Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

The banter and humorous rescue scene help to make this one of my favorites of the 14-movie series. Wonderful acting, great cast. And this movie contains one of the few oft-noted facts about Sean Bean's career. The part where he and Alice Krige fall off the horse into the water was not scripted but was left in since they both went right on acting after it happened.<br /><br />This is a good follow-up to the intense ending of Sharpe's Enemy.

Watching Stranger Than Fiction director Marc Forster's The Kite Runner is the cinematic equivalent of eating your vegetables because this art-house epic rated PG-13 is good for your movie-going diet. No, this isn't the kind of movie that I like to slouch on the couch and eyeball at the end of a tough day. The Kite Runner isn't your typical mainstream movie designed to entertain you and make you forget about your troubles. First, no celebrity stars appear in it. Second, nothing is cut and dried, black or white, or so outlandish that you don't believe an image that you see. Third, The Kite Runner lapses into subtitles when the characters occasionally speak in their native tongue. Fourth, Forster's film isn't a romantic trifle about boy-wants-girl, boy-loses-girl, and then boy-wins-girl back. Fifth, this foreign language film may make you feel uncomfortable and challenge your assumptions about life, friendship, and survival. The chief themes here are cowardice and redemption. The protagonist commits a cowardly offense in the first half of the action that he must atone for at the cost of his own personal safety and integrity. Right, The Kite Runner is about redeeming oneself for the sins of the past. We're talking about personal accountability, so don't rent or buy this wonderful movie for a boy's night out celebration or something to take the bad taste of the day out of your system. Based on Khaled Hosseini's bestselling novel, this culturally enlightened melodrama about right and down initially looks like one of those light-hearted friendship movies about adolescents in the vein of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Sandlot. About a half-hour into its 127 minutes, this escapade about two youngsters who fly kites in Afghanistan turns dark and unsavory. Nevertheless, if you can handle the remaining hour of the plot, you'll emerge gratified, relieved, and perhaps even entertained. <br /><br />The Kite Runner opens in San Francisco in the year 2000 as our protagonist, Afghan émigré Amir Jan (Khalid Abdalla of United 93) and his wife Soraya (Atossa Leoni of The Florist) receive two boxes of published copies of Amir's first novel. No sooner has Amir had a chance to bask in his triumph of a life-time as a storyteller than the phone jars him from his reverie and he is drawn reluctantly back into a past that is best left forgotten for him. Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub of The Nativity Story) calls Amir from Pakistan to make a request. Rahim was a servant in Amir's household back in the 1970s when Amir lived with his wealthy Pashtun merchant father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi of A Taste of Cherry) in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. "You have one more chance to be good," Rahim informs Amir without sugar coating his request. Basically, Rahim wants Amir to fly to Pakistan and then enter war-torn Afghanistan and rescue Rahim's young grandson Sohrab (Ali Danish Bakhty Ari) who is being held a prisoner against his will as a sex slave for Assef (newcomer Abdul Salam Yusoufzai) a cruel Taliban chieftain and Amir's once dreaded adversary. <br /><br />The Kite Runner shifts from San Francisco in 2000 to an extended flashback set in Kabul in 1978 when life was idyllic. Twelve-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) and the son of his father's servant, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) love to watch movies, such as John Sturges' western The Magnificent Seven, when they aren't flying kites. Incidentally, this is kite flying like you've never seen kite flying. Not only do the kids fly them, but they also compete with other kids to see who can cut the strings of another kid's kite. The kite fighting flight scenes generate the same kind of excitement that the dog fighting scenes had in Tony Scott's Top Gun. Hassan is Amir's best friend but unlike Amir, Hassan belongs to the reviled Hazara minority. Earlier, young Amir and Hassan had a confrontation with young Assef (Elham Ehsas) and his two flunkies. Assef was about to beat them up, but Hassan pulls out his slingshot and threatened to use it on Assef. Assef had no choice but to back down. Meanwhile, Amir was prepared to suffer the hand fate had dealt him. Amir's father Baba laments his son's lack of spine and fears that he will grow up half of a man because he is a coward, unlike the plucky little Hassan who bails Amir out of predicaments. Anyway, Amir and Hassan emerge from the showdown with Assef without a scratch. Later, after Amir sets a new record with his kite flying and fight skills, Hassan runs after a kite to claim it. Hassan is the eponymous character referred to in the title. Hassan claims the fallen kite but he finds himself at the mercy of Assef and his two minions. Assef lets Hassan kept the kite, but his minions pin Hassan spread-eagle, belly down in an alley while Assef sodomizes the youth. Worst, a traumatized Amir watches the assault from nearby but lacks the courage to intervene on behalf of his friend who would have intervened for him.<br /><br />Aside from the extraordinary aerial scenes with the kites, The Kite Runner is down-to-earth, straight-forward stuff. When Amir returns to Afghanistan to rescue Sohrab, he masquerades as a Taliban fighter but he doesn't carry a firearm. The rescue scene in The Kite Runner is rather like the escape scene from The Midnight Express. While Forster doesn't explore the local politics or plunge us into the ethnic and cultural issues at stake here. Indeed, Troy scenarist David Benioff had to eliminate some parts of the book and the racial and ethnic prejudices aren't clearly delineated so you have to accept some things on faith. Forster lensed the film in nearly China to give it an authentic look. Forster deserves credit for making this two hour plus epic fascinating. The performances, especially by the children, stand out for their believability. The Kite Runner is a film that you won't easily forget.

This is a modest ,unassuming traditional Western with a formulaic plot about opposition between ranchers and crop farmers around the town of Liberal ,Kansas .The story is essentially routine and features a number of the classic Western conflicts .There is the farmer versus the cattleman;there is the clash between cultivated land and "civilizing" tendencies on the one hand and the wilderness/frontier ethos on the other and what this represents ultimately is the opposition of two value systems -democratic and community values as set against rugged individualism .<br /><br />Randolph Scott plays legendary lawman Bat Masterton who rides into Liberal at behest of a land agent (Robert Ryan ) to help him sort out the bad guys who are the hard drinking ,brawling cattlemen .The two men quarrel but reunite to tackle the troublesome elements in the town .<br /><br />The script is clichéd but the action is propelled along with vigour by director Ray Enright and there are solid performances all round .In addition to rugged performances by the male leads there is comic relief supplied by George Gabby Hayes ,an oily villain nicely played by Steve Brodie and attractive contributions from Maggie Meredith as a prim and proper Easterner wooed by Ryan and Anne Jeffreys as a saloon singer As long as you do not place a premium on originality this is good sturdy entertainment for Western lovers

Having seen Rush live, I'm able to appreciate the awesomeness of this. Others may complain of sound problems, but it's sometimes over dubbed by the overwhelming screams of 60,000 Brazilians and it goes to show the band's territorial gain of attention

This begins a series (which I'll hopefully keep up every week-end) of films that came out during my childhood – in this case, it's one I've only managed to catch now. It was clearly intended as the last word on the subject, which basically had been debased to the level of hokum over the years; however, in its uncompromising striving for a serious-minded approach (a sure measure of which is that the protagonist is never once referred to by the name he's been known all this time the world over!), the film-makers rather lost track of the fact that the thing was intended primarily as entertainment! Consequently, we get a decidedly staid representation of events – with more care given to meticulous period reconstruction than in providing a functional thematic environment for its mythic jungle hero! Even so, Christopher Lambert rose to stardom – as did another debutante, Andie McDowell, playing his love interest (named Jane, of course) – with the title role, which he handles creditably enough under the circumstances. However, Ralph Richardson (to whom the film is dedicated, this being his swan-song) steals every scene he's in as Tarzan's natural grandfather who, in spite of showing obvious affection for his long-lost kin, can't bring himself to forget tradition in an effort to understand his predicament; the hero, in fact, is much more comfortable interacting with primates (even contriving, after having gone back home, to save his adoptive 'dad' from captivity). The film is otherwise very good to look at (with cinematography by Stanley Kubrick regular John Alcott, no less), features an appropriately grandiose score as well as remarkable make-up effects (by Rick Baker) – and, while essentially disappointing as a Tarzan outing, retains considerable value nonetheless as a prestige picture of its day.

The Hamiltons tells the story of the four Hamilton siblings, teenager Francis (Cory Knauf), twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) & Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) & the eldest David (Samuel) who is now the surrogate parent in charge. The Hamilton's move house a lot, Franics is unsure why& is unhappy with the way things are. The fact that his brother's & sister kidnap, imprison & murder people in the basement doesn't help relax or calm Francis' nerves either. Francis know's something just isn't right & when he eventually finds out the truth things will never be the same again...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Mitchell Altieri & Phil Flores as The Butcher Brothers (who's only other film director's credit so far is the April Fool's Day (2008) remake, enough said) this was one of the 'Films to Die For' at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest (or whatever it's called) & in keeping with pretty much all the other's I've seen I thought The Hamiltons was complete total & utter crap. I found the character's really poor, very unlikable & the slow moving story failed to capture my imagination or sustain my interest over it's 85 & a half minute too long 86 minute duration. The there's the awful twist at the end which had me laughing out loud, there's this really big sustained build up to what's inside a cupboard thing in the Hamiltons basement & it's eventually revealed to be a little boy with a teddy. Is that really supposed to scare us? Is that really supposed to shock us? Is that really something that is supposed to have us talking about it as the end credits roll? Is a harmless looking young boy the best 'twist' ending that the makers could come up with? The boring plot plods along, it's never made clear where the Hamiltons get all their money from to buy new houses since none of them seem to work (except David in a slaughterhouse & I doubt that pays much) or why they haven't been caught before now. The script tries to mix in every day drama with potent horror & it just does a terrible job of combining the two to the extent that neither aspect is memorable or effective. A really bad film that I am struggling to say anything good about.<br /><br />Despite being written & directed by the extreme sounding Butcher Brothers there's no gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter & a few scenes of girls chained up in a basement but nothing you couldn't do at home yourself with a bottle of tomato ketchup & a camcorder. The film is neither scary & since it's got a very middle-class suburban setting there's zero atmosphere or mood. There's a lesbian & suggest incestuous kiss but The Hamiltons is low on the exploitation scale & there's not much here for the horror crowd.<br /><br />Filmed in Petaluma in California this has that modern low budget look about it, it's not badly made but rather forgettable. The acting by an unknown (to me) cast is nothing to write home about & I can't say I ever felt anything for anyone.<br /><br />The Hamiltons commits the cardinal sin of being both dull & boring from which it never recovers. Add to that an ultra thin story, no gore, a rubbish ending & character's who you don't give a toss about & you have a film that did not impress me at all.

Wow, "The Curse of Michael Myers" what a great film. Suspenseful, entertaining, creative and a clever plot which I love. Many hate the 'Thorn' concept, I love it. I think that it gives the Halloween series some plot. Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, especially for her first film and Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence are great also. My only complaint is that why wasn't Danielle Harris in this film as Jamie? She wanted to return, but the producers said no. I thought J.C Brandy was great, but I love Danielle Harris. Still, I love Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I think The Shape's mask looks the best in this film and George P. Wilbur is the best Michael Myers ever. Incredibly creepy and suspenseful, Halloween 6 rules! <br /><br />I adore this very violent, but immensely enjoyable film. The Halloween horror series - by far the best in the Genre.<br /><br />10 out of 10.

I'll be honest with yall, I was a junior in high school when this sitcom first aired on ABC I didn't think I would like it at all. But with John Ritter in it i felt that it had a little potential in it, plus their was something else with it I liked. The acting was great, not a lot of horrible 2nd rated comedy lines, John Ritter always brings his A game when it comes to comedy . This was a great show to watch, and I'll tell you why it was a great show. My father who never watches sitcoms at all, he just watches movies, sports, and law & order, he actually sat down with my 3 brothers and 2 sisters, my mother, and myself, and watched the show I think because John Ritter was in it. I honestly think this show would still be running if John Ritter God rest his soul i wish he hadn't passed away.

Great book, poorly done movie. Cheesy performances and contrived situations make this movie a sentimental bore-fest. Flat and uninspired work from most of the actors leaves this film in the After School Special category. No doubt there is a lot of talent to be tapped in this cast and crew but something went horribly wrong The very talented Gretchen Mol attempts to pull this film out of the mire but even she can't seem to rise above the silly dialogue. Feels like everyone just phoned it in. Even the makeup (Mulrooney ages 20 years over the course of the film) looks amateurish and crude. Don't waste your time on this clunker.... go read the book.

Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!<br /><br />The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.<br /><br />What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.<br /><br />But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there. <br /><br />So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.

My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.<br /><br />The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.<br /><br />Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).<br /><br />My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.<br /><br />The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.<br /><br />Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.

I saw this film earlier today, and I was amazed at how accurate the dialog is for the main characters. It didn't feel like a film - it felt more like a documentary (the part I liked best). The leading ladies in this film seemed as real to me as any fifteen year-old girls I know.<br /><br />All in all, a very enjoyable film for those who enjoy independent films.

The trailer is so deceiving... I thought this will be a good film... What was the point in bringing the women in Hong Kong for being killed? They could have done it in Paris. And the fist half hour:<br /><br />-You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't! -You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't! -You love me!<br /><br />-No I don't!Repeat for 100 times... then... Well I don't love you... So i shoot you! :D So here is the reason why movie piracy is a good thing! Imagine if I would have even give money for this torture! I'm sorry for the time I lost watching it... the film makers should pay me <br /><br />for the inconvenience... Worst film ever seen...

This little two-person movie is actually much bigger than it looks. It has so many layers. I've watched it over and over, and always pick up on something new. I am amazed at the depth of the acting, and I feel if this movie had gotten wider release that there would be no question that Alan Rickman is a major star

Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...<br /><br />If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...<br /><br />I am so disappointed...

In this election year, where so much idealism is attached to one of the candidates, it is poignant to watch a film that warns us not to make an idol out of anyone running for public office.<br /><br />Luke Eberl is the writer and director of "Choose Connor". There are significant parts of the film that reveal that he is a 'genius' when it comes to telling stories via the cinema.<br /><br />Go see this movie before the election and then ponder why and for whom you will cast your vote.<br /><br />Let you eyes be opened like those of the young protagonist.<br /><br />A mix of "Citizen Kane", "Advise and Consent" and "Paths of Glory" by a young director as talented as those who made the films listed above.

IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM OF THIS DESCRIPTION: First telecast by CBS on November 30, 2003, the made-for-TV Finding John Christmas is a sequel to the previous year's A Town Without Christmas, with Peter Falk reprising his role as versatile guardian angel Max. Valerie Bertinelli plays Kathleen McAllister, a divorced small-town nurse whose depression... over the fact that the hospital ER she maintains may be forced to shut down because of a $100,000 debt is briefly lifted when she spots a newspaper picture taken by photojournalist Noah Greeley (David Cubitt). The picture shows an act of bravery performed by Noah's firefighter brother Hank (William Russ), who mysteriously left town 25 years ago and hasn't been seen since. Hank would like to quietly slip back into town without explanation or fanfare, but this proves impossible when Noah's newspaper posts a $50,000 reward to identify Hank, known only to the public as "John Christmas." And there's something, very, very curious about that photo: It also shows a Santa Claus suit seemingly floating in midair without an occupant. That elusive "Santa" is of course the angelic Max, who pops up now and again throughout the story in a variety of guises to solve problems, dispense advice, tie up loose plot strands--and even share a musical duet with Kathleen's talented daughter Socorro (Jennifer Pisana).<br /><br />INTERESTED IN HAVING A COPY: WRITE TO ME HERE: IAMASEAL2@YAHOO.COM

I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.<br /><br />But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.<br /><br />I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.<br /><br />after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.

While Watching this movie you notice right away the cheesy elements of a standard TV movie... though through out the picture the plot changes (if you are bold enough to say this movie has a plot) are by the book and unoriginal... and with every one the movie KEPT GETTING WORSE!<br /><br />Candace Cameron Bure, famous for her role as DJ Tanner on the hit TV show Full House, is not very convincing as a Possessed twenty something.. trying to avenge the Possesers Death. I believe she is fine actress.... just not in the thriller range.<br /><br />The Filming was trashy, and like I said the plot stale... though watching it I knew I was in for automatic cheese, I had NO idea how much worse this film could get...<br /><br />I highly do not recommend this movie... unless cheep Filmaking and poor writing is what you looking for

Storyline: The film spanning 4-odd hours covers in adequate details the happenings at the Kargil sector near the LOC in 1999 when the Pakistani infiltrators had crossed the LOC and had entered deep into the Indian territory and the Indian Retaliation. To know more about the story, I would suggest readers to read the news-items pertaining to Kargil.<br /><br />Comment: If one is looking for a formula story in this movie, then one can be sure that it is absent. LOC is a story of Pure sacrifice, patriotism, courage and lots and lots of bullets and Blood. The movie hall where I saw this film was full of whistles and cheers when the Film shows Indian Bravery. Movie audience seemed similar to Audiences like in an India vs Pak cricket match.<br /><br />Watch the movie as a tribute to the Army's sacrifice and for the characterization of the real-life war heroes (4 PVC honoured heroes) who have sacrificed their lives so that we could see this day. The movie has made a brilliant portrayal of the Army who have battled all odds in rough weather conditions. The film's negatives are that it is too stretched and the songs are extremely boring.

This is a great movie from the lost age of reactionary made-for-television drama. My all-time favourite actor, Robert Culp skillfully plots a trajectory through uptight liberal fairmindedness and faith in the system, kneejerk conservativism and fear of crime, and homicidal psychosis. The teens are a collection of pure sneering evil stereotypes, and the eventual message of this film makes episodes of Dragnet look evenhanded by comparison. But what really shines in this is the great pace of the movie, building the fear and paranoia by degrees, as well as the feel of the whole California setting. The cars are really great as well, as I recall. I give this film a 10, and I defy anyone to watch this film and not enjoy every minute. Remember, just because it's made-for-television doesn't mean it isn't great art.

In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.<br /><br />When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident… actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it! <br /><br />Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.<br /><br />Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really.

This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound, film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.<br /><br />Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.<br /><br />I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful. I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ... flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone fluctuations.<br /><br />Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10.

Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!<br /><br />If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'<br /><br />One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.<br /><br />The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.<br /><br />This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only.

I recently rented this movie as part of a nostalgic phase I'm going through. I was born in 1980, and so film from mid-80s to mid-90s has quite an important place in my growing up.<br /><br />This particular movie was one of my favourites, and so I was thrilled when it became available in the UK. It hasn't become worse with time, it is still a great fun film, with plenty of excitement in its own way. Sure, it pales in the shadow of bigger, larger budget films, but don't let that stop you enjoying this.<br /><br />Worth a rent, or even a purchase at the discount prices you'll find it for.

I saw this piece of pseudo-intellectual crap a couple of years ago, and it is now making a comeback at the local film club. It uses every cliché in the Intellectual Movie Makers Handbook (Beginners Edition) in order to appear as intellectual as the director probably imagines himself to be. You get your run-of-the-mill slow-motion tempo, brown color scale, slow pans through bombed-out environments, blank, suffering facial expressions, over-symbolic imagery, and the requisite miserable ending.<br /><br />It is a complete failure, an unintentional perfect caricature of the typical Russian art movie. The director, Aleksandr Sokurov, has excellent command of technique, but he lacks eye. He doesn't see when he crosses the line into the realm of the pathetic.<br /><br />This movie is a wet dream for art film haters. It lives up to every stereotypical view of the genre that there is.<br /><br />If it was bad in an entertaining way, it would a turkey. But for a movie that is so bad that you walk out afterwards royally p***ed-off, we need a new term. This movie is a Sokurov.

This movie started out as a quite decent-looking film but it never really kicked off, instead it became predictable and even a bit silly. Some scenes were quite well made, the photography and the cuts used in combination with sounds and such made it a bit more interesting to watch, but since the story was quite slow it didn't manage to keep the interest alive. And more importantly, its not scary at all! It's supposed to be a horror movie but there wasn't a single scene that was close to frightening or even exciting..<br /><br />To be frank, the actors weren't all that great either, no colorful characters you ll remember for the rest of your days..<br /><br />Overall a watchable movie but it doesn't add anything and once you've finished watching it, it wont last long until its already forgotten.<br /><br />The reason I watched it was because I had read some review giving it top scores, but I disagree and instead I would grade it 4 out of 10. If you still want some Japanese horror, I would suggest you watch Ju-On instead!<br /><br />

I am not even willing to vote a single star for this crap but IMDb does't have zero as rating option... worst movie i have ever watched.. Story of the movie 1. Predator ship crashes on earth 2. One alien and some face huggers are released and they start killing humans. 3. One predator arrives on earth and he starts killing aliens and humans. 4. Then one human jet drops a bomb and kills human, aliens and predator. 5. Some humans find the shoulder canon of the predator. 6. The End Directors should consider refunding money back to the viewers. If still you want to watch this movie, download from some torrent site and say thanks to me for saving you money.. all the movie has been filmed in some dark corner of the earth, you see just dark shadows even in action scenes.. too much violence.. I didn't expect it from a fox movie

A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete."Wet Wilderness" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic "Psycho" and also "Jaws".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.

<br /><br />Film dominated by raven-haired Barbara Steele, it was seen when I was seven or eight and created permanent images of pallid vampiric men and women stalking a castle, seeking blood. Steele is an icon of horror films and an otherworldly beauty, and the views of the walking dead pre-date Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD shamblers, unifying them in my mind.<br /><br />I don't see the connection between this film and THE HAUNTING, which is clever but ambiguous about the forces present. LA DANZA MACABRE is a b-movie without pretention, daring you to fall in love with Barbara Steele and suffer the consequences. There's no such draw to HAUNTING's overwrought Claire Bloom. The comparisons to the HAUNTING are superficial.<br /><br />And no, this movie does NOT need to be remade. Not only is it a product of the Sixties, but the large percentage of talentless cretins in Hollywood cannot fathom MACABRE's formula for terror. That formula is based on one overriding factor: GOOD WRITING. Low-grade classics like CASTLE and Corman's Poe films with R. Matheson and Tourneur's OUT OF THE PAST share a commonality of strong writing. It's simple. Get a real writer like Richard Matheson or Steve McQuarrie and let them put a plot into today's cinematic mess. Besides that, let Hollywood attempt some original material for a change, and stop exploiting the obviously superior product of the past.

A scientist on an island is in deep sorrow about the loss of his son who died of kidney cancer. So he thinks: why not turn my dead son into a hammerhead shark. Well, who wouldn't? It's a little hard to cope with the fact that the hammerhead shark that's killing everybody is constantly being called "Paul". Also, William Forsythe's cast as a MacGyver-kick-ass-savingtheday- kinda hero lacks credibility. On the other hand there are a few hot chicks who make you actually look at the screen while shark Paul bites another one to death. As a matter of fact I find bad b-movies quite amusing. But for my taste it would have been a much better movie if it was made for say 1000000 bucks less. Then it might have been fun.

Disappearance is about a couple who take their family on vacation in New Mexico and find themselves in deep trouble after taking a detour off the main highway to visit a town that was seemingly abandoned in 1948 for unknown reasons. The town of Weaver seems harmless at first and has tourist appeal until the family is stranded there overnight and they begin to have good reason to suspect that others have experienced their same predicament with fatal outcomes. The Henleys watch a Blair-Witch-Project-esquire video diary left by the town's last victim, which ironically demonstrates the best performance of anyone in this movie. Although Hamlin and Dey's performances are much better than the supporting casts', their emotional affect seems "flat" to me throughout the movie. <br /><br />Disappearance has appeal for most of the movie as there is much suspense and good direction. However, the plot takes unexpected and implausible turns that seemingly make no sense. Worse yet it that there really is no understanding of what exactly is going on in the movie, which makes the bizarre ending less tolerable. It appeared to me that the movie makers were so focused on making a stream of suspenseful scenes, that they threw away all the elements of good story making: plot development, gradual explanation of themes and symbols that lead to a cohesive solution/outcome. <br /><br />The most difficult aspect of the movie for me was that the first three-quarter of it was spent building up tension and curiosity about certain aspects of the plot that were then suddenly disposed of as if we didn't deserve an explanation: <br /><br />What was the significance of the Indian symbols on the walls? What happened to the original people of Weaver? What was the connection with the people at the dinner? What did the Sheriff know? What did the missing boy discover if anything?<br /><br />This was, I believe, a bad move, since it engendered some resentment. I had invested quite a bit of brainpower into hypothesizing some plausible explanations for some of these plot turns and strange events, only to have the movie makers simply end it without giving an answer to any of these things. These are some nice cliffhangers for the ending of a miniseries that is about to pickup again next week, but a totally frustrating and inappropriate ending for a stand-alone movie.

I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about "A Christmas Visitor". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.

William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) buy an old house where a brutal murder happened years ago in very bad condition with the intention of restoring it. They move with their daughter Sophie (Emma RidleY), and become friends of their neighbors Jean (Patricia Maynard) and George Evans (Brian Croucher). However, eerie events happen in the house, inclusive the death of Sophie's cat. In Sophie's birthday party, a pipe leaks blood and they leave the place, disclosing a secret later.<br /><br />"The House That Bled to Death" is a scary and one of the best episodes of the series "Hammer House of Horror". The fantastic twist, disclosing a secret, and the tragic conclusion are really excellent. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Casa Que Sangrou Até Morrer" ("The House That Bled to Death")

i two came home from school fast as i could to catch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. that was the most fun time in my life is to watch HRpuff and stuff on t.v. growing up still love it today i am 46 years old. this year......

This film's kind of like Conan the Barabarian, but with more sex, rape and murder. There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the filmmakers don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story. Richard Hill gives a solid performance in the lead role, as does the villain - who sadly didn't appear in anything else of note. The fight scenes aren't too bad either - I love the way Deathstalker lets his sword 'drink' the blood of his victims - and there's plenty of nudity and sex to temper the general level of machismo throughout. <br /><br />All in all, not good - but not necessarily that bad either...

This is apparently one of Shemp's first shorts with the Stooges. (This excludes his much earlier vaudeville years with the team). But the threesome's comedic timing is at its honed best here. Aside from the intense slapstick scenes, there are others more subtle, but just as funny. Watch Larry when Shemp asks him to look at the camera for a snapshot. Or watch the real object prompting Moe's exclamation, "Oh...highly polished mahogany!"<br /><br />Emil Sitka is at his bewildered goofiest. And the goon may look scary, but he's somehow funny. He seems as frustrated and perplexed with the Stooges as are "regular" people in other shorts.<br /><br />For Shemp aficionados, this is a must have episode. It won't disappoint.

this seemed an odd combination of Withnail and I with A Room with a View.. sometimes it worked, other times it did not. tragedy that they changed the name for the US release though.. Keep the Apidistra Flying is much better than the nothing title A Merry War. acting was okay, script was okay.. overall it was a mediocre film..

Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.<br /><br />I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.<br /><br />I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!

I was surprised, that ''The Secret Fury'' was an enjoyable good film...... Probably because, I didn't have any expectations for this movie..... Though, the film does have it's plot holes..... I would say, that you couldn't guess who was behind the whole scheme, until the very end of the movie..... At first, I thought, it was Robert Ryan, using the same method, like ''Gaslight'' where husband tries to drive his wife mad, but I was wrong...... The main problem, with the movie is, they drive at a whole other direction, which gave no clues at the beginning...... I thought, Robert Ryan & Claudette Colbert carried their parts well...... Plus, Vivian Vance, a fine character actress, who steals scenes in this one...... Those who like movies, that keeps you guessing, will like this one......

I saw this again today for the first time in about 6 years. I had forgotten how well acted this movie is. Paul Newman gets the billing, but Dwight Schultz holds his own and shows how good an actor he really is.

Definitely worth renting! Good clean family entertainment. My 4 and 5 year-olds (and I) loved it. Kept them on the edge of their seats. I recommend parents sit with their younger children to watch this, as it can be quite suspenseful for them. It's not too often you can find movies that you can watch with your children, and so this is a rare find. Some of the acting / realism isn't quite there at times, or maybe is a little corny, but children don't seem to notice or care, they love it. Parts are predictable, but other parts are not - like trying to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The movie doesn't have any really scary/creepy stuff, and so I doubt it will give children nightmares. It does inspire children to dream, which is something we need to encourage and foster more in our children. Rent and be blessed!

Yes there are worse movies out there. Most of them made for fun, on a shoe string budget, or as a t.v. movie of the week, but even if this was the 'movie of the week' it would rate no more than two stars. It is a poor movie about a serious subject featuring an abused woman who flees the king of the slime people in to the protective arms of the king of the wussy people. ( If this is an attempt to show that she doesn't need a man to protect her than wuss man is superfluouse to the film and ought not to be in it at all). It has no suspense, no character development, and an heroine that could be outsmarted by a rotton onion. ( I think she flushes her wedding ring on a boat with a self contained tank rather than just dropping it overboard in the ocean (where her body should be anyway) and after the husband finds her, demonstrating that she is a moron, she still makes childish assumptions that lead to almost getting her killed.) I am always amazed when I see the sort of generally high rating a movie like this gets and it makes me realize that Dr. Seuss still has a huge untapped market of people who would be challenged by his work. After I get done laughting at humanity I weep.

This film was great!Tangi Miller and Flex did a great job. They both look good together and they both pulled it off.Tasha Smith was so funny as the cousin,and she couldn't stay out of her business.Essence held it down for her girl, when she needed her. Aloma was sweet and played a dear Grandmother she really reminded me of my grandmother.And Oh,I can't forget about the stripper, he was so find, and I didn't know if I should cover my eyes or smile while I watch him reveal his sexiness on the big screen.Damn! he was fine! Tangi looked flawless, and sexy, and she stepped up a notch since Felicity. Over all the movie had a lot "A" List Actors and Actress. It was funny, sexy, crazy, touching,loving, emotional and wonderful. This movie is a must see! Go it get on DVD now if don't have it!

Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown chunks! Every single one! When will I ever learn?<br /><br />Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's protégé)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!<br /><br />As I said, when will I ever learn?<br /><br />I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital offense to torture audiences like this!<br /><br />Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she "plays" God) is even more shameless than her character.<br /><br />At least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, I am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!

Nicolas Mallet is a failure. A teller in a bank, everyone walks all over him. Then his friend, a writer who's books no one likes, has a plan to change his life. Our hero tells his boss he is quitting. He intends to spend the rest of his life making a great deal of money and sleeping with a great many women. And he manages to do just that.<br /><br />If it were not for the amount of death (murder/suicide/natural causes) in the film, this would be a farce. There are numerous jabs at marriage, politics, journalism and...life.<br /><br />Jean-Louis Trintignant is a likable amoral rogue. Romy Schneider is at her most appealing. Definitely worth a look.

This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.<br /><br />We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.

Even a awful 1 is to much for this film, everything form start to finish made you cringe. I don't think it would be possible to cram more overly clichéd moments, into one piece of mind numbingly numbingly waste of film.<br /><br />Prisoner cell block H meets Thunderbirds, hell even Virgil's expressions were more life like than his son.<br /><br />I haven't even finished watching this and I'm on here now.... Oh no, the cheesy clapping of 3 actors and a backdrop done by a child with adobe premiere. This truly is the end of my "I've started so I'll finish watching it" phase.<br /><br />Oh joy, the credits have come to rescue me. (and relax)

Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.<br /><br />For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.<br /><br />In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.<br /><br />Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.<br /><br />The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care.

This is a wonderful movie in a lot of ways. Everyone in my family enjoyed it. The animation is excellent and easily demonstrates that there are plenty of producers who create films that are as visually brilliant as anything that comes from the Disney Studio.<br /><br />One difference from the normal Disney fare is that this Dreamworks movie does not feature some wise-cracking side kick for comedy relief. And, there are no sudden moments where the characters break into song. I am sure that a scene at the beginning of the film would not appear in a Disney picture: the birth of Spirit. But it is done tastefully and is not offensive at all. "Spirit" was a great breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong. I have loved Disney for years and will continue to do so. <br /><br />"Spirit" is another example of great animated fare. As soon as it was over, my kids wanted to watch it again. I had the same feeling. I thoroughly recommend it.

George Armstrong Custer is known through history as an inept General who led his rgiment to their death at the battle of Little Big Horn. "They Died with their boots on," paints a different picture of General Custer. In this movie he is portrayed as a Flamboyant soldier whose mistakes, and misdeeds are mostly ue to his love for adventure.<br /><br />Errol Flynn plays George Armstrong Custer who we first meet as an over confident recruit at West Point. Custer quickily distinguishes himself from other cadets as beeing a poor student who always seems to be in trouble. Somehow this never appears to bother Custer and only seems to confuse him as he genuinely does not know how he gets into such predicaments. In spite of his poor standing, he eventualy graduates and becomes an officer in the United States Army. Through an error, Custer receives a promotion in rank. Before this can be corrected, he leads a Union regiment into battle against the Confederates. His campaign is successful and Custer becomes an unlikely national hero. Custer returns to his hometown, marries his sweetheart, Libby who is played by Olivia De Havilland. Libby is a very supportive understanding wife who steadfastly stays by his side and follows him into the frontier as he assumes leadership of the Seventh Regiment of the Cavalry. Custer becomes a man of honor who strives to keep peace with the Native Americans. To prove his intentions, he enters into a treaty with Crazy Horse, the leader of the Sioux . When that treaty is jeopardized by a conspiracy to spread a false rumor of gold being found in the Black Hills, Custer sacrifices his own life as well as the lives of the men under his command to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent settlers.<br /><br />Errol Flynn dominates each scene in which he appears. He successfully portrays Custer as being flamboyant, arrogant, romantic and funny depending on the mood of the scene. Olivia De Havilland's depiction of Libby Bacon Custer as the love of his life lets us see his tender, more gentle side. The Chemistry between DeHavilland and Flynn, who had acted together in several other movies, is so smooth and it almost makes the viewer feel like they are playing themselves and not the parts of Custer and his wife. The other actors portrayals of their characters truly enhance the performances of Flynn and De Havilland. Anthony Quinn as Crazy Horse, Sidney Greenstreet as General Winfield Scott , Arthur Kennedy as Edward Sharp are among the other actors whose roles have made this movie entertaining.<br /><br />The reviewer would rate this a 4 star movie. While it is not historically accurate, it is very entertaining. The movie has a little bit of everything. It has adventure, comedy and romance, so it appeals to a large variety of audiences. The casting of the characters is excellent and the actors give believable performances which makes you forget it is largely based on fiction instead of fact. The reviewer especially likes that the Native Americans were not shown to be the bad guys but just showed them as wanting to protect their sacred land.<br /><br />

The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience. <br /><br />Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'. <br /><br />The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.<br /><br />One and a half stars.<br /><br />P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.

As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.

I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...<br /><br />I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.<br /><br />The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.<br /><br />The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.<br /><br />After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.<br /><br />EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss.

Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****

WOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of "The Exorcist" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title "The Sex-orcist". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!

Timeless musical gem, with Gene Kelly in top form, stylish direction by Vincente Minnelli, and wonderful musical numbers. It is great entertainment from start to finish, one of those films that people watch with a smile and say "they don't make 'em like they used to!" But they never did quite make them like this. The climactic 25 minute musical sequence without any dialogue is among the most beautiful in film history. Movie magic, clearly derived from the heart and soul of everyone involved. A must see!

Richard Gere and Diane Lane star in a chick flick romance with the sort of ending I get really angry about...lets just say its not my cup of tea, just like the dime store romances are not my cup of tea.<br /><br />The plot has a doctor stopping at an inn and meeting a woman that he has a deep but brief affair with. He goes off to meet his estranged son and she goes back to her life.<br /><br />Well acted and well made the filmmakers forgot to get a real plot line. This is the stuff of dime store romances that makes the women swoon and the men shake their head in disbelief. I wouldn't be so adverse to the film as a mindless romance, except that the film takes a turn in the final reel that is so out of left field as to be completely unbelievable. Why must certain types of movies do stupid things like this? It really ruined it for me.<br /><br />If you like romance give it a shot, though wait for cable.

The first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted "good guys" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.<br /><br />I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.<br /><br />None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about "revenge" and very little else.<br /><br />There was 2 1/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, "Death Proof" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.<br /><br />The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.

Why am I so convinced there's actually another film version of this novel out there somewhere? I saw the film again this year as I am teaching the novel and find the changes in the film annoying - there is no appearance of the little boy in the novel and the ending has been changed. They kill him off in the film but the whole point is that he is haunted by the events at Eel Marsh House for many years but does remarry and eventually put the events behind him. Mr. Bentley is a far more sympathetic character in the novel, the scene in the film where Kipps sets fire to the office is plain daft, and the constant appearance of the toy soldier to signify the presence of the child is genuinely creepy but pointless - Kipps is haunted by the woman seeking revenge, not the child. I am sure I've seen a film which is better and closer to the novel and actually scarier. Have I just imagined this?

Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.<br /><br />Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is "avant-garde" or just "stupid." Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.<br /><br />This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie.

Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa.

I have to say, its not very good. Polly Bergen is fine in this film.The rest are so so. I'm gay and honestly , there are so many cliché's for this time in history that its just sad. We started watching it then turned it off, then decided it would be fun to make fun of the rest of the film. But all said, the basic idea of the film is good. If it was re-written with less contrived lines and better acting it could have actually been prety good. Over all i would not recommend it. IN additon the this is coo coo thinking line is so lame. On top of that the fight in the hair salon is funny because its so bad. The lesbian sister in the room with them while they are trying to get it on is so weird its sad.

Madonna has been rocking the boat for over 20 years, and with that comes a lot of experience -obviously- and a lot of knowledge. She was never the one to think about yesterday, au contraire, she seemed to know what is going to be popular tomorrow. She bravely takes all the new trends, technologies, and incorporates them into her own acts. Her world tours have never been 'average'. When Madonna performs, she gives 120% - everything is bigger, better, theatrical and meaningful. She takes inspirations from East, West, and makes then unique. Everything is given a deeper meaning, and The Confessions Tour is not different. From the very beginning, you find yourself sitting on the edge of the chair. She starts with bang, then she does brave circus poses on a horse high up in the sky, she does everything she can to entertain you. She remakes her own songs, giving them a modern feel. She sings on a disco cross, she almost comes in the middle of the stage, and with her amazing dance crew that know no dimensions of fear, the show is absolutely more than you bargained for. It's a spectacle, an audio-visual orgasm that cannot be put in words. Lucky are the ones who actually experienced seeing Madonna on stage. Pushing fifty, she is still in an incredible form. Recent Sticky and Sweet Tour is even more ground-breaking, which proves nothing else, that Madonna was, is, and ever be the one and the only queen of pop.

this movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features

Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.

This version of Anna Christie is in German. Greta Garbo again plays Anna Christie, but all of the other characters have different actors from the English version. Both were filmed back to back because Garbo had such a following in Germany. Garbo herself supposedly favored her Anna Christie in this version over the English version. It's a good tale and a must-see for Garbo fans.

Chupacabra Terror: 2/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals… They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean)… and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.<br /><br />Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.<br /><br />The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.<br /><br />The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)<br /><br />Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud.

A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, "every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one" farce and sickie black comedy. Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless. There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". (**)

Horrible, Horrible, Horrible do not waste your money to rent this movie. Its like a low budget made for TV Canadian movie. Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen and there have been many others out there. This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the DVD player or VCR. :~( . Is it possible to write ten lines? The acting was horrific. It had absolutely no flow. I saw the made for TV movie on the BTK killer and it was much better(in comparison to this one). I am not sure what they were going for in producing this film but if it was to educate us or tell a story about the BTK killer they missed by a mile. It appeared to be more of a infomercial for animal rights.

I saw this film in my cinema class. I am glad that I did not pay to see it. I came into it with an open mind, and was even a little excited. I really enjoy Ed Norton and Evan Rachel Wood, and the rest of the cast was interesting. I just never connected with this movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was interesting, but the storyline, or rather, lack thereof, was a problem. There was no central, connecting theme to the movie. Was it a romance between Norton and Wood? Well, no, not really. Was it a western? Kind of, but no. I'm all for twists in movies, I recently saw "Brick" and loved it, but the place that this movie went was just too out there. It was so weird, and if I weren't required to have sat through the whole film, I would have walked out. The writing wasn't terrible, but it was just all over the place. By the time this movie ended, I was just left terribly confused and wishing that it had ended sooner. There was just something about this film that didn't resonate, I understand more offbeat films like "Fight Club", but I just did not care about the characters at all.

Some have compared this film to Deliverance. I believe Of Mice and Men is more appropriate. Our leading man, Heaton, definitely loves Spike. It is irrelevant and immaterial whether that is a sexual love. It is the reason Heaton does not leave Spike. He needs him. They need each other. As brothers, as family, as their only connection to humanity. The setting, scenario, minimal cast all add up to a fine film. Frankly, I did not care what happened to the characters. But, I did care about what the film maker did with them. He did well with them. I spent some time wondering how the ending would resemble Of Mice and Men. The soundtrack and cinematography were compelling and intriguing.

This picture seemed way to slanted, it's almost as bad as the drum beating of the right wing kooks who say everything is rosy in Iraq. It paints a picture so unredeemable that I can't help but wonder about it's legitimacy and bias. Also it seemed to meander from being about the murderous carnage of our troops to the lack of health care in the states for PTSD. To me the subject matter seemed confused, it only cared about portraying the military in a bad light, as A) an organzation that uses mind control to turn ordinary peace loving civilians into baby killers and B) an organization that once having used and spent the bodies of it's soldiers then discards them to the despotic bureacracy of the V.A. This is a legitimate argument, but felt off topic for me, almost like a movie in and of itself. I felt that "The War Tapes" and "Blood of my Brother" were much more fair and let the viewer draw some conclusions of their own rather than be beaten over the head with the film makers viewpoint. F-

Yes, a tap dancing horror thriller........with Shelley and Debbie! Goody Goody. This is demented and campy fun and part of the guignol cycle of the 60s that leaked into the 70s. Released as a double feature with the Burt Reynolds comedy FUZZ this mad scare is so bonkers as to be throughly entertaining. Like a mix of DAY OF THE LOCUST, THE OTHER and BABY JANE, I suggest any prospective viewer take on the idea that this is almost meant to be skew-iff and sit with someone with whom you can shriek and elbow all through it. Actually, get drunk whilst you watch it.....on cheap champagne. Again, with many 30s film ideas they are also about delusion; the struggle of the time for a better life getting bitter and twisted by emotional madness falling into murder. But this one is just plain crazy. It also reminds me a lot of BLOODY MAMA the De Niro - Winters shlock fest that makes this film look positively glorious.

Leslie Carbaga's excellent book on the Fleishers tells the whole story of the Fleischer's big move of their entire animation unit to Florida, and their subsequent ejection by Paramount. <br /><br />Mr. Bug Goes to Town didn't destroy the animation pioneers' credit with Paramount, although it's often told that way, and this was Paramount's favorite version of the story. According to Carbaga, the big studio, more than anything, wanted to get their mitts on the animation studio and ease the famously bickering brothers out of the picture altogether. Mr. Bug provided them the pretext to do just that. --The sad closing of a great quirky, innovative chapter in American animation.<br /><br />I wanted to comment, also, that the film actually debuted December 4, 1941, not December 7. That may have been close enough to do the trick, anyway, in terms of national mood damaging the film's success. But another part of the legend of this troubled little film is that it was killed by having the bad luck to be in the theaters at the same time Dumbo (released October 23, 1941) was still doing very brisk holiday business. I haven't done the research into box office numbers, but I'd say that Dumbo's concurrent presence in theaters likely had an impact on Mr. Bug. Movie-going was at an all time high at this period, and successful films could go strong in theaters for months. -- Something unimaginable in these typically short-run, quick to-DVD days.

For a low budget movie this was really good. I put this well above your average action B-movie. Sean and Corinne delivered in this movie, and they didn't seem camera shy. Watch out for the cameos of Jeanne and Jared. I didn't think that the producers would even consider that, but the runner-ups deserve that much. <br /><br />I'll be looking forward to more of Sean and Corinne's involvement in the movie entertainment industry. Sean's character seemed very genuine, and sexy Corinne's character was pretty hard-nosed and on point. She connected well with the action sequences and executed with confidence. It was a great idea to cast Billy Zane as the smart and witty villain. His charisma on screen is always a pleasure to watch. The chemistry between Zane and Sean's character was pretty good. The action sequences weren't cheesy and seemed to connect throughout the movie. Of course there were flaws, but that comes with the territory. <br /><br />Overall, this was a good movie considering the budget and the fact that it was made for TV. Sean and Corinne did a good job considering that they are newcomers to the game. I hope that Jeanne, Jared, and the rest of the Next Action Star cast get their chance to also join their co-stars in entertainment success.<br /><br />Final Judgment: ***/****

This is one of the most laughably bad films I've ever seen. I cannot believe whoever wrote the review above was serious. Perhaps he was connected with making it. It doesn't have anything going for it. There is no suspense, the acting is dire, the direction hopeless. The music score (?) is three trite notes played ad nauseam. The plot (?) must have taken all of five minutes to write. The dialogue is what a 10-year-old would come up with if asked to do a homework project. The only (slightly) redeeming feature is the actor playing the psycho himself, who grimaces, trembles and gurns magnificently and thus is amusing at times. The only reason you would be on the edge of your seat would be if you were suffering from a weak bladder. Don't waste your time.

Three children are born at the exact same time,during a lunar eclipse.Just before their 10th birthday they embark on a killing spree."Bloody Birthday" is a typical slasher from early 80's.It's a pretty average stuff with plenty of nudity.The evil children never generate any menace and there is almost no suspense.There is also no gore or scares in "Bloody Birthday",but the film is mildly entertaining.Unfortunately no real explanation is provided for the kids sudden homicidal mania.The murder scenes are quite gruesome for example we've got death by handgun,baseball bat,skipping rope and shovel.So if you're a fan of early 80's slasher movies give this one a look.

A woman as rich as she is insecure has a history of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, helped no doubt by a smooth-talking gigolo husband who openly cheats on her. Naturally nobody believes her when she claims to have been accosted by a giant man who stepped out of a giant satellite. Much to the delight of her husband, this could be the incident which finally puts her away for good. <br /><br />From the very opening scenes, with it's ludicrous news broadcast and ridiculous satellite encounter, you'll probably be convinced that the only redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad that it is funny. Although not too far off the mark, this is most definitely not true.<br /><br />Unlike most movies of this genre, this is not really a sci-fi or a horror film, but actually a serious drama which intelligently incorporates a sci-fi scenario into the plot. It's not a good or even mediocre drama, but it will exceed your expectations if you weren't expecting any legitimate drama at all. The acting is surprisingly good for such a low budget effort and, most importantly, it is well edited and excellently paced. It is never boring and manages to generate more than a little interest in seeing what will come next. Nevertheless, this is still a movie strictly for those who can't pass up the chance to see a 1950s film with a title like "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"!

Physical Evidence is one of those films that you want to like but really should be a lot better than it actually is. Developed as a sequel to Jagged Edge for Glenn Close and Robert Loggia, it gives the impression that all involved only made it while they were waiting for something better to come along. The premise is perfectly serviceable, it's mostly technically efficient if horribly uninspired with even Henry Mancini's musacky score surprisingly pleasant, but you can't help feeling that things would have turned out better if one of the leads had turned out to be the killer (as is rumoured was originally the case). As the opening scene of his little-seen, personally disastrous Heat (1986) showed, Reynolds has all the makings of a great screen villain. As is, there are few surprises and a feeling of half-hearted filming by numbers as it builds up a head of intertia as it ambles disinterestedly towards a less than grand will-this-do? finale.<br /><br />Reynolds is fine, sailing through on charisma in what is clearly a star vehicle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Theresa Russell. An impressive and fearless actress in husband Nic Roeg's films which allow her to delve into the darker side of human nature, she's trapped in a part that requires star quality rather than depth, and she ain't got it in spades. She doesn't fluff her lines or bump into the other actors, but that's about all that can be said in favour of her astonishingly stilted and often amateurish performance that lets the film down badly. Aside from Ned Beatty's prosecutor the supporting cast add only a slightly surreal presence in a Boston where everyone seems to have a badly disguised Canadian accent and the streets bear a startling resemblance to Toronto and Montreal.<br /><br />Likewise, director Michael Crichton, who in Westworld, Coma and The First Great Train Robbery showed that he knew how to lean an audience to the edge of their seats, seems to handle the action in a purely perfunctory fashion - indeed, in one brief chase the shots don't even match and seem thrown together almost arbitrarily. The climax itself has no flair and is completely bereft of threat or danger, and many scenes are played for far less than they are worth. It's no great surprise that, aside from uncredited reshoots on The 13th Warrior, Crichton hasn't directed since.<br /><br />Its watchable enough in an 80s TV movie sort of way, even if it never lives up to the promise of its opening. Whether that's enough of a reason to see it is down to individual taste.

I've watched this movie a number of times, and found it to be very good. This movie is also known as "Castle Of Terror", "Coffin Of Terror", and "Dance Macabre". Barbara Steele, is her usual beautiful/creepy self. George Riviere, the male lead, does a good job with his role. The whole movie is dripping with atmosphere, and there is a good deal of tension throughout. The camera angles are good and the acting, for the most part, isn't bad. This film is quite suitable for a rainy day or evening. I have the DVD uncut version, which is far superior to the edited TV version. Grab some popcorn, turn out the lights, settle back and enjoy. John R. Tracy

Great movie. Good acting ,a wonderful script. It's exciting to find out what the people are thinking and how they react on the situation they are in. A pity about the ending; a 'page' of text of how Nynke's life went on, instead of moving images was a poor choice. I hope this movie attracts a lot of people; it's worth it!

`An Itch In Time' is one of a string of home runs Bob Clampett hit for WB in the early 1940s, including `Horton Hatches The Egg' and `Tortoise Wins By A Hare.' Soaked in manic timing and exaggerated mayhem, it's basically the saga of a flea who's busy breaking ground for a new home, and the dog whose ground is being broken. Because master Elmer will give him a dreaded flea bath if he so much as scratches, the unlucky canine is forced to endure an upward spiral of torment as the homesteading flea uses pick-axes and power tools to clear the `land.' Ultimately, the little monster lights the fuse to a small mountain of high explosives he's piled onto his victim's backside! There's a tremendous explosion, and the hapless pooch covers his eyes as his rear end erupts in a blazing Fourth of July display! That really has to hurt, and the dog takes flight, but soon he stops the action and says with a merry smile, `You guys better cut it out, 'cause I think I'm starting to like it!' For years this kinky confession was censored, but current prints have restored the clip, so now viewers can enjoy it in its original devilish glory. Still cut, however, is the closing gag in which the cat blows his brains out after he laments, `Now I've seen everything!' This was a common gag at WB, but it has since been purged from this cartoon and several others, including `Horton.'

First off let me say that this movie is nothing spectacular. The cast is like the saved by the bell reunion, the monster is a guy in a bad outfit and like always; the military is useless. It would seem that the more training you have and the bigger your gun, the more likely it is that you will die if you're in a cheesy low budget horror movie. Apparently the people in the movie business have little respect for the navy seals, the marines and ninjas, who get it the worst. The plot is thin, a nutcase cryptozoologist by the name of Dr. Peña traps the Chupacabra. He then smuggles it aboard a cruise ship where two members of the crew let it loose. You can do your taxes and watch this movie and not miss a beat. The most noteworthy part that really makes it all worthwhile revolves around the captains daughter. Toward the end she goes all martial arts on the monster and kicks his butt. Let me get this straight, the monster wipes out the entire navy seals unit, while they are using ARMOR PIERCING ammunition!! OK, its a movie it can happen right? But here comes the captains daughter who can't be older than 19 and kicks the crap out of the chupacabra with front and side kicks. It was hilarious. They should get a medal for coming up with that.

OK this movie was made for one reason and one reason only TO MAKE MONEY!!The producers obviously didn't care about killing a classic horror movie. I knew this movie would suck as soon as it was going to be a pg-13 how many pg-13 slashers movies have turned out to be good? Thats like asking how many women have been on the moon? The answer is NONE!! Prom night 1980 was of cource no masterpiece but it certainly deserves to be recognised as a movie that stays true to its genre and deosnt try to be anything more than that.<br /><br />My problem with Prom night 2008 is the way that it handles the killer and i have 3 major problems with him.....................<br /><br />1)The way he escapes, he was locked up in a mental institute and he escapes through a air conditioning vent!! WHAT THE HELL? why would they have an air conditioning vent in the patients room? Do they want him to be comfortable during his stay or something? 2)His intentions are somewhat uncertain the killer want all of the main victims family and friends dead so he can have her all to his self, he says he loves her but the next minute he trys to kill her, so does he want to kill her, love her or just plain rape her?? 3) The killer is too good, how did he develop all of his skills? He used to be a teacher, so in this one scene where he kills the main victims boyfriend while hes basically on top of her asleep and she doesn't notice, it all silly 2 stars out of 10 terrible,silly,stupid attempt at a horror movie

There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.<br /><br />The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.<br /><br />It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.<br /><br />The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.<br /><br />The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.<br /><br />The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).<br /><br />In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.<br /><br />TOTAL: 4%

>>> Great News there is a BBC DVD release scheduled for 31st July 2006,UK - there is also a scheduled release in States - don't know the date - can't wait ! ! <<<<<br /><br />>>>> below is my original comment <<<<<<br /><br />I agree with all the other reviewers - it is simply staggering that one of the greatest TV dramas ever has never been released on DVD<br /><br />The story line is gripping - the acting is outstanding and the character development is enthralling !<br /><br />Over here in the UK we have quite a history of getting TV drama series and films out onto DVD through popular campaigns <br /><br />It's very hard to see why the rights owners do not go into a DVD production ? I'm going to e:mail one of the leading players in this grass roots movement and see what happens. Who did the production ? was it BBC ? RW

I'm afraid that I didn't like this movie very much. Apart from a few saving graces, it's nothing to write home about. <br /><br />J-horror has boomed for the last five-six years but the films themselves have on more than one account been repetitive and carbon copies of a previous success. This is one of them.<br /><br />Basically this is a supernatural slasher movie. The beginning is promising with chilling scenes from a morgue where a dead girl has her eyes graphically sewn together, but soon after opens them. However, after that, it's quickly downhill for this flick.<br /><br />To be kind I will start with the things I like about "Gawi". On the plus side, the visuals are gaudy and the movie looks great for it's type. For those who like their horror movies gory there are a few nicely executed (no pun intended) murder scenes. We also get a few good suspense sequences/set-pieces.<br /><br />However, there are quite a few drawbacks also...<br /><br />First of all, and my major complaint about this movie, is that the plot skips and jumps forwards and backwards in time with an alarming intensity. Usually that's not a problem for me, but here, where the students look exactly the same no matter what age they are, I was confused on more than one occasion.<br /><br />The performances are okay I guess (a little hard to tell when you don't know the language), but seem a little stiff. And for a horror movie, I don't think it was scary enough. For a while I was quite bored actually.<br /><br />Being a fan of giallo movies, I was expecting quite a lot from "Nightmare", but unfortunately I was quite disappointed.

A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?<br /><br />Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void. <br /><br />Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad. <br /><br />Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.<br /><br />4/10

"The Incredible Melting Man" is a fantastically gross, trashy and energetic Z-grade production that every self-respecting camp-horror freak simply has to see for him/herself! The ideal way to describe this low-budget 70's gem is like a shameless copy of Hammer's "The Quatermass Xperiment" ...only a thousand times filthier! Astronaust Steve West is the only survivor of a disastrous space-mission, but turns out the carrier of a horrible disease that makes him radioactive and ... causes him to melt! In shock after seeing his face in the mirror (can you blame him?), Steve busts out of the hospital, leaving a trail of sticky pus and fallen off body parts behind. Doctor Ted Nelson has to find him urgently, as the disease also set Steve up with an insatiable appetite for human flesh. The premise may sound utterly stupid but this flick is enormously entertaining and contains great make-up effects from the hand of Rick Baker. The melting dude's face looks like a rotting pizza and his heavy breathing makes him sound like Darth Vader! Another big advantage is that William Sachs' screenplay doesn't waste any time on tedious scientific explanations or emotional speeches. The repulsiveness starts right away and lasts until the very last moment of the film. Just enjoy this silly horror gem and try to switch off your brain activity as much as you can because, if you start contemplating about the many stupidities in the script, you'll miss out on all the campy fun!

I went to see this movie twice within a week and can only sum it up in one word (which I normally don't use lightly): Wonderful! In my view, the best movie ever made. Who deserves Oscars and other awards if not this Swedish crew who have created cinematic perfection in the last scenes of the film, when everything that is said (and left unsaid) throughout the story is drawn together? Just as the character of Daniel Dareus evokes so many sentiments and long repressed feelings within the people around him, the movie does the same to its viewers: You walk out with your head abuzz and your heart feeling full. Great stuff! Next time you ask yourself "what is the meaning of life", perhaps think about how you feel after a sumptuous experience like As it is in Heaven: Happy, content, fulfilled. To say it with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway: "Such moments are enough".

Bobby and Mikey are two little boys who move across the country with their divorced mother to start a new life. Soon after the family settles in, their mom marries "The King" who ends up being an abusive stepfather, especially to Bobby. So Bobby decides that he will "fly away" from the abuse in his birthday present.<br /><br />This movie was difficult to watch, especially the abuse scenes. It was hard to watch an innocent, playful little boy become abused and turn into a sullen scared, and withdrawn young man. The acting is excellent.<br /><br />I cried throughout the last half of the movie. There were some funny scenes in it too like the Monster Brew and the dog that finds the pop bottles.<br /><br />I wouldn't suggest letting little kids watch it. It was a movie that was painful to watch and yet it really really flew away.

Directed by the same Jin Ishimoto that put Neoedision and flixer.com (a once promising online film community) temporarily out of business and off the net because of his directorial style and method of filmmaking on his next film GIRL'S BEST FRIEND.<br /><br />THE HOLE suffers from this "look at me, I am a filmmaker" style of filmmaking that is becoming the near standard in today's hollywood, to the detriment of content.<br /><br />THE HOLE actually starts out with a unique concept but that concept and the promise of captivating content soon is destroyed by the "look at me" directorial style of filmmaking.<br /><br />There are some funny moments that still shine through the pretense but it is a painful short to watch.<br /><br />How sad it is when the new breed of "filmmakers" choose not to be a servant to the story but rather try and dominant on and off screen. Heck, they don't care, as long as they get their studio deal, house on the beach and a new car, content and presentation are secondary issues.<br /><br />The real sad part of all this is Hollywood embraces the "look at me" attitude so much that the whole aesthetic of filmmaking is changing. Rather than present a story in a straightforward way that puts the story first, today's directors are getting "experimental" i.e. "look at me".<br /><br />Is it me or am I the only one that was really put off by Sena's opening minutes of SWORDFISH. That movie went on to rise above Sena's directorial attempts at "look at me" filmmaking, Unfortunately this short film by Mr. Ishimoto does not.<br /><br />3 out of 10 rating from Elec Tv.

Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:<br /><br />Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.<br /><br />Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.<br /><br />Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.<br /><br />Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.<br /><br />Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.

Though I had sort of enjoyed THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula (1974), I knew I shouldn't expect too much from its even more maligned predecessor! Surely the least of the Hammer Draculas (Marcus Hearn on the Audio Commentary for THE CREEPING FLESH [1973] even goes so far as to call it the studio's nadir!), the film really flounders due to its totally unhip - and now embarrassingly dated - updating of the myth (the modern-day setting actually suited SATANIC RITES rather better)...even if, truth be told, it's still vastly preferable to dreck like Dracula 2000 (2000) or VAN HELSING (2004)!<br /><br />Despite Christopher Lee's vociferous bashing of the film, he still cuts an undeniably striking figure as the undead vampire (even if he appears very little and is inexplicably confined to one setting); likewise, Peter Cushing delivers his usual committed performance. The only other noteworthy acting job in the film is that given by Christopher Neame (son of director Ronald) as Johnny Alucard(!) - even if that's only because of how unbelievably hammy it is! Unfortunately, the two best-known female members of the cast (both of them horror regulars) - Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro - can't rise above their physical attributes.<br /><br />The camera-work is by Dick Bush (who had shot THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW [1971] and, for Hammer, WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH [1970] and TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - but is perhaps best known for his longtime association with Ken Russell) which manages some nice atmosphere throughout, especially during three crucial sequences: the carriage-ride scuffle at the (properly Gothic) beginning; the hysterical Black Mass sequence, followed by the resuscitation of Dracula; and the final confrontation between Lee and Cushing's Van Helsing.

This film screened at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood on April 7, 1999. It was described in the American Cinematheque schedule as follows:<br /><br />"TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY 1951, Warners, 90 min. Steve Cochran's an ex-con who's never been with a woman. Ruth Roman is a dime-a-dance dame with no use for sappy men. A hotel room, a dirty cop, a gunshot - the perfect jump-off for a fugitives-on-the-run love story. This virtually unknown noir is Felix Feist's masterwork, packed with revelatory set-pieces. Cochran was never more vulnerable, Roman never sexier. Imagine GUN CRAZY scripted by Steinbeck - it's that good."<br /><br />I just saw this film, and I agree with every word of the above description.

ý thýnk uzak ýs the one of the best films of all times and everybody must realize this movie.I m a Turkish boy and a big cinema fun. and in this days our cinema industry is highing up.And UZAK is the best Turkish film of last ten years.and maybe one of the best films of all times.director nuri bilge ceylan is quite amazing.telling story,characters,atmosphere is wonderful.he is a minimalist director and tells about routine event family,dreams,expects,life.tells about you ,tells about me,tells about us.I promise you will find a piece of your body in this movie.cinema life welcomes a new director.he is waiting to realize.I promise yo you will love this movie please watch it

Thirty years after its initial release, the third version of "A Star Is Born" finally comes to DVD in a package that should please the most devoted fans of Barbra Streisand. That would include me since I just saw her in concert singing among other numbers, the feminist anthem "Woman in the Moon" from this 1976 film. Easy to dismiss, the movie's career-polarizing story is such a sturdy pile of Hollywood-style clichés that variations of it exist in other films including Streisand's own "Funny Girl". This time reset to the then-contemporary music scene, the timeworn plot follows self-destructive rock star John Norman Howard on his deep-dive career descent just as he meets club singer Esther Hoffman who is awaiting her big break.<br /><br />Troubles dog their courtship from the outset, as John Norman (both names please) responds to grasping fans and bloodless DJs with random acts of violence (from which he inexplicably escapes prosecution). To John Norman, Esther represents his last shot at happiness, and in turn, she is drawn to the innately decent, creative musician underneath the façade. In the movie's most pivotal scene, he gives Esther her big break at a benefit concert, and her career takes off. Inevitably, he can't handle the failure of his career in light of her meteoric success, and if you are familiar with any version of this story, you know the rest. Directed by Frank Pierson (although Streisand's budding directorial talents are obviously on display), the film still manages to draw me in, even though I know it is shamelessly contrived and manipulative. It still has a certain emotional resonance despite its numerous flaws.<br /><br />Although Streisand in her prime seems like the ideal choice to play a rising singing star, her screen persona is simply too strong and predefined to play Esther credibly. The same can be said for her performing style since the script seems to make allowances for her softer Adult Contemporary-oriented material to be accepted within the otherwise hardened world of arena rock. From the moment she pops her head up as the middle of the Oreos, she can't help but come across as an established star. I can forgive the lapse simply because she is an unparalleled vocal talent, but what becomes less forgiving is how she makes Esther more strident than poignant when John Norman's woes become overwhelming. This creates an oddly discomfiting dynamic in the last part of the film when it becomes less about what caused the climactic event than Esther's response to it. This is capped off by an uninterrupted eight-minute close-up of her memorial performance - great except when she regrettably mimics John Norman's style toward the end.<br /><br />Kristofferson, on the other hand, gives a superb performance throughout, managing a level of honesty that grounds the film and makes palpable his concurrent feelings of love, pride and resentment toward Esther. He makes his vodka-soaked onstage growling work within this context. Otherwise, what always strikes me as strange about this version is how all the supporting characters are relegated to the background as if they didn't exist unless they were interacting with the two principals. The only ones who register are Paul Mazursky as John Norman's level-headed manager Brian and Gary Busey as his cynical band manager Bobbie. Veteran cameraman Robert Surtees provides a nice burnish to the cinematography though a level of graininess persists in the print. A big seller in its day, the soundtrack is a hodgepodge of different styles from the 1970's - some songs still quite good ("Everything", "Woman in the Moon", "Watch Closely Now"), some that have moved to kitsch ("Queen Bee", Kenny Loggins' "I Believe in Love") and of course, the inescapable "Evergreen".<br /><br />The print transfer on the 2006 DVD is clean and the sound gratefully crisp thanks to digital remastering. Streisand's participation is the chief lure of the extras beginning with her feature-length commentary. She gives insightful information about the genesis of the film, the casting and the reportedly troubled production. She is also refreshingly candid about the megalomania of Jon Peters, her hairdresser boyfriend who became the movie's producer, and her dissatisfaction with Pierson as a director. I just wish she could have provided more scene-specific comments that directly relate to what is on screen. She also tends to repeat the same anecdotes when the mood strikes her, e.g., it gets tiring to hear for the third time how the person playing the chauffeur was a friend of Peters. I think having a second commentator could have drawn out other nuggets from her.<br /><br />There is a wardrobe test reel that shows some amusing 1970's clothes, especially Kristofferson's mixed-fabric poncho and orange polyester shirt. There are also twelve deleted scenes included with Streisand's optional commentary. One is a comic bread-baking scene which reminded me how much I like Streisand in farcical comedies. Another is an extended scene in which she plays "Evergreen" on the guitar in front of an awestruck Kristofferson who then falls asleep. The most interesting is an alternate take on the musical finale incorporating fast cuts, which I agree with Streisand should have been used. Fittingly, the theatrical trailers for all three versions of "A Star Is Born" are also included.

The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.<br /><br />If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.

As a movie, THE ITALIAN JOB is ok at best; good (not great) acting,<br /><br />nice visuals and pacing, a mediocre plot, but nothing bad enough<br /><br />to walk out on. But as a car commercial for the new breed of MINI<br /><br />Coopers, this film is spectacular!<br /><br />*SPOILERS*<br /><br />Ok, it's a typical heist film with the odd twist (the underwater safe- cracking was nice, if not improbable), and the cast was fairly solid<br /><br />(with the exception of a putrid Wahlberg), but when it all came<br /><br />down to it, the real "stars" of this picture were the three MINI<br /><br />Coopers, in all their high-flying, speed-racing, ramp-jumping,<br /><br />bullet-taking, gold-lugging, shiny new glory. The audience I was<br /><br />sitting amongst actually "ooed" and "aahed" when Theron's little<br /><br />red number first hit the screen (strangely enough, neither she nor<br /><br />Wahlberg garnered the same reaction).<br /><br />The film starts out promising. Mos Def, Seth Green, Donald<br /><br />Sutherland, Edward Norton and Jason Statham all begin as an<br /><br />interesting and humourous band of characters, with the only real<br /><br />uninspired performance being that of the usually good Mark<br /><br />Wahlberg. Why he claims this is his best film I can't imagine; his<br /><br />character is completely one-note, and he plays him so blandly it<br /><br />was as if Mr. Rogers came back from the dead and was inhabiting<br /><br />his body. Charlize is fine as Sutherland's daughter, though<br /><br />nothing magical. Seth Green's character is perfect and the<br /><br />running Napster jokes (including a cameo by Napster founder,<br /><br />Shawn Fanning) are hilarious; he and some of Mos Def's early<br /><br />lines add some much needed sparks of humour. Unfortunately,<br /><br />Edward Norton and Donald Sutherland don't get near enough<br /><br />screen time.<br /><br />You can see most of the plot coming from a mile away, and the<br /><br />dialogue is rife with bad one-liners and give-aways, but I doubt the<br /><br />filmmakers were out to re-invent the wheel here, so taken as a<br /><br />typical action/suspense flick it comes out alright. Worth seeing on<br /><br />cheap night I'd recommend.<br /><br />7/10. Not worth it's weight in gold, but makes for nice fillings.