en tow and a group of idiots…er…despicable villains in pursuit.<br /><br />This movie has the potential to be a really great comedic parody ("Star Wars," David Lynch's "Dune") but was just not handled correctly. It goes for, I believe the term is, "low brow" humor. It doesn't really succeed in being all that funny which is a shame since it has Angelica Houston, Ron Perlman and Robert Urich, (hence the three stars) who aren't exactly slackers in the acting department.<br /><br />Definitely a rental and definitely have a drink straight up.

One of the requirements of science fiction, at least before it starts to become satire, is that it be somewhat plausible. I would think that an anti-matter bomb would do considerably more damage than for what it was intended. But I'll leave that to the physicists who might have seen Solar Crisis.<br /><br />It is a crisis the earth is facing because solar flares are getting totally out of hand. They're getting close to Earth, so much so that it's become unseasonably hot, as if the entire Earth were Death Valley. The answer is an anti-matter bomb which a space ship will have to take to the sun and explode it there. That will divert the flares off in say the direction of say Mercury providing it's not in direct alignment with the Earth. <br /><br />Who to deliver it, but captain Tim Matheson and his crew. That is if he can keep his mind on the business at hand and not on runaway son, Corin Nemec. Taking care of the personal side of the family problems is admiral Charlton Heston, Matheson's father, and Nemec's grandfather.<br /><br />There's a villain here too, Peter Boyle who is the CEO of a multi-national corporation which in this crisis is trying to control the world's food supply for the survivors. The idea he might not survive doesn't enter into his thinking. He's doing his best to sabotage Matheson's mission.<br /><br />Solar Crisis seems like a bad mix of 2001, A Space Odyssey and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Boyle seems to be taking his cue from Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman, apparently he's the only one in the cast who realizes he's in a turkey and overacts accordingly.<br /><br />The rest of the cast are stalwart, true blue and dull. Except possibly desert rat Jack Palance who finds Nemec and cares for him. <br /><br />The key here is that the film was directed by that noted Hollywood purveyor of flop films, Allen Smithee. The film gets as much as four stars for the cast involved and it was out in time for a Thanksgiving carving.

Maybe our standards for Vientam movies have increased since Born on the Fourth Of July, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon. This movie has a predictable plot, bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, bad special effects, etc. Compared with other Vietnam movies this one is completely unbelievable.

Hey guys, <br /><br />i have been looking every where to find these two movies and i can't find them anywhere in my local area. (I am Australian). Could You please help me and tell me where i can buy it from. In General Home Ward Bound 1 and 2 are the best movies i have ever seen and are good for people of all ages. It was my favourite movie wen i was 5 and it still is even now when i am a teenager. It is a great movie for the whole family. My entire family loves this movie except for my younger sister because i have watched it that many times that she is sick of it. I love this movie and i cant wait till i can buy it again on DVD.<br /><br />Sally

clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula."

The idea behind this film was a good one. Too bad it wasn't written well. Casting Sidney Poitier as the FBI agent was a good idea, and he did an outstanding job. Tom Berenger, on the other hand, only knows one emotion in most of his movies, anger. Kirstie Alley's character could have been a great one, and even showed some possibilities once, but the writer really let us down by making her role mostly a helpless female. This was completely inconsistent with the strongly independent character she was supposed to be. I don't care for Alley's acting anyway. The movie should have ended about fifteen minutes sooner than it did. The director milked the cow dry before the unbelievable final action. I will keep this in my collection only as an example of Poitier's performances.

Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.

"Menace" is not funny. It tries hard - too hard. but rarely brings a smile. There is no acting, just mugging. One of the main characters wears a stupid grimace on his face the entire movie. No doubt as the less talented Wayans brothers starred, wrote and produced the film they were entirely blind to their lack of talent.<br /><br />Menace consists of a series of unfunny, one joke skits. The punchline can be seen a mile off, but you have to wait until it all unfolds. No zippy one-liners or snappy dialogue here. Just one scene after another building up to the joke. The jokes themselves are juvenile. Loc Dog (the one with the perma-grimace) talks to a beautiful woman - but then she has ... bad breath and then she picks her nose and then, wait for it (remember you must always w-a-i-t) she farts! How funny is that? Ten-year old boys may find it funny as they won't have heard the jokes as many times before. Alternatively, if you like watching movies completely drunk or stoned then you will be able to follow along and may even find it amusing. The challenge will be getting drunk enough to reduce your mental state to the level of the movie without passing out.

I saw Chomps during the - approximately - 2 days of its theatrical release. It is a delightfully cute and funny movie in the spirit of 'Benji' though much improved and focused more on the actors than the dogs. The simple portrayal of life difficulties in a humorous way, followed by the bullies and villains getting their just deserts, is both sympathetic and heartwarming. It is also thought provoking. With deft subtleness this movie affects ones awareness of cruelty, personal behavior, and bullying. Movies have different genera's and different purposes. This movie, which is delightful to all ages, offers an interesting humorous look into our own experiences. Everyone will recognize personality and behaviors types of themselves and others. Everyone will see the humor. The humor makes the move enjoyable and brings understanding of life situations to a new level. <br /><br />For lighthearted laughter and a 'feel good' movie Chomps is an excellent choice. Memorable.

There is a serious scene in this movie. A scene that lets you know that his film won't be pulling many cheap punches. It takes place in a crowded train station and the protagonists are ambushed by assassins with automatic weapons. They make a break for it and just manage to get out in a hail of gunfire. The main hall of the train station is now filled with corpses of innocent people that were caught in the crossfire. Some would call that too sad and/or grim to put into what is supposed to be an enjoyable action flick. I call it honesty. Most action movies tend to lean toward the "safe side" of showing violence and plot elements. This mostly means that in spite massive shootouts innocent people tend not to die or at least we don't see them die. The violence is all purely the good guys versus the bad guys with mainly the bad guys dying. A bit of common sense clearly shows this to be absurd.<br /><br />Renny Harlin showed a hint of this in his first (and sadly only) hit, Die Hard 2. The villains intentionally crash a plane full of people to get their point across. The scene was also filmed with a backup scene of a cargo plane with only a few people on-board going down, but the grimmer and probably more realistic scenario ended up being used. However, to fit the spirit of the first film, Die Hard 2 was mostly a "fun action movie." Here, that grimmer and more convincing edge is pervasive. The violence is bloody. The one liners are hilarious, but with a certain style that more echoes natural human sarcasm than clichéd film wisecracks at key moments of action. The plot is also packed with more malicious intent than most action films. The villain is not just some rogue out for revenge or a mad grab at power. It is less ridiculous, but also more frightening than that. From recent films, the "Bourne" trilogy almost gets there with its less cheesy than usual action film style, but this film is from 1996 and 7 years before "The Bourne Identity" with Matt Damon made it to the big screen.<br /><br />Another interesting aspect is that the main hero is actually a heroine. And this is well before the movie version of "Tomb Raider" became a hit. What's more is that this heroine genuinely looks like she could take down John McClane and then take his still lit cigarette. This movie marks Geena Davis's second action-heroine role and she still didn't manage to score a hit. While Angelina Jolie stars in "Tomb Raider" years later and scores a hit. The reasons are beyond me. Completely.<br /><br />Lastly, this movie isn't all dark edged. There are many outrageous and spectacular set pieces that one can only see in an action film. The climatic explosion of a chemical bomb is an absolutely spectacular display of movie pyrotechnics, with more than one law of physics taking a convenient break. Thus, there is formula here, but it is the Anti-Formula for the everyday Hollywood Action Movie Formula. --- 9/10<br /><br />BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- violence, profanity

Richard Brooks' The Last Hunt was a film star Stewart Granger couldn't even stand to hear mentioned – he even tore up a vintage poster for the film when presented it for signing in his later years – but then the director did run off with his wife, so it's understandable. For anyone else this is one of the best of the adult Westerns of the 50s, and years ahead of its time in its attitude to the environment.<br /><br />In many ways it plays almost like a sequel to one of Anthony Mann's Westerns that see their heroes dragged to their redemption kicking and screaming against it every step in the way. Here Granger's legendary buffalo hunter has already seen the light but, after a buffalo stampede costs him his herd of cattle in a fit of poetic justice, he's dragged back into the darkness by Robert Taylor's callous and proudly racist gunslinger, justifying it on the grounds that "I've already got the guilty conscience. I might as well have the money as well." Raised by Indians, he's fully aware of the damage he's doing as the disappearing buffalo heads for extinction, and he gradually becomes almost as consumed with self-loathing as Taylor is with hate. When the two men fall out over Debra Paget's squaw – the sole survivor of a band of Indians Taylor kills – and a white buffalo hide that's priceless to the hunters and the Indians for very different reasons, a showdown becomes inevitable, though the outcome certainly isn't.<br /><br />Taylor's is certainly ironic casting – it was Granger turning down many of the epic roles MGM developed for him in films like Quo Vadis and Ivanhoe that gave Taylor his 50s comeback after years of steady decline. His hair color may not convince but his performance does, a shallow and violent man so consumed with hate that he doesn't wear a gun, the gun wears him. Granger's accent isn't always convincing, but he makes a good quiet hero in the Jimmy Stewart mold, trying to keep hold of his newfound decency and reconcile his actions with his beliefs before finally getting a chance to make amends. Russ Tamblyn's halfbreed skinner and Lloyd Nolan's one-legged old-timer also give as good as they get, but the real star is the script: tightly plotted with an excellent eye and ear for character – not to mention an ending Stanley Kubrick borrowed for The Shining – it balances historical revisionism with entertaining drama without ever selling either short. The new French DVD is extras-free but does boast a 2.35:1 transfer with an English soundtrack.

This thing is really awfull. There´s no charachter with weight, they´re all floating around in the BG´s. The Motion Capture is a fine toy, but this movie demostrates that you really need people who knows animation to do an animated film. THE MACHINE CAN´T DO ANYTHING WELL BY ITSELF. If you see it as a bizarre film, you´ll have fun finding mistakes of continuity... IN A 3D MOVIE!!! It´s funny to watch the princess dress move around like a thing with diferent phisics. You need animators and 3D animators, not data-entries whom know 3D programs. Note the junctions, like the elbows, how they lost volume and get deformed. The person who made the charachter design (a very good one) sufered for sure when he/she watched them move, ´cos you can´t say they come to life.

Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.