Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds-mini

like 0

A seemingly endless movie that really deserves a zero rating. The premise seems simple enough: Yentl, a girl interested in studying the Talmud, wants to go to school. But only boys are allowed to study, so after her father's death she decides to disguise herself as a boy to get in. She does and becomes close friends with Avigdor, who is to be married to a beautiful woman named Hadass. Hadass' family learns Avigdor's brother committed suicide, and the wedding is called off. Yentl, now calling herself Anschel, is then selected to marry Hadass. She does but it is never consummated. Yentl/Anschel and Avigdor go away for a few days, and Yentl/Anschel reveals her secret to him. The movie ends with Avigdor returning to (and marrying?) Hadass, and Yentl going to America to continue her studies although she will have to continue to do so in disguise.<br /><br />The plot above seems interesting at first for a movie over 2 hours long, but there are several things that ruin it. For starters, there is the constant SINGING. (I can already hear the critics shouting.) Yes, I know this is a musical so there are supposed to be lots of songs and dance numbers. But the movie could have been improved if it were directed and played without them. The songs become tedious after a while, and there isn't as much dancing as one would expect. Many of the songs are forgettable, with no real memorable lyrics, and those with any significance could easily have been substituted by a voice-over. Only one song stands out from the rest, "Papa Can You Hear Me". It is obvious that most of the others were deliberately placed so Streisand could simply have a reason to show off her vocal abilities every five to ten minutes. Chances are anyone who will see this film will already know what a superb singer and actress she is, so the songs really aren't necessary. <br /><br />Second, Streisand's makeup, which can be seen during her scenes as a man (the lipstick, enhanced lashes, and traces of blush are all obvious) makes it hard for the audience to believe in the Yentl/Anschel character, that she is actually serious, and fooling her new friends, colleagues, and even Hadass, into believing she is a man. Yet we are asked and expected to believe that very thing. There seems to be a contradiction, as her character talks, or rather sings, of how she doesn't think she can pull it off, but is surprised that everyone seems to be fooled because she is wearing men's clothing. This means that we are then expected to believe the other characters are so naive they can't see the other differences, such as her actions, which are clear giveaways. The facial differences alone cannot be included, as other characters in the film mention that some of their male relatives or friends didn't have a beard or other facial hair. Nevertheless, in the 1900s, if a woman dressed as a man, but wore as much makeup as Streisand's character did, and still tried to pass herself off as a man solely because she wore men's clothing, it would have been deemed unacceptable and caused an outrage. Chances are she would probably be forced to leave the town, or even the country. Therefore the "feminine" makeup on Streisand does not lend to the character's credibility, and only weakens the plot. If it was only applied to make Streisand look more beautiful, it should have been scrapped. <br /><br />Thirdly, when Yentl/Anschel herself reveals who she truly is toward the end, we are then asked to believe that the other characters are not as smart as Streisand's and only when they learn the "truth" do they become a little wiser. By now it becomes more and more apparent that the whole plot is so far fetched that it is nothing more than a custom-made vehicle for Streisand to fuel.<br /><br />Lastly, there are those who are fans of Streisand who will find no fault with this film, its plot, or the songs. To those I must respectfully disagree. While she has excellent vocal and acting abilities, I am not a "fan" of her style of singing. However, I have enjoyed many of her other features including musicals. There are even some songs of hers that I like, so I am not a "hater" nor have set out to bash her. I have written this review from an honest perspective, from someone who has tried their best to watch this movie - several times even - and has noted the problems within. If Streisand was interested in creating a great or even believable film, she could have done so here by not injecting her need to show off and prove how talented, beautiful and smart she is at nearly every turn. This movie does nothing more than hurt her abilities, make her appear self-absorbed, and thus turn the film into a laugh-fest unworthy of her fans or audience.

(Possible *SPOILERS* warning)<br /><br />You never know. The guy keeps telling he's an alien but... oops, seems to be the most human in the whole story. Arrived from distant planet. Said weird things. Advanced the Earth's science. Healed the doctor... Or was it just a crazy dream? You never know. Better see K-PAX for yourself. Think.<br /><br />Great acting of all the cast. Don't forget to notice the music, it's right in a place. Lot of fun, some sadness. 8 of 10, after all.

Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie.

We have moved far beyond this tentative foray into a forbidden area-drug addiction-for the 1950s. As such, the film may seem dated. The Man with the Golden Arm served its function is peeling back a layer of the underside of society, an eye-opener to a Southern country boy in 1955 when I first viewed this film in the theater. After some serious consideration about being too young, I was allowed to go. It was powerful and affecting then and still maintains some sharp, painful moments of the soul stripped naked. As a movie depicting the loneliness at the core of being, it succeeds.<br /><br />Filled with angst, Frank Sinatra, in his best role, creates a vulnerability that makes him sympathetic to the viewer. He conveys his helplessness and ineffectualness in a beautifully restrained performance. As a voice of common sense in the dead-end urban jungle, Kim Novak as Molly is quite good. She is compassionate and yet stands on solid ground. The interaction between Sinatra and Novak is really good. Darren McGavin plays a slimy character and does it very well. Eleanor Parker is superbly irritating and painfully insecure in her role of the pathetic Zosch, the crippled wife of Sinatra. Arnold Stang is another unlikely survivor of the street. Regarded as pitiful and despicable, his character Sparrow provides tart comedic moments. <br /><br />The music is almost the star of this film-brooding, frenetic, moody, poignant. Elmer Bernstein's score perfectly accentuates the tensions of Frankie Machine's spiritual weakness and physical need for heroin. Molly's theme is bittersweet and captures aurally what the film depicts visually. I know of no other soundtrack that effectively complements the tension and defeat within a man as effectively as does this one.

Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw "Breakfast of Champions" and "Hotel Rwanda". But the film brought me a pleasant surprise. Of course Nolte was great, but so was the plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - but with the help of excellent acting and photography, this film manages. <br /><br />There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.

This complicated western was a milestone in the career of JAMES STEWART after his return from war service, wanting to change his image by doing a western, which is largely regarded as the reason for the influx of westerns in the '50s since it's very impressive. Too bad it wasn't photographed in Technicolor.<br /><br />Stewart wins first prize for "the gun that won the West", but then has to spend the rest of the film trying to recover it when it's stolen. SHELLEY WINTERS is a shady gal with an unsavory reputation and STEPHEN McNALLY is the local bad boy gunman in Dodge City. WILL GEER is Wyatt Earp and DAN DURYEA is Shelley's bad boyfriend. And wouldn't you know that, it being a Universal-International film, TONY CURTIS and ROCK HUDSON (both quite unknown at the time) have bit roles.<br /><br />An interesting sequence features the first Indian attack, whereby CHARLES DRAKE reveals himself to be a coward who rides off, leaving Shelley alone in the horse-drawn wagon. He later redeems himself, but it's just one of the twists and turns that has the gun passing from one unsavory hand to another--but finally ending up with the rightful owner.<br /><br />STEPHEN McNALLY and JAMES STEWART have quite a final shootout that is almost as melodramatic (but not quite) as DUEL IN THE SUN's blazing guns finale. McNally makes the perfect villain and DAN DURYEA is equally treacherous in the kind of villainous role he played throughout the '40s as a low-life gunslinger.<br /><br />Tightly constructed story is extremely well directed by Anthony Mann, and it's fun to see ROCK HUDSON (credited as Young Bull) wearing Indian war paint and TONY CURTIS as a young soldier who casts longing glances at the then slim and attractive Shelley Winters.<br /><br />Well worth viewing and definitely an above average story.

I consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.<br /><br />Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.<br /><br />My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.<br /><br />This film, however, was useless.<br /><br />There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.<br /><br />To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service.

It amazes me that anyone would find Pauly Shore entertaining: he is basically one joke that gets stale *real* fast. He has his little "California" jerk vocabulary and a basic stock of lame jokes. Mainly, he is just obnoxious.<br /><br />That said, I watched this movie because I was up sick and there was literally nothing else on but infomercials, otherwise I would have turned it off after 30 minutes. Anyway, the film could have been OK if Pauly could have just turned off his spiel and just played it as a comic actor instead of, well, Pauly. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm sure Pauly fans will like it anyway - but if you are not a Pauly fan, stay away from this crock of manure.<br /><br />I had to leave this comment after seeing that another user actually gave this film a 10/10! (Maybe it was Pauly!!) Personally, I gave it a 3/10 because they didn't have any mike-in-frame shots, didn't drop the camera, and the supporting cast was pretty good.

Woman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...<br /><br />The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher "Hunk"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea. <br /><br />*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford

Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.<br /><br />But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.<br /><br />So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good time—so why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous ending—in which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the movie—my head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.<br /><br />And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...<br /><br />'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the best—but don't expect too much.

One Chinese gang attacks and wipes out another gang in the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, the patriarch of the winning family is killed in the process. Oddly, and without any discernible reason, the gang solicits a volunteer to blame the massacre on and he leaves until the police decide to stop investigating. Now how ONE MAN ALONE is the one responsible for about 50 deaths is beyond me, so sending this one guy away just seemed silly, but that's the plot. Later, when this man comes home, betrayals and scheming have occurred--leading to almost one hour and fifteen minutes of non-stop killing.<br /><br />If you are looking for a Chinese martial arts film with much of a plot, then you should probably skip this movie, as its practically non-stop action and practically no plot or character development--even when compared to other martial arts films. I would estimate that 80-90% of the film are fight scenes--endless and reasonably well made fight scenes using knives. Again and again and again, fight scenes! If you want a film with a body count perhaps running into the hundreds as people are slashed, kicked, and slashed, then this is the film for you. The problem was by the end of the film there are literally no people left to kill and the film really lost my interest!! Deep it ain't, but if you want to see excitement and action ONLY, then this film is for you! <br /><br />By the way, this movie is set in contemporary times and no one thinks of shooting the hero until just near the end. And, when they FINALLY do the logical thing, it's too late and the effort is really, really lame! Logical errors like this and the lady's suicide (why???) make this a "turn off your brain" type of film.

Often tagged as a comedy, The Man In The White Suit is laying out far more than a chuckle here and there.<br /><br />Sidney Stratton is an eccentric inventor who isn't getting the chances to flourish his inventions on the world because nobody pays him notice, he merely is the odd ball odd job man about the place as it were. After bluffing his way into Birnley's textile mill, he uses their laboratory to achieve his goal of inventing a fabric that not only never wears out, but also never needs to be cleaned!. He is at first proclaimed a genius and those who ignored him at first suddenly want a big piece of him, but then the doom portents of an industry going bust rears its head and acclaim quickly turns to something far more scary.<br /><br />Yes the film is very funny, in fact some scenes are dam hilarious, but it's the satirical edge to the film that lifts it way above the ordinary to me. The contradictions about the advent of technology is a crucial theme here, do we want inventions that save us fortunes whilst closing down industries ?, you only have to see what happened to the coal industry in Britain to know what I'm on about. The decade the film was made is a crucial point to note, the making of nuclear weapons became more than just hearsay, science was advancing to frighteningly new proportions. You watch this film and see the quick turnaround of events for the main protagonist Stanley, from hero to enemy in one foul swoop, a victim of his own pursuit to better mankind !, it's so dark the film should of been called The Man In The Black Suit.<br /><br />I honestly can't find anything wrong in this film, the script from Roger MacDougall, John Dighton, and director Alex Mackendrick could be filmed today and it wouldn't be out of place such is the sharpness and thought of mind it has. The sound and setting is tremendous, the direction is seamless, with the tonal shift adroitly handled by Mackendrick. Some of the scenes are just wonderful, one in particular tugs on the heart strings and brings one to think of a certain scene in David Lynch's Elephant Man some 29 years later, and yet after such a downturn of events the film still manages to take a wink as the genius that is Alec Guinness gets to close out the film to keep the viewers pondering not only the future of Stanley, but also the rest of us in this rapidly advancing world.<br /><br />A timeless masterpiece, thematically and as a piece of art, 10/10.

I have always admired Susan Sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. I therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. Her character's rescue from the South Pole was done by a Canadian charter company from Edmonton, Alberta flying a Canadian designed and built Twin Otter aircraft. The trip had been turned down by the US Airforce, Navy and Coast Guard as beyond their capabilities. The same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the South Pole base. I feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. I fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a USAF Hercules.

This movie was recently shown subtitled not dubbed, on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service. I thought I read here that there is sometimes an assumption that *Revenge of the Rats* is a sequel. In fact, the rats are getting revenge for something that is done within this movie, or in human history. There is no prequel as far as I know.<br /><br />Now, let's get The Pied Piper of Hamelin out of the way. Perhaps this tale crossed my mind when I was watching the film, but that's all. There was the use of the word "coffers" at the end of the movie. A dazed mayor tries to justify her actions by saying "the coffers were empty". "Coffers" isn't a word you hear around much these days, unless you read folk tales to your children, as I do. Since seeing *Revenge of the Rats*, I've read two versions of The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Now I see the comparison. A metaphorical fat but literally ugly mayor promises more than the city can afford, to get rid of the rats. This is about as far as I can follow the analogy. The children are not led to a door in a mountain, with one lame boy left behind to tell of a land of winged horses and fountains, where it is always spring and everyone is always happy.<br /><br />There's a lot that is quite mainstream about this movie. The romance and the resolution especially. The female characters have potentially powerful roles in society but are really quite impotent. Where this film is quite rebellious (as compared with American cinema) is that it is anti-authoritarian. The helicopter pilot is sacked by the mayor for "doing good". The mayor and local government are portrayed as corrupt and pandering to big money. Finally, it is left to one doctor in Frankfurt to solve an epidemic of a fatal and contagious disease. Apparently there is no national Infectious Diseases authority to co-ordinate things or send in back-up.<br /><br />I'm not a horror aficionado, so any horror I do see is usually mingled with humour. Right from the rat in the blood bank you can see this is going to have the right balance of horror and comedy for most viewers; the huge number of rats is impressive and the horror fans seem to be satisfied too.

"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.<br /><br />So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.<br /><br />Second, the scene when they sing "I Will Survive" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.<br /><br />Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough "fit for the kiddies" material to complete his film.<br /><br />So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.

This is one of my favourite movies EVER... I have seen it about a million times and would never turn down the opportunity to watch it again. In fact, I love it so much that I REALLY wanted to check out the resort where it was filmed on my upcoming vacation... does anyone know the name of it? If so, please email me!!! I watched this movie for the first time when it was first released and I was about Nikki's age and for the longest time I bugged my dad to take me to away somewhere because of course I expected the same thing to happen to me! It's just such an amazing setting and such a cute puppy-love story. This is a definite DVD collector's must!

A must see film with great dialogues, great music, great acting and a superb atmosphere.<br /><br />In the film you will follow 8 people for one day in the city of antwerp, they are all individuals and sometimes plain weird (that's how I love them!).<br /><br />I'm not going to say anything else, just go see and enjoy it.

Not only did the effects and acting in this movie bite, but the story was terrible.<br /><br />A scientist discovers that a comet fragment will hit the moon ... world leaders ignore him ... he builds a shelter ... then, everyone is upset that he is "playing God".<br /><br />How lame! He built the thing, why is everyone "entitled" to access? Totally lame story, don't waste your time!

This was a great movie! It was a completely enjoyable adolescent fantasy. So what makes a movie great? Technical details? I think that if that were the sole criteria, our culture would be the poorer for it. So this movie is to "The Godfather" as new wave music is to Mozart. The point is, it is one of the best movies of it's type I've seen. The women are all beautiful (as are only seen on California beaches when movies are being made). It has a little of everything, a kind of battlestar gallactica meets baywatch meets the playboy centerfold video meets Wayne's World. There is plenty of charm and a reasonable (albeit predictable) storyline that keeps you interested until the next bit of eye candy graces the screen. Joe Estevez may not have his brothers career, but does a good job of bringing focus to the story as the eternally adolescent Uncle Bud. Contains plenty of expected absurdities such as female rock band playing without the guitars plugged in. (Was that intentional?) If you're attracted to the box, rent the video, you won't regret it. As is promised, it is good non-violent erotic fun!

My children, DD 7 and DS 10, enjoyed the movie so much they were squirming in their seats. It was good, old fashioned, Rated G, family fun. This movie was made for kids.... someone really understands them.<br /><br />It was fun to see Julia Roberts, Brice Willis, Garth Brooks and the other stars make their cameo appearances.<br /><br />As someone who lives in the city the fictional "Big Texas" was modeled after, I can say that they did an honest and accurate portrayal. The kids looked like kids, not like superstars.<br /><br />I hope everyone supports this movie to send the message to Hollywood that we need more movies like this. Go see it, then spread the word!

Well, some people would say that this particular movie stinks...but hey! Thats not right, not right at al...The movie may not have the best special effects, and may not have the best actors (Except the exelence of the Barbarian Bros.) Dispite theese minor fact, I can honostly say that this is one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen, and I´ve seen em al!

Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around. <br /><br />Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.<br /><br />David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.<br /><br />But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).<br /><br />Freema better be good!!!<br /><br />But nobody can beat Rose!!!

It's a refreshing breath of air when a movie actually gives you a story line with a beginning, a middle, and a end, a nice, clever mystery, with an appealing heroine for all ages, who wins us over with her wit and charm. Andrew Fleming's film is indeed a modern marvel, a comeback to the good old reliable storytelling that was the norm in Hollywood. He puts away the over-reliance on special effects that now passes for entertainment and gives us a terrific film, with a very capable young actress, and a talented supporting cast.<br /><br />The film is based on the old books, but it has been given updated enough to put in this century; however, the props might be different, the heart still is a good mystery, and there is clever one here, one that ties the traditions of the old and the nuances of contemporary youth. Emma Roberts is an old fashioned girl, who believes in good behavior and respect for others; details that are sorely missing from today's films. She is still good enough to get boys' attentions but she also knows how present poise and self respect. She earns her medals by working hard and is not afraid to show a little guile when it is needed to achieve her goals.<br /><br />While taking a vacation to California, our heroine is drawn into the mystery of a Hollywood actress who was the victim of foul play; suddenly she is "visited" by her ghost and this sets off a series of events that might solve the mystery or result in something dreadful for herself. What makes the movie quite entertaining is the little details, as she discovers that her customary world is nothing compared to the California scene, and this is well presented, without resorting to unnecessary vulgar language or anything graphic or overtly sexual. Eventually, the director has enough control to make it all very palatable to all types of audiences, from the young ones to the adults in the audience. It is a movie that deserves to be seen, appreciated, and enjoyed, a film that is rare and delicate, and it's not afraid to be classified as fun! Five Stars

Saw this on SBS TV here in Australia the other week, where it was titled "Laputa: Castle in the sky". I had enabled subtitles and I think SBS provided their own for that, which, as usual, was of very good quality.<br /><br />Just looked up "Laputa" on Wikipedia and it confirms what I suspected...the floating island of this tale is taken from the classic Jonathan Swift novel "Gulliver's travels", which was published in the early to mid 1700s.<br /><br />Anyway, this is an engaging Japanese fairytale, which features an English speaking voice-cast. It's suitable for young children, I think, but it does run at just over two hours in length, so it may be too long for some, though not for an adult like me.<br /><br />The story concerns two children who seek to find a legendary floating island which has a castle on it. The children are not the only ones looking for this island. They have pirates, the army and spies looking for the island too, and looking to capture the children (Sheeta, the girl, voiced by Anna Paquin, and Pazu, the boy, voiced by James Van Der Beek) in order to help them find it.<br /><br />The graphics are magnificent...sort of photo-realistic at times, especially the scenes of stonework lit by torch-light, or the pretty scenes of bright, sunny days, with white clouds, or mist.<br /><br />Recommended.

One of the first OVA's ("original video animation") I ever bought, this still has to be one of my favourite anime titles. A cyberpunk sci-fi action comedy set against an unlikely (for a comedy, that is) background of near-future pollution in a dystopian society.<br /><br />The "heroes" of Dominion are the Tank Police, formed with a "if we can't beat crime, we'll get bigger guns" philosophy, and who are, like the name suggests, patrolling the city in tanks instead of patrol cars, and who are actually far more dangerous than any criminals they are trying to catch. Most, if not all, of these cops are borderline(?) psychopaths and neurotics, giving new meaning to the phrase "loose cannons".<br /><br />Equally colourful and amusing are their adversaries, terrorist Buaku and his hench(wo)men, the Twin Cat Sisters, whose existence always seems to involve giving the Tank Police a hard time.<br /><br />The animation is not state of the art, but it's very nice otherwise; the colourful palette and cartoonish look of the characters and mecha fit nicely with the comedic atmosphere of Dominion.<br /><br />The English dubbing is, again, lots of fun. The soundtrack of the English version is also very good. I wonder if they ever made a soundtrack album of that...<br /><br />Anyway, Dominion Tank Police is great. It's Japanese cyberpunk SF with lots of comedy, filled with completely over-the-top characters and situations, making sure that it never takes itself seriously. Highly recommended.

OK, the movie is good but I give it a 1 because the idea of a computer virus becoming an organic virus is pure fairy tale. This kind of crap just adds to those uncomputer savvy moron's paranoid delusions that a computer virus is exactly like an organic virus. First of all, strings of code and dozens of 1s and 0s add up to computer virus. An organic virus is much more complex, even though it's way tinier. Though, it's considered one of the simplest forms in the universe, organic virus's attach burrow into your cells and attach themselves to the RNA, then change your own RNA code. Explain to me how something like that could be processed from a monitor? Maybe the radiation has some effect on the user's cornea that turns your eyeballs into these viruses? I could see that, but obviously, the writer didn't think of that.

I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.<br /><br />I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.

The film opens with the director talking to the camera and saying he is going to show a story about Brazilain street kids whose families live in poverty and must steal and kill to survive. In fact the main character (Pixote) was played by an actual street kid only 11 years old. What follows was one of the most brutal, depressing and horrifying film I've even seen. I saw it about 17 years ago (on a double bill with "Black Orpheus") and have never forgotten it. I don't think I ever want to see it again--it was just too much. <br /><br />SPOILER AHEAD!!!! The scene which will not leave me is when Pixote meets a prostitute who has to abort her own fetus. You don't see her do it...but you get a quick glance at what she got out. It's almost 20 years later and just recalling that scene upsets me. SPOILER END!!!!!<br /><br />The movie gets more brutal as it goes along and ends the only way it can. What's all the more harrowing is stories like this really did happen in Brazil in 1981...and are STILL happening today.<br /><br />A harrowing brutal film...but it should be seen if you can handle it. I'm surprised this got an R rating--I've seen X rated film that are less graphic. A 10.

Time For A Hit!<br /><br />Waqt Dir- Vipul Amrutlal Shah Cast- Amitabh Bachchan, Akshay Kumar, Priyanka Chopra, Shefali Shah, Rajpal Yadav and Boman Irani. Written by- Aatish Kapadia Rating- ***<br /><br />Eureka! We've got it! Yes, ladies and gentlemen…in Vipul Shah's 'Waqt', we have probably found this year's first bona fide hit. Replete with all the necessary ingredients of a commercial Bollywood fare, 'Waqt' has all that it takes for a movie to click with the Indian audiences. It's the kinda film that makes a distributor feel happy and contemplate his next phoren visit! In this 'saga of Indian emotions' then, we have a happy family(isn't it always?) of three. Ishwar(Amitabh Bachchan), the postman-turned-millionaire(don't ask how!...there's something about selling toys while delivering letters and all that…seriously- who gives a damn!), married to Sumi(Shefali Shah) is a doting father to Aditya(Akshay Kumar). Ishwar has to make a serious decision about his son's careless attitude towards the responsibilities of life. His love for Aditya though, results in his procrastination of the grave issue. However, when faced with a situation that will test his race against time, Ishwar has no alternative but to throw Aditya out of the house- hoping that the new predicament might make him more conscientious of his own life. But this presumed solution becomes a problem in itself, as the rift between the loving father-son increases and the fences continue to grow. <br /><br />You don't have to be a rocket-scientist to realize that such a story provides ample opportunities to infuse comedy and drama alike. So, pre-interval you have the initially funny, later annoying comedy track of Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav; and post-interval there are the go for your kerchief moments between Aby and Akki! Writer Aatish Kapadia(he also penned the original Gujarati play 'Aavjo Vhala Fari Malishu' on which the film is based) does a good job of keeping the narrative fluid. The dialogues tend to get inconsistent at times. It doesn't help that songs appear like acne on a teenage face and mar the proceedings. Clearly, a couple of numbers could've been done away with. On the directing front, Vipul shows that he possesses a natural flair for story-telling. 'Waqt', as well as his earlier debut effort 'Aankhen', manage to keep you interested till the last reel. On a personal note- the seesaw of emotions was a tad jerky for me. But gauging from the audience reactions, it was working to the hilt.<br /><br />Finally, 'Waqt' is all about its performances which amount to one whole point in the overall rating! Amitabh Bachchan is dependable as always. His energy is visible and so is his age! Shefali pitches in a finely nuanced performance and matches the superstar at every step. Boman and Rajpal bring the house down with their histrionics. Priyanka has little to do than fulfill the perfunctory role of a heroine. When it all boils down though, 'Waqt' is Akshay's vehicle. I have always maintained that Akki is as good as the role suits him. Put him in a 'Mujhse Shaadi Karogi' and he's fantastic, but in a 'Bewafaa' he is woefully bad. Here, Akki is probably at his best. Whether it is his comic timing or his emotional renderings, he is near-perfect. There's also an action scene for his fans! Ironically, his previous best endeavour was in 'Aankhen'- with the same director and Big B at his side!<br /><br />'Waqt' is by no means a memorable movie. It's not one that will feature in the better films of our industry. But it is one for the masses. And at a time when the industry is waiting desperately for a universal hit, 'Waqt' might just do the trick!<br /><br />- Abhishek Bandekar<br /><br />Trivia- This is Akshay Kumar's second consecutive film after 'Bewafaa', in which he performs on stage during the climax!<br /><br />Rating- ***<br /><br />* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent<br /><br />22nd April, 2005

Richard Dix is a big, not very nice industrialist, who has nearly worked himself to death. If he takes the vacation his doctors suggest for him, can he find happiness for the last months of his life? Well, he'll likely be better off if he disregards the VOICE OF THE WHISTLER.<br /><br />This William Castle directed entry has some great moments (the introduction and the depiction of Richard Dix's life through newsreel a la Citizen Kane), and some intriguing plotting in the final reels. Dix's performance is generally pretty good. But, unfortunately, the just does not quite work because one does not end up buying that the characters would behave the way that they do. Also, the movie veers from a dark (and fascinating beginning) to an almost cheerful 30s movie like midsection (full of nice urban ethnic types who don't mind that they aren't rich) and back again to a complex noir plot for the last 15 minutes or so.<br /><br />This is a decent movie -- worth seeing -- but it needed a little more running time to establish a couple of the characters and a female lead capable of meeting the demands of her role.

I discovered "The Patriot" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10.

East Palace, West Palace reminded me somewhat of The Detective, with Frank Sinatra in the role of the cop, and William Windom is the boy. It's a progressive film for China, I guess, but it also perpetuates myths about the femininity of gay men: much is made of Chinese myths in which men take on female roles. The movie focuses on an effeminate man who wants desperately to be dominated and hurt by a macho guy. He cruises the park without fear--he hopes to be taken into the stationhouse by the officer. And that in fact happens. Then he tells the officer his entire life story while being subjected to mild torture: made to squat for a period of time, handcuffed, slapped. This is what the gay man wants, and, implicitly, the gay man is challenging the cop's self-image as a manly man. The story's about the gay man's life (which include flashbacks) are tolerable, but when he starts describing old Chinese myths and dramatic works, the movie becomes unbearable. It becomes a cry of pity for China's gays, who only want to fulfill a traditional role in Chinese society. Sorry, I can't relate.

A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.<br /><br />I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.<br /><br />Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.<br /><br />I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.<br /><br />The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.<br /><br />Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor.

A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction. However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film.

Anything Park Chan-wook creates is guaranteed to be unique, brilliant, and very twisted at a minimum. Well, anything that isn't I'm a Cyborg at least. Park's newest film titled Thirst is a vampire romance-erotic-thriller-dark comedy-drama – yes, that is a lot of adjectives — inspired by the 19th century French novel by Emile Zola titled Therese Raquin. Park creates a uniquely Korean, and uniquely Park, vision of the vampire mythos and asks the audience to explore the dilemma of a Catholic priest discovering himself having a thirst for blood and the moral and spiritual crisis that would develop. Park delivers on the elements you would hope but definitely falls short of masterpiece quality like Oldboy or even that of Lady Vengeance. Heavily bloated with a narrative that often loses itself much less the audience, Thirst desperately needed another trip through the cutting room. It crawls when it should be running but luckily brings it back home before losing the audience completely. As negative as it may sound the positives definitely outweigh the negatives and another volume has without a doubt been added to the dark and twisted Zeitgeist of Park Chan-wook film.<br /><br />Check out the rest of our review at www.thefilmstage.com

This movie is one long chiche after another. First of all, though they did their share, there is a unwarranted dope scene where John sniffs weed like an idiot. The wigs and accents are terrible. They sound worse then the old Beatle cartoons. John is the nasty, envious, closet homosexual, slave to Yoko he is portrayed as being in the discredited Albert Goldman book. They even keep spouting song titles in regular conversation "it was always just the Two Of Us"! John would not have been mean to his fans like this either. Like his death showed us he was too nice if anything. The one funny scene is where a dumb Beatle fan only recognizes John and asks him to sing Paul's Yesterday. An insulted John says something along the lines of "Sure and while I croon why don't you get down on your knees, put on your wife's wig, and lick my liggin". That made me laugh for days. Really this movie is funny in how serious it tries to be while coming off ridiculous. John and Paul also did not sit pontificating all day, they were funny light hearted guys who even during The Beatles break up where far more personable then portrayed here. Forget it.

I watched this movie recently and fell in love with it. I loved the storyline and the actors. It has a little of everything. I was completely taken by the unfolding of the story. It has so many surprises along the way. I highly recommend it. In fact, I loved it so much that I ran out and bought the book. I felt I had to read it in order to appreciate the art in the writing behind the movie. I also wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything that was in the book but kept out of the movie. I recommend people who love the movie to read the book because there is enough difference in the book, especially in the second episode, to want to read it. It has become my favorite movie. I am now a Sarah Waters and Elaine Cassidy fan!!

I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible

Composed, elegant Carol (marvelously played by the beautiful Rebecca Brooke), her nice husband Eddie (likable David Houseman), Carol's wacky, constantly eating best gal pal Anna (delightfully essayed with infectious comic zeal by the adorable Chris Jordan), and Anna's hunky, amorous husband Pete (a typically fine Eric Edwards) are a quartet of liberated swingers who enjoy having frequent group sex with each other. Their usual routine gets disrupted when Carol's lonely, repressed, but still alluring widow mother Jennifer (a superbly moving performance by the lovely Jennifer Welles) drops by for a visit. Pretty soon Jennifer loosens up and becomes a willing participant in the swingers' blithely pleasurable and uninhibited carnal lifestyle, with everyone except Carol eager to seduce her. Writer/director Joe Sarno concocts a sharp, engrossing and perceptive examination of suburban angst and the limitations of the whole wild'n'easy 70's sexual revolution; Sarno turns traditional middle class mores on their heads and further spices things up with a bold and provocative mother/daughter incest subplot. Moreover, Sarno elicits uniformly first-rate acting from the bang-up cast: Welles and Brooke are both exceptional, with excellent support from Edwards, Jordan, Houseman, Arlana Blue as flaky New Age sex therapist Shandara, and Erica Eaton as saucy neighbor Mrs. Fields. Better still, all the women are extremely hot and enticing; Welles in particular seriously steams up the screen with her exquisitely voluptuous figure and smoldering erotic presence. The sex scenes are really sizzling and fairly explicit, but never raunchy or tedious. Stephen Colwell's bright, polished cinematography and Jack Justis' bouncy, melodic acoustic folk score are both on the money solid and effective. Recommended viewing for Sarno fans.

I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.

Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough!

I used to write comments at IMDb, but I don't do so anymore. It happens that IMDb has become massive, and consequently subjectiveness has ruined scores. What do I mean? That anyone that is not particularly fond of movies and doesn't have any expertise on the subject, watches some crap (or the opposite), and in case he likes it, delivers a 10, and if he doesn't he goes for a 1. This of course, cannot measure anything correctly. Now for the film. I truly regret ever having delivered any 10s to some very few films, because then I must score this one with 12 or 13, which is not possible. This documentary has something that I don't expect to watch ever again in my whole life in any other film. It is simply mesmerizing, and it's not just a way of saying; it really is. The last 25 minutes have a load of energy, visual rejoice and wisdom -the words spoken by the starring guys-, that really... there's no possible match. I don't keep movies, rarely would I find any sense in doing so, but this one is the kind of film you should buy and keep, and watch from time to time, maybe 10 or 20 times as years go by. I got nothing more to say. This is a genuine, objective 10 for me.

I think it took a lot of guts for her to come forward like that. It is unfortunate that when a celebrity suffers that is what helps people most. But, in her case, what she did was remarkable. I have been in the mental health field for five years and I think it is great that mental illness is not a terrible word anymore and I believe she helped. I always thought she was great and always will. I am glad that she wrote this book and that the movie was made. She is a remarkable lady and I hope she continues to act. She has been through a lot and has faced it. I would really love to see her work more with children, especially child actors. Her ordeal should not have happened and I think she would be wonderful as a mentor to young people. The movie was so moving to me that I was very touched. Suffering a TBI which brought the onset of my disorder and having PTSD, it is good to know that someone has the courage enough to display her life as she did. I believe it helped this nation and people in general realize that there are others like them and that there is help. Thank you Ms. Duke, or Anna, which ever you prefer.

This movie was amazing. Never before have I seen such a film that brought me to the harsh reality of drug use quite like this one. There is no glamorizing, sugar coating, or glorifying heroine. This movie shows the true struggles, pain, and loss people go through when dealing with this drug. Good film, decent emotionally packed acting, and a great storyline. A much watch!<br /><br />

After reviewing this intense martial arts movie for the first time in nearly 18 years, I must say it did not lose any of its mysticism, nor any of its eye-popping martial arts action as I had remembered from my youth. The story of a dying martial arts instructor sending his "unfinished" pupil out to find the 5 past members of his Poison Clan, so they do not seek out a fortune which the master's friend keeps hidden. Afraid that his last pupil did not have enough training, he instructs him to befriend one of the five "venoms" so as to defeat the other four.<br /><br />I can't say enough about the choreography or the camera work. A fine film in its own right and quite possible one of the best martial arts movies ever made. A CLASSIC!!

This is a great movie if viewed in the proper context - It was meant to be a parody of teen-horror-devil-worship movies (and the '80s saw plenty of them)! I saw this movie when it first came out, and instantly liked it. Being a big fan of KISS, it was great to see Gene in the movie. And anything with OZZY as a metal-hating preacher can't be all bad! Also, Fastway was already a favorite of mine, so it was great to hear them on the soundtrack.<br /><br />The original VHS (this was pre-DVD) cover for Trick Or Treat featured an illustration of Sammi kneeling, playing his guitar in a ring of fire with a "demon" looking on. It was a special order, and the price for the VHS copy at the time (circa 1987) was $90! I really wanted the movie, but not at that ridiculous price. The 'OZZY-Gene' cover was only created for the $5 re-release. The company releasing it probably figured Gene and OZZY were the only recognizable people in the movie, so they had better put 'em on the cover! Same thing with the original "Little Shop Of Horrors" - Jack Nicholson was in it for all of five minutes, but now they have him on the cover as if he were the main star.<br /><br />I have a "Trick Or Treat" web site, and it's surprising how many people believe Sammi Curr was a real person! Fastway helped perpetuate that myth by dedicating their soundtrack album to 'Sammi Curr'.<br /><br />All-in-all, it was just a good time, rock-n-roll movie. Definitely not to be taken too seriously, but just enjoyed!

I wasted my time and gave this show a chance. This has to be one of the worst new shows. If they gave an award to shows that suck THIS one should sweep the category. The acting is poor and the story line is contrived. Now Dinosaurs was a bit strange but at least it was entertaining. That show lasted three seasons and was finally scraped. This new show, based on an insurance companies commercials, is not funny and really has nothing going for it. Possibly the original commercials and the amount of times they were, and still are, repeated is what is wrong with this show. It just came to TV and already we are tired of seeing the "caveman" characters.

Okay, first of all I got this movie as a Christmas present so it was FREE! FIRST - This movie was meant to be in stereoscopic 3D. It is for the most part, but whenever the main character is in her car the movie falls flat to 2D! What!!?!?! It's not that hard to film in a car!!! SECOND - The story isn't very good. There are a lot of things wrong with it.<br /><br />THIRD - Why are they showing all of the deaths in the beginning of the film! It made the movie suck whenever some was going to get killed!!! Watch it for a good laugh , but don't waste your time buying it. Just download it or something for cheap.

And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where "Friends" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the "perfect guy" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!

I learned much from previous viewer reactions. Is there one that does not mention 'propaganda'? Too glib. 'Perception is concept dependent'. I love Fred Astaire musicals, the great, great songs, & Fred's peerless grace. But comrades, if you see idle, brainless, rich parasites dancing on the downtrodden & unemployed, that's a valid criticism of 'capitalist propaganda'. Any movie is steeped in the values of its time & place, not to mention those who fund it – the pipers who call the tune. Great art transcends all, as did 'Nevsky', as did 'All Quiet on the Western front'. I confess. I saw it last 40 odd years ago. But the images are burned in my brain. It's the greatest battle scene ever likely to be filmed. And it makes you horrified to be thrilled. 'Plastic ice' did someone say? That's real death you're watching. Real extras died making this. 'Real looking' is now special effects-defined it seems. Likewise 'too long' - for an age of shrunken attention spans? Mozart had 'too many notes'? Propaganda, Catholic Church defamed? The Vatican was STILL at it when they called on ancient favors to get the German Christian democrat gov. to recognize Croatia in the 1990s – remember the chaos & genocides? Forget the props, the lighting of Nevsky painted the Medieval world – like a Breughel. There's one in Hampton Court Palace showing a massacre. Crude Dutch nationalist propaganda maybe, but it tears at the heart. Stylized acting? So what's Henry V (Olivier movie)? Naturalism? Does anyone believe English medieval knight-killers talked like that? As said, the music of Prokofiev is magnificent. Only Ken Russell & Eisenstein had the balls & genius to match sound & image at this 100 octane level. OK, you want the snaffle & bit. I'll risk the nervy thorobred every time. Eisenstein did not copy Wehrmacht helmets, rather, his model seems to have been those buckets worn by 'Teutonic knights' in nazi pageants of the 1930s. Eisenstein was a genius , but unlike Hollywood directors, he had near unlimited (non-commercial) time & funding. Modern Russian directors are free from political shackles, but have no money. Even Kurasawa had to make a late (great) movie in communist Russia. He was revered but unfunded in his own country (much like Russell). How much propaganda is in the eye of the beholder? Imagine sane people from another, peace-loving world. How would they react to Nevsky? Would the battle, or the grieving for the dead dominate their cognitions? If we didn't know about the gas chambers & SS, what about 'Triumph of the Will'? Where can I get a Nevsky DVD, cheap?

The most difficult thing about this movie is to say anything positive about it. The characters were stereotypical "white-trash", the movie's "plot" was stunted from the beginning, and the worst feature of this movie was that the nudity was so blatantly from body doubles it was funny. Regretfully, that was the only funny thing in the movie. Ms. Jenkins would be better served if in the future, she would refrain from using her life-story to "entertain" people. It was simply that bad. The one positive aspect of this movie (this has nothing to do with the lack-of-quality of the film) is that my brother shelled out the money for this stinker.

It is an interesting fact that metaphysics by Platon and Aristoteles, formal logic and abstract ontology form about those sciences that most people are not interested in. But then, around one thousand years after Aristoteles, the computer began to usurp the human thinking, and the humans who were refusing to reflect questions of being other than biological, physical and chemical ones, suddenly felt paralyzed because they could not cope with the consequences that this computers would bring "over night". R.W. Fassbinder's "Welt Am Draht", together with Tarkovsky's "Solaris" and Godard's "Alphaville", is probably the first movie who took the philosophical questions of emerging computer science as a basis of a story to be told in a movie. The confusing questions about identities and realities are cleverly built into different interwoven criminal stories which the audience really tries to follow because it is interested to solve the cases. Fassbinder was a master to sell highly abstracts contents to his public by embedding theoretical knowledge into practical, appetizing forms. The basis problem to understand is that an identity defines a reality, but on the other side, a reality also requires identity in order to be perceived. The idea of a person with multiple identities is known to us solely from the standpoint of psychiatry. However, logically spoken, the only reason why we have just one identity, is the fact that our logic has only two values (right and false). Now take a logic with just one more value, i.e. with three: Then, as you can easily see, you have already three identities. What happens now, when, let us say, Dr. Stiller gets killed? Then, it is quite possible that only one of three identities is abolished and the other two remain and are able to rescue the individual from death. Another question is, if a person with multiple identities actually feels these identities at once. The idea, however, to display such sets of identities in a up-down or down-up way as shown in the scene with the elevator in the hotel, is misleading, since identities and hence realities are not structured in Hierarchical, but in a Heterarchical way. Strictly speaking, there is no "artificial identity" either, since each identity is defined over two objects who share all of their features with one another. Therefore, the idea of assuming that every individual has just one single identity is nothing but a consequence of ancient two-valued logic either (a second identity would imply that a person, at the same time, exists and not-exists). But now look around and see that one and the same object (which is by definition self-identical) is perceived by every subject in its own way. If therefore every subject sees an object differently, why should it no be possible for the single individual to open the borders of his two-valued individuality-corset, with the effect that different persons can exchange their different Individualities? Fassbinder would five years later pick up this topic in his masterpiece "Despair. A trip into the light".

This series, while idealized and fictionalized, has the quirkiness, sultriness, and good-heartedness that does come from living on an island.<br /><br />I lived in an out of the way part of Hawaii for a few years and found some hilarious, quirky, and fun people in some remote (non-tourist) areas.<br /><br />Every time I see the reruns of this series, I fondly compare my memories of experiences in out-of-the-way parts of Hawaii with the memories portrayed and fictionalized in Key West.<br /><br />This series is not reality television. I hate reality television.<br /><br />It is from the era when people still wrote creative TV shows. Give me a "young writer" who takes their inspiration from the "angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees and elves in the seashells" any day.

Another stinker from the PM Entertainment group, and thankfully one of their last.<br /><br />'Firetrap' is effectively a very low budgeted remake of 'The Towering Inferno' I don't mind Low budget B Movies as long as some effort is put into them - there is no effort whatsoever in 'Firetrap' is stars Dean'Superman'Cain, who is an absolutely terrible actor, seriously he has all the acting abilities of a porn star, but he turns out to be the best actor here and that's saying something, the rest are just a bunch of no hopers given the boot from various daytime soaps. The special FX are just rubbish, shots showing the burning building from the ground are among the worst I've ever seen, the fire looks like someone scribbled an orange pen at the front of the camera. on top of that there is not one character you actually root for - you hate everyone and hope they all die well before the 90 minutes are up.<br /><br />The script is embarrassing - The red herring's are signposted well in advance, someone else has mentioned this but 'The scene where the janitor fights off a blazing fire engulfing the building with his broom....hilarious, or same janitor going into a room marked 'Hazardous Material', Were these scenes supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? somehow I doubt it<br /><br />The one good point and only one good point was there was a fair bit of action in amongst the daytime soap dramatics which kept my attention, but so little care was given to everything in the film, I can't recommend it - Watch 'The Towering Inferno' instead<br /><br />3/10

Miles O'Keeffe once again assumes the role of the mighty Ator in this the first sequel to the original film.<br /><br />What can I say? - This pretty much represents B-Movie Nirvana! <br /><br />The plot is ludicrous, the script is terrible, the acting is hammy throughout, the special effects....well let's not even go there! - all in all this movie is a veritable delight! <br /><br />Highlights of the film include Ator and Thong (his mute companion, not his undergarments) being attacked by invisible assailants in a cave (certainly saved on the fx budget there!), Ator battling what has to be the most unconvincing giant snake ever committed to celluloid, and of course, the infamous hangliding scene! <br /><br />There's one question I have though......at the end of the movie we see a huge atomic explosion when Ator supposedly destroys the Geometric Nucleus (as the narrator tells us)......how in the hell did Ator destroy it and manage get out alive?! Did he fashion some form of primitive timer/detonator or something? <br /><br />Oh well, such an illogical ending really only adds to the movies overall charm - they just don't make them like this anymore!

Sky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.<br /><br />'Should have' being the key term here, of course.<br /><br />Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, "Good boy, Dex," just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick "The Phantom," starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.<br /><br />The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.<br /><br />Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.

First, I am a big fan of Alien and Alien II - in my opinion both of these movies created and defined the Si-Fi Horror Genre as we know it today. I noticed Lifeforce was often compared to the Aliens saga - after viewing this movie I would highly disagree. There are some okay special effects with the alien vampires, and the story line might have been acceptable. I just can't get past a naked woman space vampire throughout the whole movie, this is absolutely absurd (although she does look good). Add in a bunch of bad British acting and it's pretty much OVER. Most of the movie ends up taking place in London or somewhere in England, so after the first 20 minutes you lose the outerspace setting and any hope of some real Si-Fi Horror action and suspense.<br /><br />

From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score. <br /><br />(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.) <br /><br />The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played. <br /><br />I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.<br /><br />The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.<br /><br />The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.

Felix in Hollywood is a great film. The version I viewed was very well restored, which is sometimes a problem with these silent era animated films. It has some of Hollywood's most famous stars making cameo animated appearances. A must for any silent film or animation enthusiast.

I have been a fan of the Carpenters for a long time, read the biography, watched the specials, and saw the Karen Carpenter Story. This movie really didn't show the real Karen Carpenter. In the movie she seems to be a shy and a pretty much of loner (except for one girl friend). The real Karen Carpenter was much different. She was outgoing and friendly. She had lots of friends, especially Olive Newton-John. The movie doesn't even show Karen's attempts for a solo album and her meeting Phil Ramone and his wife Itchy "Karen". Itchy knew the real Karen Carpenter in New York. When Karen was in New York, she did see a psychologist, but it was voluntary and once a day and then she would leave to go to her hotel room. Also, Karen was taking pills to increase her thyroid, so she could loss weight, but stop taking them because the psychologist recommended her not too. Also, the Karen's husband in the movie is named Bob Knight, but in real life was named Tom Burris. Also, Karen wasn't divorced from Tom, but only separated. Karen was to sign the divorce papers on the day she died. Also, Agnes found Karen naked in the closet unciousness, unlike in the movie where she was dressed in white. The music was very good. That was the only thing I would recommend on seeing it.

I'm 35. Bruce was THE man in Evil Dead, and I still love to watch ED1 and ED2. It was cool also to see him as The King two or three years ago in Bubba Ho Tep in which he showed versatility and great acting talent. But this Screaming Brain adventure is certainly not for Bruce's early fans. Either I'm getting too old for this sh17, or I'm just not part of Bruce's target audience anymore. I'm positive kids age 9 to 13 will love this film. But this over extended matinée sci-fi comedy contains about 5 minutes total of interesting moments, and the rest is cheap kids slapstick humor. Campbell better talk seriously with Sam Raimi and get their brains screaming together for a last Evil Dead reunion picture to get back my interest. At least there would be a good director behind the camera... Sorry Bruce, this just doesn't cut it for me. Take care.

this movie is practically impossible to describe. the alternate title "Don't Look Up" is a lot more descriptive. Like most Japanese cinema, the story is not as linear as American. The story revolves around a director who is filming a story about a ww2 deserter. The set is haunted(?) by an actress who died(?) during the filming of a tv show back in the 60s. the director is the ONLY one who saw this show. if you have seen Ringu (the director Hideo Nakata is the same) and liked it, you'll like ghost actress. i loved ghost actress a lot more than ringu. a truly scary and disturbing movie. a 10!

I've got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!

Watching "Cold Mountain" gave me the impression that its director, Anthony Minghella, was deliberately trying to outdo himself and the own film of his' that he was trying to beat was the virtually impeccable "The English Patient" from 1996. Comparing the two movies, the premise is quite similar. We have a passionate love affair between two people set in a turbulent time of war and they end up treating the war more or less as a disturbance in the background while trying to find themselves back in each other's arms again. The primary plot differences are that Nicole Kidman's character is not married, Jude Law's is a deserter, and the conflict is the American Civil War.<br /><br />"Cold Mountain" is, story-wise, more watered down and mellow than say "The English Patient" and it's more on the level for people who want a simple love story with some kind of an exterior turbulence causing a problem. It is a shorter film, which is a plus for people with less patience. However, it's not as spectacular or original or genuinely gripping as "The English Patient." My *only* big complaint about "Cold Mountain" is, astonishingly, the love affair between the characters of Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman). Amazingly, their love was the least interesting thing in the picture. They don't have a real relationship; we don't feel any real passion coming from them and the passion that we do see is more physical than emotional. I was more fascinated by the friendship between Nicole Kidman and Oscar-winner Renee Zellwegger and also Jude Law's travels across country dodging vigilantes and enemy soldiers. If Minghella had strengthened the importance of the love story, then he would have had, I feel, a better picture.<br /><br />Of course, the movie is entertaining even if the love story is uninteresting. The Civil War sequences are absolutely great; they are of the modern tradition that show war as horrible and dehumanizing. The re-enactment of the Petersburg campaign, in which tons of explosives was detonated from underground and then followed by a hand-to-hand battle is horrifying. Minghella does not shy from showing blood and gore in an artistic and sensible manner, and he's not afraid to show casualties of innocence and life in these scenes. There are moments where women as well as men are killed, oftentimes by crossfire. And there's more to it. Just the sound design of the movie generates tension. There's a scene where Inman and another deserter make themselves a meal by sawing off the head of a dead cow. We don't see the slicing, but the sound effects of blade going through bone are sickening.<br /><br />Lastly, I must congratulate the cast for the performances. Jude Law was terrific in the movie and deserved the Academy Award nomination he received. I feel that Nicole Kidman deserved one as well, even though her character was a bit shallow. Renee Zellwegger had the most personality and screen-stealing atmosphere. And then there's just the bit parts that also really work to complete this stylistic world recreating a horrible time in America's past.<br /><br />Maybe "Cold Mountain" would have been better as a war picture, but it most certainly would have been spectacular like "The English Patient" if its love story had been powered up and made more passionate by the screenwriters and director Anthony Minghella. As it is, it's a most enjoyable picture, I wasn't bored by it, and I recommend it. I just say that its love story - though a central plot point - is a little more mellow than it needs to be and all the stuff around it was what really worked.

Laughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.<br /><br />Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.<br /><br />Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.<br /><br />And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie "The Day of the Jackal," a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.

Page 3 is most definitely a very enthralling and captivating eye-opener that very cleverly exposes the hypocrite lifestyles of Mumbai's elite. From the fake kisses to the plastered smiles, Page 3 leaves no stone unturned in revealing the shocking lives of the rich and the famous. Backstabbing, gossip, corruption, and scandal lurk in every dark corner in the world of glitz and glam. Humanity and generosity are analogous to an oasis in the desert in this world where Social Darwinism is the prevailing mentality. Everyone is constantly craving for more money, more fame, and a higher reputation, driving them to do the most shameful things imaginable ranging from signing film contracts at a funeral to child molestation. Anything is possible in this metropolis where there is a such a wide gap between the social classes. The audience sees the ugliness of both of these classes through the eyes of the protagonist. She observes the suffocating atmosphere and the mind-boggling frenzy that the socialites live in. Bollywood, business tycoons, politicians, and the underworld are all intertwined in a completely convoluted mess! Kitne Ajeeb Hai is a nice track as is the peppy Kuan Main Doob Jaongi. Terrific film with excellent character development!

Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from ****

Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from "getting the girl." Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...<br /><br />Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.

I can't say I was surprised at this atrocity when I watched it a couple months or weeks ago (can't remember). I saw it as a two part episode of Zoey 101, because that's how they showed it here in Canada.<br /><br />I was incredibly annoyed at the Makeover a Nerd thing, it's just an example of how unaccepting, unappreciating, superficial, negative, biased, and stereotypical the people in the entertainment business is and frankly I'm extremely peeved. It wasn't at all funny. A nerd is a stereotype and it makes people very offended.<br /><br />Secondly, the people in Zoey 101 don't have real problems. Logan has a big house, he has a famous dad, he has everything and Zoey is rich too. They never have to deal with the things that today's tweens and teens have to do deal with such as peer pressure, and stereotype problems. Also, the actors are horrific. Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't deserve to be in a television show as successful as Zoey 101 (what is wrong with the world?), she doesn't have any talent as an actor. In fact, she's worse than Britney! The Chase and Zoey thing was incredibly predictable, I mean how could the show go on with Zoey and Chase dating? What other problems could they possibly have? Except for the fact that Chase doesn't get the girl he wants, everything is perfect! The absolute worse 48 minutes of my television watching life. Ever. 0/10 (and that's being generous)

A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.<br /><br />The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel. <br /><br />4/10

I saw Beyond Rangoon about 20 times, it was THAT GOOD. At first when I watched it, I saw the story of Laura Bowman, but later, after multiple showings, I realised that this also was a parallel documentary. It came to be in my mind, a story about Aung San Suu Kyi, and the struggles of women to remain strong in the face of uncertainty, danger, and sadness. I also would put history, and politics on the list after further viewing, since I did learn a lot about Burma's past, and present, and could only guess at it's future. This movie is not only one you will want to see, it's also one you will definitely want to own a copy of. It's a movie that could easily been seen by the whole family, although not for children under thirteen. However, the educational benefits of this movie can not, and should not be understated.

OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, "he's been replaced!!!!" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)

I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.<br /><br />I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.<br /><br />Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.<br /><br />People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it. <br /><br />Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer.

Wow. What a wonderful film. The script is nearly perfect it appears this is the only film written by Minglun Wei,I hope he has more stories in him.<br /><br />The acting is sublime. Renying Zhou as Doggie was amazing -- very natural talent, and Xu Zhu was a delight - very believable as the jaded old traditionalist. <br /><br />The soundtrack was very effective, guiding without being overwhelming. <br /><br />If only more movies like this were made whether in Hollywood or Hong Kong- a family friendly, well acted, well written, well directed, near perfect gem.

This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.<br /><br />However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.<br /><br />Watcheable enough because of that.

A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!<br /><br />The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?<br /><br />Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.

Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.<br /><br />More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.<br /><br />Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.<br /><br />Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny.

From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal? <br /><br />To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.<br /><br />And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****

I saw this film at Amsterdam's International Documentary Film Festival and was privileged to meet both the directors and Tobias Schneebaum, all of whom are lively and outspoken New Yorkers. The film's title in Amsterdam was Keep the River on Your Right, making the sensational aspect of cannibalism somewhat less prominent. Equally important was the loving - and gay - relationship Tobias Schneebaum had with members of the groups he studied as an anthropologist. His reunion at nearly 80 years of age and inevitable leave-taking were very moving. I can only highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a moving story that is anything but pedestrian.

Good (not great) little horror film with a high "creep" factor (not to be confused with a 1991 movie by the same name, or the more recent (2001) Campfire STORIES). Central tale of stranded teens telling ghost stories around a campfire in spooky woods nicely leads into, and ties together the different stories that make up the bulk of the movie (Watch for Ron Livingston (Office Space, Band of Brothers) and Jennifer MacDonald in a spirited, sexy segment ("The Honeymoon")). Solid acting and a few truly "scary" moments make this an above-average chiller. Good example of interesting story line, coupled with quality ensemble acting resulting in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. "Surprise" ending of the main story adds nice creepy twist, although some may see it coming. Movie is not available on DVD, but can be found on VHS.

What do you do with all the material that does not make the final edit of a film? You might keep it aside in case a director's cut or extended version is released one day. You might sell some it as stock footage to be used in a part of another film. You might just bin it. Or you might collect it, accumulating more and more from each film you make and then use it to make another film, disregarding coherence or any sense. Throw a very primitive skeleton of a narrative into it and line up a number opportunities (nay, excuses) to slot in your celluloid cast-offs. Excuse the abjectly nonsensical nature of the plot by framing it all in the mind of a horror film director and you've got yourself an awful film. This can all be done with just a few days shooting. And idiots like me will waste two hours of their life watching it. And then come on here and try to warn others away. The whole chain of events is one big waste of time.

The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart. In short, fear is the villain in every love story.<br /><br />But in 'Darr' fear is the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla) frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story, whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of death.<br /><br />And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply "Darr" is one of the best Indian films ever made.

The C class cast and poorly transitioned scenes, complete with terrible acting have led me too believe this would make a good TV only release such as the FX presentation of a smallpox outbreak. At my local blockbuster however, about 9 copies are held on the shelves, none of which were checked out when I rented the title (I wonder why....) Anyway, this title was almost ridiculous in the "fear factor" the director was going for. The whole "death count" on the bottom of the screen completely contradicted the plot at times, such as when the chopper was going over Angola, and the toll was speeding at a breakneck pace from 23 million to 24. However, as the movie ends, (possibly several hours or even a day or so after the chopper has landed) the death toll counter is reset back too what it was at the moment the chopper was approaching the area. The movies end left a huge whole in th entire plot, and god knows nobody is waiting for the sequel. Anyway, do not rent this, I only advise watching this if you have obtained the title with no monetary loss, and you are in the mood for a cheesy suspense movie.

This movie is hilarious! I watched it with my friend and we just had to see it again. This movie is not for you movie-goers who will only watch the films that are nominated for Academy Awards (you know who you are.)I won't recap it because you have seen that from all the other reviews.<br /><br />"Whipped" is a light-hearted comedy that had me laughing throughout. It doesn't take itself too seriously and should be watched with your friends, not your girlfriend. It won't win any awards, but it just has to be watched to be appreciated. True, some of the jokes are toilet humor, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone can use some of it sometimes. Some people need to lighten up and see "Whipped" for what it is, not what it isn't.<br /><br />****1/4 out of *****.

Steve Biko was a black activist who tried to resist the white minority governed South Africa in much the same way as Gandhi tried to resist the British empire's colonialism in India. Richard Attenborough's film Cry Freedom is not about Biko or Apartheid as much as it is about Donald Woods, the white liberal newspaper editor who risked his life trying to tell Biko's story. The film has a jarring point of view switch after Biko dies in prison from tortuous behavior at the hands of South African "police". Woods, played by Kevin Kline, must choose whether to do the right thing and flee the country to publish books about Biko or allow his wife, played by Penelope Wilton, to pressure him into forgetting about the books. In that case, Biko dies in vain. What begins as a life-changing friendship between Biko and Woods degenerates into a standard by the numbers escape over the border yarn after Biko's death. Oscar-nominated Denzel Washington is good in only his fourth film as Biko, but something is wrong in a film that tries to depict the struggles of Apartheid by focusing more on the trials of a white family for more than half the film. Attenborough would have served his topic better by focusing on Biko's rise to prominence instead of beginning where Biko befriended Woods. Perhaps a black actor in a leading role in a 2 1/2 hour film wasn't exactly conducive to big box office, but the film was a tremendous box office flop anyway. Film politics aside, the film still entertains and sends a message or two, albeit, in PG-sanitized fashion. *** of 4 stars.

Plunkett and MaCleane are two highwaymen that rob from the rich in order to give to ... well, the rich; comparatively, they ARE the rich. But we know they're the good guys because the chap behind the forces of law and order, a Mr. Chance, is just so evil. He rapes women - or tries to. He beats up his underlings. He commits murder. He has bad breath. He doesn't shave properly. He has no fashion sense. He tortures puppy dogs. That last one is just an inference of mine: we don't actually SEE him torture puppy dogs. But I'm sure he does. Little of Chance's villainy has much to do with his pursuit of Plunkett and MaCleane. It's just something he does in his spare time, a kind of a hobby he takes up to make absolutely certain that we don't like him. He needn't have tried so hard. No-one in this film is likeable.<br /><br />Let's take stock. Appealing characters? There aren't any: I believe we've covered that. Swashbuckling? Not a swash. Instead we have a kind of grimy heavy-breathing. Dash? Sparkle? Vigour? All gone the way of swashbuckling, I'm afraid. Realism? None of that, either. I think they were TRYING for realism, since everyone was so filthy, but the characters and action had all the plausibility of Errol Flynn - with no sense of exhilaration to back them up. Beauty? Nope. Fine camera work? For a TV crew, perhaps. Humour? You might giggle once or twice if you're in a benevolent mood. Then again, you might not. Dialogue? See `humour', above. Music? Don't even get me STARTED on the music. The music in `Ladyhawk' was, by comparison, uncannily apt; and at least the misguided aesthetic of that score was a consistent one.<br /><br />Ugh. I apologise to `Ladyhawk' for even THINKING about it in this context.<br /><br />To sum up: there's much positive badness here and NOTHING good - unless you count Liv Tyler, which I'm in two minds about doing.<br /><br />I feel as though I've just written a review of the pox. `Not very good,' the review says. It would be much more interesting if I could somehow DEFEND the pox, to claim that critics of the pox have got it all wrong - but I don't know how I'd go about doing that.

[ as a new resolution for this year 2005, i decide to write a comment for each movie I saw in theater (10%) or in DVD (90%). <br /><br />I must admit that DVD have revolutionized this habit. For instance, i can hear the true voice of the cast, which is an essential trait of the personality. In my country, non french movies are dubbed and we end up with aberrations: french voice is terrible, very far away of its original tone ! the same voice for different people or a same people with different voices !!!! <br /><br />And well, if everybody found my comments unuseful, well, in 2006, I will stop my reviews... Ah,AH.... So, enjoy them now !!!! ]<br /><br />My summary means that the story, locations, cast is not very enjoyable...<br /><br />Only....<br /><br />Sandra bullock is there.. She is a talented actress, able to get the viewer to catch on the movie....<br /><br />It reminds of a feminine "the fugitive".... So if you look for a moment of escaping your life, watching this movie makes it worse because Sandra's life is a mess....<br /><br />She got nothing left to hold on to, only her poor mother (Who is Alzheimer ill: again the touch for depression)....<br /><br />In fact, she has a sad life in the beginning of the movie, has a sadder life throughout it, to finally get back to it at the end.... what a happy ending !!!!<br /><br />maybe the writers wanted to make a point about a nerd's life....<br /><br />very far away from the best computer movie of all time: *WARGAMES*

I avoided watching this film for the longest time. Long before it was even released I had dismissed it as an over-hyped, over-blown, overly romanticized piece of Hollywood schmaltz, and I wanted nothing to do with it. I never watched it in the theatre. I shook my head in disbelief at the 11 Academy Awards - even though I had never seen it. Then I was asked to be a judge at a high school public speaking contest. One of the girls spoke about this movie. "It was so great," she said. "You really felt like you were on the ship." "Nonsense," I thought. I shared my feelings with my fellow judges. One looked at me and said, "you might be right, but if she liked the movie that much maybe she'll want to learn more about the real Titanic. The movie must have done something right to get her so interested." "Well, maybe," thought I. Then it finally appeared on Pay TV. "OK," I thought, "I'll give it a look see." I didn't want to like it - and I didn't. I loved it! What a great movie.<br /><br />Where to start? First - the directing. My high school public speaking contestant was right. James Cameron does a superb job of creating an almost "you are there" type of atmosphere. The gaiety of life aboard the most elegant ship in the world. The nonchalance as news of the iceberg first spreads; then the rising sense of panic. You don't just watch it; you really do feel it. Then - the performances. The lead performances from Kate Winslet (as Rose) and Leonardo DiCaprio (as Jack) are excellent - Winslet's being the superior, I thought, but both were good. They had their rich girl/poor boy characters down to a perfect "t" I thought. In my opinion, though, stealing the show was Frances Fisher as Rose's mother. She was perfect as the snobby aristocrat, and you could feel the fear and loathing she felt every time she looked at Jack. Then - the details. I'm no expert on the sinking of the Titanic, but I have a reasonable general knowledge, and this film does a super job of recreating the historical details accurately and then weaving them seamlessly around the fictional romance. Very impressive, indeed. Then - the song. Who can watch this movie and not be taken with Celine Dion's performance of "My Heart Goes On."<br /><br />Problems. Well, the romance was perhaps too contrived, in the sense that I just don't accept that Jack could have moved so effortlessly from steerage to first class. (I know he was invited the first time; but he seems to keep getting into first class without being stopped until he's been there for a while.) The realities of the separation of the social classes were much more realistically portrayed, I thought, when the steerage passengers were going to be left locked down there after the ship hit the iceberg while the first class folks got to enjoy half empty lifeboats. <br /><br />A minor quibble, though. This is truly an excellent movie. My only regret is not seeing it in the theatre, where I think it would have been so much more impressive.<br /><br />9/10

"Dr. Cameron, a discredited scientist succeeds with his experiment in creating serum the transforms men into wolf-like creatures. Originally developing this formula to help the world, the scientist decides to use his newly created subject to exact revenge upon the scientists who were responsible for his ouster from the scientific community. The scientist's daughter Lenora grows wary of her father's actions and shares her suspicions with a newspaper reporter. When the scientist loses control of his creature, it falls upon the scientist's daughter and the reporter to stop it," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Mad scientist George Zucco (as Lorenzo Cameron) creates his formula rather unimaginatively, by mixing human and wolf blood. This brings the beast out in hulking Glenn Strange (as Petro aka Pedro), who is directed to act like Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Johnny Downs (as Tom Gregory) and Anna Nagel (as Lenora Cameron) are a likable werewolf hunter and damsel in distress. Certainly, "The Mad Monster" is no substitute for "The Wolf Man"; but, it's a serviceable addendum. The grainy black-and-white photography enhances the foggy, cow-webbed atmosphere. "God" (uncredited) strikes up a well-done ending, too. Like Blaine (Robert Strange) said, "Mingling the blood of man and beast is downright sacrilege!" <br /><br />**** The Mad Monster (1942) Sam Newfield ~ George Zucco, Johnny Downs, Anna Nagel

I don't understand why this show didn't go on there could've been various ways to continue on the line of Darwin and Farik after season 2, obviously Darwin couldn't have been the UC agent infiltrating cells and sabotageing them from the inside, but still they should've given this show at least another season.<br /><br />The show is well casted, believable, and views the Islamic religion from both the normal and the extremist point of view. It touches controversial subjects in detail and it has a dramatic meaning that can be said of very few shows nowdays. I'm actually sad that i didn't know about this show until late 2007.

I loved this film. It was so intelligent but it also had some great action sequences, without basing the movie solely around them. Quinn, Sutherland and Kingsley all put in fantastic performances and there are enough twists to keep anyone interested. The ending was great as well.

The Stepford Children, besides being a very good made for TV movie, shows the very disturbing result of indoctrination. It is quite a statement about how being made to act within the confines of what is considered "Good" behavior can destroy whatever it is that makes a person unique and an individual. I think that this is a movie that parents who want to maintain some semblance of the thought that loams within the hearts and minds of youngsters should watch with their children and discuss what the movie is saying. I don't know if that was in any way the intent of this movie but I have always been of the opinion that it is one of the best movie devices against the wish to have children conform to an unrealistic and domineering pretense of what is in the best interest of anyone other than that of the children themselves. I hope to one day see this movie on DVD. I am at the starting gate... waiting.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I could hardly stay awake. The acting and the plot were horrible. I like B-movies, but this movie has nothing that could make me laugh or think about. OK, there were two or three funny moments at the beginning, so I have to give this movie 2 out of 10. If you really want to watch it, watch the first 10 minutes. After that you will get more and more disappointed while the movie runs.

This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years.

There were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't recommend it.

I've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.<br /><br />The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.<br /><br />A missed opportunity.

SHOWTIME is a mess, but it's an entertaining mess. The plot is forgettable, the satire is lightweight and the action sequences, though well-staged, aren't that exciting. But I laughed. A lot. Credit goes to the inspired pairing of De Niro and Murphy. They have great chemistry. Murphy delivers the one-liners, De Niro cracks us up with a look or grimace. This movie will get a RUSH HOUR-like reception from the critics. Don't listen to them. If you're a fan of De Niro or Murphy, you're going to enjoy this movie.

Found a copy in a bargain bin sale of this old time classic. I played it with dosbox on a vista machine without any issues. It's graphically dated heavily, but what do you expect for a 12 year old game! The game is a FPS/Adventure game hybrid. It's what I call pseudo 3D, you can't look up or down, just spin in 360 (think Wolf3D). Game play can get tricky with a very limited supply of health pots, and a somewhat average interface (Tip: Press I), but on the whole it's passable.<br /><br />One main strength of the game is the mood. There game heavily uses full motion video, and whilst the acting is b-grade and the plot is very choppy, the game as a whole feels genuinely creepy. It also does a good job of making you question the 'good guys'. Are they really helping, or are they just waiting to stab you in the back? The other major selling point is the games length. There are from memory 18 chapters, which range in game play time from 10minutes to, potentially, hours. My first play through took me a week with some serious devotion of time.<br /><br />Dated, yes, but if you missed this years ago and can find it for $5, give it a look. Cheaper than a movie, and more entertaining than most movies.

Garden State was a mediocre film at best. The film seems more like a compilation of thoughts that the writer (Zach Braff) had, rather than a cohesive story. The disjointed plot may have been more engaging if it weren't interspersed with pointless scenes that were nothing more than "quirky." Coincidentally these scenes are often the ones that are relayed in conversation (Zack walking past faucets that turn on as he passes, crazy under-cranked party scene, shouting over a gorge, the list goes on).<br /><br />The main character is flat, disengaging, and ultimately unlikable, which is exhibited most in the scene where he talks to his father, selfishly ignoring his fathers problems, including a recently deceased wife, and droning on about his own "What am I to do with my life?" problem.<br /><br />The film ends when Andrew (Zach Braff) decides not to go back to LA because he cannot tear himself from the love of his life, Sam (Natalie Portman) whom he has known for 2 days. Which can only lead me to the conclusion that the message of the film is that love at first sight cures occupational dilemmas... Sure you could interpret it as a misappropriation of priorities, but if that is the case it could have been done better. Much better.<br /><br />This film does not know what it wants to be. A drama, a comedy, a teenage-wasteland film, or a gamut of other things. I say this not as a single-genre oriented person, but as a person who loves multi-genre pieces such as those mastered by Stanley Kubrick. The reason I feel it does not work for Garden State is because rather than blending the genres together, it jumps around; one scene is one genre, the next another, and back again, so on.<br /><br />I have heard many people tell me to cut Zach Braff some slack, after all it was his first feature film and he debuted as Director, Writer, and lead actor. Impressive as it was a first film, I should think that with as much money as he has, he could do better. There have been much better first-time feature film directors (Michel Gondry "Human Nature", David Gordon Green "George Washington"). Maybe if he stuck to writing OR directing OR acting it would have been better. Zach Braff is a talented performer, maybe his second attempt won't be so tedious and disjointed.

At initial thought, the concept of this show seemed to be a joke and a gag, just for Stan Lee's amusement. I expected nothing more than a sleazy, animated version of Barb Wire with low production values, much like those short pieces of crap you see on Adult Swim for short term amusement, but can never taken too seriously. Boy was I wrong!<br /><br />Stripperella has even better production values than similar Marvel Toons. The animation is very good and it seems that they've taken this series very seriously and given it a full effort to make it a professional production as possible.<br /><br />The humor is good too, on the sexy, suggestive and sleazy side. It is very similar if not exactly like the Simpsons style. You may encounter clichés and a lot of predictable humor but its still fun nevertheless. If this were running today, I'd surely see it regularly. Its surprisingly one of the better toons ever made.