Datasets:

LawalAfeez

/

englishreview-ds

like 0

You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).

Obsessed!!!!! I have every season of Gilmore Girls and I think the reason I love it so much is because of how smart the script is, its not your average comedy show there isn't any pause after a joke it just keeps on, if you missed you missed it. And its not like a soap opera drama either because it doesn't use dramatic music and the actors never have those stupid cheesy surprise looks. I think Gilmore Girls is one of the bests shows on T.V. shows of its time. Its fun because they talk so fast you can't get everything the first time its nice to go back and laugh at the other jokes. Also they have so many references its amazing how smart it is.<br /><br />And you can relate to the characters also their so real and there actors are superb from the witty Lorelai to the hermit Luke to the immature Kirk the show is just amazing. I definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to have a good time and spend sometime with there family this is definitely the show for them. There is only one word that can describe Gilmore Girls....CLASSIC!!!!!!

The only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui

This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own.

Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake.

Most of the critiques on this flick have been pretty damn accurate. It is an hour and half waste of time, following a bunch of very pretty high schoolers whine and cry about life. There is about twenty minutes of magic, and absolutely no scary or thrilling moments. Our actress are treated like pieces of ass, and seem to be perfectly happy with their position. The lead characters, these sons of ipsmith are walking poster boys for any pop culture clothing store. You can't relate with them, hell you barely can understand them. The story steps all over itself and when it finally gets to the final battle, its no more than a volleyball match that doesn't last long enough to make up with this trashed script raped from the O.C.

The best Batman movie of the 90's no doubt about it. This movie takes place in a city filled with insecurity and nightmares.<br /><br />Although the villains are somewhat cheesy, they fit perfect for the movie's tone of colorful but nightmarish cinematography. <br /><br />The performances are really great and the comic tone behind them really delivers expectations. <br /><br />Don't get fooled by the cheesy outfits, this is a movie in the pure style of Burton. That can't be described; Burton is a sui generis director that took the Batman franchise to another obscure level but not forgetting about it's comic style past. <br /><br />Recommended for fans of action cinema and best of all, if it deals with super heroes.

I grew up Baptist and I know the story this movie is trying to tell, although I no longer believe the story. I'll give the movie kudos for being as good as the average Lifetime Movie of the Week. Mildly interesting, mediocre acting, a bit slow, the script is predictable, the music is sappy, and it is a bit melodramatic. And all the people left behind have got to be the squeakiest clean non-Christians, ever. Not a single curse word from any of them. But I laughed out loud when the actor playing the man who runs the United Nations pronounced "nuclear" as "nu-cu-ler," just like Bush. Is there some Christian code of honor that mandates that since Bush claims he, too, is called by God, that all Christians must cover up his ignorance by mispronouncing that word the same way he does? LOL! I really had a difficult time taking the movie seriously at all after that. After the "nu-cu-ler" incident, the movie began to feel like packaged, manipulative propaganda. I was looking for something bold. Actually, I was looking for something that might make me think, but I didn't find it here. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, stop here - it's good for killing a rainy afternoon. But if you're looking for intelligence, look elsewhere.

Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...<br /><br />But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.<br /><br />However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)

"The Merchant of Venice" was one of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his own lifetime, but it has fallen on hard times during the 20th century because of its undeniably anti-Semitic content. The play has also been called schizoid in its careening from comedic scenes to tragic ones, leading some to say it is two plays trying to coexist as one. Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes, who played William Shakespeare in "Shakespeare in Love") is in love with Portia (Lynn Collins, superb), but needs to borrow a considerable sum of money to woo her. He goes to his sometime gay lover Antonio (Jeremy Irons), who hasn't the funds on his person, but takes out a loan from the Jewish usurer Shylock (Al Pacino). Shylock is amused and offended that Antonio, who insults him for his religion, now comes to him for money, but he offers it, on the condition that the penalty for defaulting on the loan will be a pound of Antonio's flesh. Which is, of course, what happens. Bassanio and Portia offer Shylock considerably more then the original loan instead of the pound of flesh, but Shylock, distraught after his daughter leaves him and marries a Christian, refuses to take it. Portia, in a scene where the audience is never quite sure where to place its sympathies, deprives Shylock of what should be legally his, and then strips him of his wealth and religion. Shylock was originally essayed as a cartoonish villain, but modern actors and directors have turned him into a tragic figure, railing against the injustices of 16th century Venice. Al Pacino does an excellent job as Shylock, and Jeremy Irons is good as Antonio, but I think that Lynn Collins' work as Portia is the best part of the play. Portia is one of the few notable female roles in Shakespeare's canon, and Collins is wonderful in the part. Joseph Fiennes is more than a bit dull, however; I've never particularly enjoyed his often overwrought acting style. I give "The Merchant of Venice" an 8/10.

The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.<br /><br />With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.<br /><br />As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.

Like another reviewer, I really wanted to like this movie. I went with my father who was the biggest lover and booster of classical music but neither of us could stand this movie. I wouldn't even call it a movie. A better description might be a record of a few chamber concert pieces. As I recall, the camera never even moved. Rather, I just sat on a tripod for the entirety of each piece. The only attempts at dramatic effect were at the very end of each piece when the movie would cut to trees waving in the wind or little wavelets lapping at a beach. I'm sure the director would have preferred to have used footage of some really big crashing waves but the best he could find were a few inches high at some nearby lake, and again using a stationary camera. Truly pathetic. I can't imagine how anyone could justify rating this movie higher than a five. When we walked out, my father and I were completely mystified as to how it was possible to make such a bad movie. I don't know of of any good movies about Bach. The world really does need one, but just because it doesn't exist is not a reason to see this one. Someone will make one someday. Until then just keep rewatching _Amadeus_.

and it's only January, still I'm sure of it!<br /><br />By far this is among the worst Swedish movies I've ever seen and to be honest Swedish movies ain't that good in general. It have been claimed to be "original" and perhaps it can be seen as that for people who never seen a English speaking movie, for us who have been to the cinema the last 10 years it can't help but to feel like Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein have been sitting down one weekend going through the most successful movies from the last years and tried to squeeze it all together in to one Swedish package. What can I say the outcome can just be...poor. First of all the story is just weak to begin with, even worse when it's not just a poor story it's a wish to combine to very poor stories - first a failed try to make Swedish action á la Matrix and then combine it with a really bad moral story. And if you thought it could not be worse you'll notice all the "cool stuff" that just have been thrown in there for absolutely no reason at all more than in a bad way trying to show that Sweden also can do Hollywood movies - which we can't nor should try to. For example the main plot is tried to made deeper by letting youths play a computer game called Storm having absolutely nothing at all with the story or for example how there is a internet side about "Storm" while all the sudden it just is the main characters consciousness - really I don't think even Stein or Mårlind can see a point with three quarters of the movie, more than just trying to show off poor extra effects. For the actors, I've got to admit Eric Ericson does a pretty good job except he does the same job the whole movie through, even tough Storm tries to be a movie about the personal development of DD he does not change one bit in his way of acting. Jonas Karlsson, well to be honest I thought he was a fairly respected actor but judging by Storm... really he just have to be ashamed of this movie, his character and his scar. Lastly Eva Röse is just beyond critic, both her character and her acting. The only reasons Storm succeeds of not getting a 1/10 is for Eric Ericson and, what can I say, at least it tries..

Late one night on Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" Show, I watched Tom ask his guest Henry Morgan what he considered to be 'perfect.' Morgan responded, "Anything with Glenda Jackson." And although I wouldn't consider this film to be perfect, it does bear out that notion very well. I was about to use the cliché' about Hollywood not making pictures like this anymore, but then I just saw, "Up in the Air," another intelligent film about 2 people over the age of 35 who fall in love. That's where the similarities end, though. "House Calls" is just sheer fun watching 2 pros like Matthau and Jackson hit it off and seem completely natural while they're at it. I saw this film in the theater in 1978 (at the ripe old age of 18) and it took me another 20 years to get all of the jokes. Any film that can make punch lines out of 1920's tennis great Bill Tilden, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wouldn't play too well at the megaplex these days. One other thought: the original theatrical release featured a 'walk on the beach / fall in love' montage set to The Beatles/George Harrison tune, "Something." It seemed a bit forced at the time, but that song has since been swapped out for a rather generic Henry Mancini music cue for subsequent home video and cable release. Too bad, because that scene just lays there now, another victim of music licensing Hell.

I saw this show about 3-4 years ago. It was dam Funny! When i first time i saw it was playing on ETV(Estonian Television) And i started to like it. Too bad that that show is on bad time for me. Hyde is like a cool guy who likes to sing Frank Sinatra! And he comes on stupid ideas. He got these glasses which h are brown. I like it . And there's FeZ. The group Pervert. We all know what he does when his alone..... He wants to get laid badly. He even had it with his boss in one episode.His from India. And there is Michael , The stupidest guy on whole group , probably stupidest in town and his a cop! He is so stupid that i remember follows: Hyde says: Did u called cops ? - No Michael comes in and says. Does anyone know how to turn off siren? He is a town playboy. Then comes Jackie , who is former girlfriend of Michael and then she's Hyde's girlfriend. Then is Eric Who's son of grumpy war veteran and son of Kitty the housewife. His one big pussy. But he loves Donna , his girlfriend with who they plan for they're marriage. Donna is one hot girl. Hmm what i forget? ah Hyde lives in a basement .

Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")

Wow... 5 more hours of Riget. Lars continues the great combination of occult, dark horror and soap-opera drama. Picking up exactly where the last episode of the previous series left off(complete with the same high intensity and suspense, though that doesn't last; for better or worse), this installation in the franchise seems somewhat more bent on haste... in the last series, there seemed to pass a day or a week between each episode, whereas in this, it clearly is one long stretch... where one episode ends, the next begins. A lot can be said about Lars von Trier... but he is very diverse and pretty eccentric. Both qualities show in this. The plot continues its excellence, now giving a few regular characters that were minor players in the previous four episodes more attention. Basically every character from the first returns, at least as far as the main roles go. The pacing isn't as sharp as in the first part, and I found myself less gripped by this one. That is not in any kind of way to say that this didn't involve me, though... I still found myself constantly watching, and at several points reacting strongly, often out loud, to what was going on(extremely unusual behavior for me, as I am an incredibly silent person), as I also was during the first. Like the first, this also brings up some loaded ethical questions. Building on the foundation from the first, this brings the story further... and being a sequel, the scope is also bigger. Grander. More spirits, more bizarre occurrences, more subplots. The strong graphic material of the first also returns, and it's been kicked up a notch. The characters are developed further. The acting is amazing, as that of the first. Udo Kier solidifies his immense talent, to anyone who doubted it. Playing a very difficult character(anyone who has seen the first series can most likely figure out what I mean) *and* acting in a language he didn't speak(he was later dubbed)... and still handing in such a strong performance. The cinematography remains great, and is still very hand-held, with rapid zooms and the occasional long take. The editing is sharp, with a few direct cuts in sound(though these were more prominent in the first). Now, with all that said, I would really like to be able to rate this a perfect 10... or at least just under, like the first four episodes. I truly enjoyed watching, and I don't regret it in the least. But this does have shortcomings... the ones the first part had and more. As the first, the humor just takes up too much space... and this time around, it's even worse. There are several new regular characters that are there for no other reason than to provide comic relief... three of them, no less. Scenes are set up and executed for no other reason than to make the audience laugh. Fine for a comedy, but what is it doing in such a dark and unpleasant, yes, nothing short of sadistic at times, horror piece? Helmer's solitary secret hiding place of solitude is changed from the hospital roof... from which he could see his beloved Sweden... to a bathroom. With an angle from inside the bowl. No, you read that right. In general, the humor seems more low-brow... more sex and bodily function jokes, which, again, begs the question "Why?". Whilst most of the writing is excellent, some of it is downright dire. Several scenes are basically copied from the first mini-series(one would guess due to their popularity when it aired). At times, the drama seems a bit more bombastic than that of the first, and it jumps too much at times. Fortunately seldom, but still noticeably, plot points and items are explained away too easily(a certain character living in Denmark for no apparent reason, for example... anyone who's seen it knows who I'm speaking of). The two dishwashers, while still mysterious and insightful, become too much of a gimmick... too overexposed, in the end, I guess. Most of the scenes with them are still enjoyable, though. In addition to that, I want to reassure any reader of this that in spite of all the negative things I have just written that this is still mostly good... definitely enjoyable, compelling, powerful... and in my humble opinion, it should definitely be seen by anyone who liked the first(though if belong in that group; do not expect to feel that the story is finished after watching this any more than you did after the first). I recommend this to any fan of Lars von Trier and anyone who enjoyed the first Riget and wants more where that came from. I urge anyone who's even considering watching this to make sure you've seen all of the first before you do... I bought this before I bought the first, but I held out on watching until I had bought the first and watched that, and I can't tell you how glad I am that I did. Though this features a brief summary of the events in the first, there are an immense amount of details and aspects that you would miss out on if you didn't see it before watching this. Slightly lesser sequel, but definitely still one to watch if you liked the first. 8/10

I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective "advanced" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to "protect" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.<br /><br />Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.<br /><br />Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved.

I saw this today with little background on what to expect of the storyline. I go to the movies as an escape, to leave everything behind and enjoy a "story". I found this to be a good movie, not great, but good. It was worth my money and my tears :)<br /><br />Diane Lane was wonderful as always, Richard Gere isn't an over-actor. He held his own and has a certain presence that we always come to expect. He brings his own style to the movie.<br /><br />I think it was the kind of love story that doesn't always get told. It was messy and they had other priorities, but they wanted to be together and wanted to wait for each other.<br /><br />I'd definitely recommend it!

Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman along with Jennifer Aniston combine to make one of the funniest movies so far this 2003 season (late May) and a good improvement on Carrey's past crazy and personally forgetable roles in past comedies. With a slightly toned down Carrey antics yet with just the zap and crackle of his old self, Carrey powerfully carries this movie to the height of laughter and also some dramatic, tearfully somber moments. Elements of Jim's real acting abilities continue to show up in this movie. This delightful summer entertainment hits most of the buttons, including dramatic elements along with the goofy moments that fit perfectly with this script. While still lacking in the superbly polished ensemble of comedy/drama, Bruce, Almightly deserves credit for being a great date movie along with a solid message and soft spiritual cynicism and parody that maintains its good-natured taste. Eight out of ten stars.

While I don't consider myself a big fan of fairy tale movies, Stardust intrigued me based on seeing Michelle Pfeiffer in the trailers as a villain (especially since I was about to see her as the bossy Velma Von Tussle in Hairspray). Boy, is she so convincingly evil here as a witch, especially with her age-ugly makeup in the beginning and end! Robert De Niro is also great as the pirate captain who's forced to hide "in the closet" to protect his "reputation"! Just about all the actors like Claire Danes, Rupert Everett, Ricky Gervais, Peter O'Toole and many others do fine work here. While Danes and Pfeiffer are classic beauties, there's also stunning faces of Sienna Miller, Olivia Grant (as Girl Bernard), and Kate Magowan especially when we first meet her. Newcomer Charlie Cox is fine as the lead Tristan and he looked so much like his father Dunstan as a young man that I thought that was him in early scenes with Magowan (actually Ben Barnes). Many comments have compared this to The Princess Bride and while I can see some resemblances, the main difference was that with PB, you always knew it was just an imaginary tale as told by an old man to his grandson. Stardust makes you believe, for the most part, that what you're seeing and hearing could have actually happened even with all the hilarity that happens throughout. So on that note, I highly recommended Stardust.

I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!

Thank God that there are films out there that don't follow the same old Hollywood crap formula. I think the digital revolution and the DVD revolution is actually making it possible for more interesting work to get out there even if you have to dig harder to find it. I love it when a film takes its time to draw you in deeper and deeper into its inner emotional reaches. It really was like taking a trip through the soul of America and that soul is disturbed and confused. What really blew my mind was the way they used Martin Luther King's speeches about Vietnam and references to his assassination in a way that hit me hard. I found myself choked up every time i heard his voice. I've heard him speak before, of course, but the way they used the speeches here made me feel like I understood his message in a way I'd never thought about.<br /><br />What can you say about a movie that has heavy statistics about war, oppression and a plea for compassion at the end of it where a credits crawl would usually be? In fact, there's no credits at all in the film. You have to access them by selecting them in the features. Somehow that made me think a lot. All in all I can't say enough about this DVD. Brilliant.

I enjoyed this movie okay, it just could have been so much better. I was expecting more action than what I got...which was more of a comedy than anything else. Granted, it was serious in parts and it had a good fight scene here and there for the most part it was more romance and comedy with some action and no horror at all. Which is hard to do with a vampire movie. A vampire hunter loses his partner and must train another, his sister is going through a difficult break up, but she is being pursued by a vampire of all things. Granted, this vampire is rather nice and not into sucking blood. So that is all there is really to it except for a plot of another vampire after certain royal vampires so he can gain ultimate power. Some of the problems with this movie is that its plot went here and there and the movie had a very uneven flow to it, that and it seemed to shift genres a bit much too. One minute action, the next pure comedy. However, the girls were cute, there is good action, the comedy was worthy of a chuckle or two and Jackie Chan makes a rather energetic appearance or two. This movie probably just needed more development in some areas such as the villain who is basically not really explored at all. So for a movie with a few good fights and a chuckle or two this is rather good...though why was it rated R? I have seen stuff we have made that is PG-13 that is a lot worse than this.

Bend it like Beckham is packed with intriguing scenes yet has an overall predictable stroy line. It is about a girl called Jess who is trying to achieve her life long dream to become a famous soccer player and finally gets the chance when offered a position on a local team. there are so many boundaries and limits that she faces which hold her back yet she is still determined and strives. i would recommend it for anyone who likes a nice light movie and wants to get inspired by what people can achieve. The song choices are really good, 'hush my child, just move on up...to your destination and you make boundaries and complications.' Anyway hope that was at help to your needs in a review. Bend it like Beckham great flick

I love All Dogs Go to Heaven even though I'm a guy. This and The Land Before Time are the best animated films that Don Bluth has made! In the movie Gharlie Barkin (Burt Reynolds) is helped by his friend Itchy (Dom DeLuise) freedom out of the pound in New Orleans 1939. Charlie who's in casino business wants to share equal with his partner Carface (Vic Tayback). Carface who is unwilling to share the equal with Charlie pushes a car on a bridge onto Charlie killing him! Charlie enters heaven and meets Annabelle (Melba Moore) who shows Charlie that his time is up by showing him a watch that has stopped and she explains that All Dogs Go to Heaven because all dogs are naturally good! Charlie hides the stop watch behind his back and switches it back and he returns to Earth alive with Annabelle screaming You can never come back! Charlie reunites with Itchy and they go and explore soon to find out that Carface has not only attempted to murder Charlie he has also kidnapped a little orphan Girl named Ann Marie (Judith Barsi). When Carface leaves Charlie and Itchy help Ann Marie escape. The next day Charlie Itchy and Ann Marie go to look for money! Ann Marie sees a couple who she thinks would make great parents for her! While Ann Marie talks to the couple Charlie sneaks up behind the man and steals his wallet! Charlie Ann Marie and Itchy then go to a horse race where they bet the man's money that a horse will win the race! The horse they said would win winds up winning and Charlie, Itchy, and Ann Marie are payed $1,000 for the bet! Charlie promises Ann Marie he'll use the money to give to the poor but winds up buying a new casino and gambling and buys pizza for his friend Flo (Loni Anderson) and her puppies. Soon Ann Marie has found out that Charlie had stolen the wallet from the man and used his money on the horse race and everything! Charlie sad about this has a dream about going to Hell and the Devil! Soon Charlie awakens and finds out that Ann Marie is gone! She has left to give the wallet back to the couple who forgive her about the wallet and invite her to breakfast! Charlie asks Ann Marie to leave with him and she does pretending to be sick but are captured by mice who try to feed them to King Gator but they manage to escape! Soon Carface shows up and captures Ann Marie. He plans to drown her but Charlie comes to the rescue and calls on King Gator who eats Carface. Charlie's time is up and he must die again. Itchy with the help of the other dogs finds the couple who took Ann Marie in and get them to come with them to where Ann Marie is. They are there in time to save Ann Marie but are too late to save Charlie who's time has ended! Charlie who is awarded for his heroic effort for saving Ann Marie is welcomed back to Heaven but before he enters he says good-bye to Ann Marie who has been adopted by the couple and asks her to take care of Itchy for him. She says yes and tells Charlie she loves him and good-bye! Charlie enters Heaven again as it's said All Dogs Go to Heaven! Filled with wonderful animation, characters, and story Don Bluth has proved to us again that he is a good animator! It's too bad this movie was release the same year Little Mermaid which is my favorite Disney movie! They both came out in 1989 which was the year before I was born! I guess I'll have to call them both the Best Animated Features of 1989! 10 out of 10!

This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.<br /><br />The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.<br /><br />Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.<br /><br />My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.<br /><br />Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.

TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood "comedies".

This is sweet. The actress who played the nurse with the gonzongas is the same actress who plays Elvira mistress of the dark. Another little tidbit is the actress who played the nurse who would give her wedding ring was the landlord lady of Roy Munsin in King Pin. This is most glorious story ever to be told. It should sell more copies than the bible. My parents played a part in suggesting the release of this movie to a local movie theater. The movie ran for a week and we were one of 4 families to see it. The lady who gave the go ahead (friend of the family) was let go by the theater. I was 3 years old. I have burned through 4 copies on VHS and finally had it converted to DVD. It's beautiful.

Lensman is a rather lesser-known Anime gem from Toho and MK studios.It's loosely based on the novel,but it reminds me more of the game "Metroid".<br /><br />If you want to see this,see it in Japanese with Subtitles or just plain Japanese.The English dubbed version was almost cropped and edited to death.<br /><br />There is not much new,despite the fact that it's the 1st animated feature to combine CG-graphics with hand-drawn animation,but it's fun to watch,nevertheless.

Fortunately for us Real McCoy fans (most likely all Baby Boomers who grew-up in the late 50's and 60's), three of the adult actors/actress appeared when they did for the reunion show, in 2000. Tony Martinez and Richard Crenna both died shortly thereafter. As enjoyable as it was to see Luke, Sugar-Babe, and Pepino together again, it was equally mysterious about the complete absence of any mention of Lydia Reed and Michael Winkleman? It is my understanding that Little Luke had passed away in 1999, but I'm not sure how. There is no information about Hassie on the internet, that I can find. Very curious why they were not even mentioned? It was so conspicuous, their absence from the Reunion show, that I suspect that the family of Michael and Lydia herself (if still alive) either, 1) requested to be left out of the discussion and therefore their desire was granted, or 2) TNN could not find any trace of either Michael or Lydia (like the rest of us), they seemed to have vanished. Therefore, it would be the safest policy to leave them out of the conversation all together.<br /><br />Otherwise, the retrospect on Walter Brennen was wonderfully done. They made no bones about it ... it was Grandpa who made the show such a success. I remember, as a child, mimicking Grandpa's gimp walk and my parents laughing (as I'm sure a million other children did back then). One annoyance that did bother me a bit, was the tendency for Richard Crenna to dominate the discussion ... at times interrupting Tony and Kathleen to make a point. In fact, although Tony Martinez seemed completely capable to contribute to the conversation, he was not allowed to speak-out and say too much during the Reunion show. Unfortunate, since I wanted to hear from all three, equally. All in all, the Reunion Show was a real treat for me. I've watched it on DVD several times and have enjoyed it each time.<br /><br />Dodgerdude

h.o.t.s. is one of those sexy 70's drive in movies that features many of playboys famous playmates from the 70's like sexy tall blonde Susan kiger,Pamela jean Bryant,Lisa London,kc winkler and the late sexy Angela Ames.and would you believe a post partridge family Danny bonaduce?its the snobby girls verses the good girls(the hots girls)led by Susan kiger.there's a couple of comedy relief gangsters,a runaway bear,a trained seal,misplaced bras,etc;etc;think animal house meets hooters.h.o.t.s. is an enjoyable little comedy with t& a no complaints here.i actually think that Susan kiger was one of playboys sexiest playmates from the 70's.she did do a few more movies including deathscreams.if you like fun drive in movies you will no doubt enjoy h.o.t.s. 7 out of 10

The plot of "Sally of the Sawdust" is the usual melodramatic stuff-- an orphan, rags-to-riches-- but the film rises above most silents thanks to three people: <br /><br />This is not, of course, D. W. Griffith's masterpiece, but it does showcase his film-making savvy in full maturity. He uses all his innovations, which are techniques we take for granted now: close-ups, cross-cutting, a mobile camera, and the ability to modify acting from theatrical exaggeration to cinematic subtlety.<br /><br />W. C. Fields also showcases his skills-- not his signature gruff delivery, but his remarkable dexterity as a physical comedian. He does a few inventive juggling acts, cut too short to be fully appreciated, and some very deft pickpocketing, but it seems that every prop that comes within reach gets manipulated for comic effect-- hat, cane, car roof, dog, cash. He's a joy to behold.<br /><br />Finally, there's Carol Dempster. Much has been said against this actress, but her performance here is also richly comic. She was 22 at the time, playing a teenager, and her approach to the role is a combination of grace and awkwardness that may not be wholly convincing, but she truly engages the eye when she's on screen-- particularly when she's dancing. She's not a beauty--though she's positively luminous in the one scene where she's gussied up like a Talmadge sister-- but her plainness only adds to Sally's character, especially in the many moments when she shows very obvious affection for Fields as her guardian/"father." Few, if any, Hollywood performers could compete with Fields when it came to comedy, but Griffith gives his leading lady every chance to match her co-star, and Dempster absolutely holds her own.

Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.<br /><br />While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.<br /><br />This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.<br /><br />Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.<br /><br />

For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.<br /><br />Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.<br /><br />How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****

A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.<br /><br />The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!<br /><br />Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10

This was a pretty dull movie, actually. I think the problem with a French horror film, is that the French must be easy to scare or something, because this movie wasn't just that frightening. The special effects with the mummy's ghost looked like they didn't even belong in the film, as though someone put them in during post-production to spice them up, because the actors barely react to them.<br /><br />The plot just kind of meanders, which is the opposite of real storytelling. I guess this was based on a French TV series, where they had to distill it down to a two-hour movie.<br /><br />The plot is that a mummy is brought out of storage in the Louvre, which apparently has such weak security that this girl and her boyfriend can break into it multiple times. (So THAT'S how people keep stealing the Mona Lisa!) The boyfriend and the police officer from the 1960's version of this film get together and try to exorcise the demon.<br /><br />So I'm not sure if this mummy was supposed to be a bad guy or not. He kills two guards during the course of the movie, but he just wants to get to the afterlife.

Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster.

What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started, ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there, ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than most.<br /><br />The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired, worn cliché of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER ***** During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but, AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER ***** Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence. But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing ***** END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE, strong 8/10!!!

This movie was not very entertaining, certainly NO WHERE as original or as good as A Christmas Story. The characters (except the youngest) try to emulate the preceding actors, and they fail. The hillbilly neighbors come out of nowhere as they weren't a part of the first movie. This really sucked, might have been good with the original cast, then again maybe not because the story is so weak. Skip it.

Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Fire Down Below". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like "On Deadly Ground" and "Fire Down Below", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.

Take the secret agent / James Bond craze of the sixties, mix in some concepts from Sax Rohmer's female Fu Manchu femme fatale and stir in some absurdest twisted revisionism by director Franco - you have the man-hating lesbian Sumuru, or "The 7 Secrets of..." - better known as "The Girl From Rio" in the USA, recalling "That Man From Rio," which has nothing to do with this. Yes, this does take place in Brazil, we must give it that. Sumuru, or Sumitra as she's also referred to, is like an evil version of "Modesty Blaise," played here by actress Eaton with that familiar coy smile which most of us first became acquainted with in "Goldfinger." There are numerous close-up shots of her staring off camera, slowly opening her mouth, probably while watching something unpleasant (however, she is doubled in her key lesbian scene). She controls an entire army of female warriors, colorfully costumed, and rules a city called Femina or something (just outside Rio de Janeiro?). These concepts, which previously appeared in "The Million Eyes of Sumuru," sound terrific, but, despite some intriguing set design & visuals, it follows the same campy atmosphere of, for example, the very dated "Some Girls Do," which came out around the same time and which also featured a female army. At first glance, the sight of all these armed females, usually lined up in a row, catches one's interest, but, after 15 minutes or so, you realize there's nothing else there beyond just setting up the visual.<br /><br />The plot follows what seems like a secret agent, a male, arriving in Brazil with 10 million dollars. He catches the attention of the local crime lord (Sanders, hamming it up as an elderly Bond-type villain), who sends dark-suited thugs in bowler hats to accost him. This sets everything up for a 3-way conflict between the agent, the crime lord and the mysterious Sumuru (the crime lord wants Sumuru's secrets). Sumuru also keeps various prisoners in glass cages - maybe that's one of the secrets. This sounds exciting but there are problems which go beyond just a slow pace; there are many shots which could have used a lot of tightening: one shot of an arriving airplane, for example, stays on the craft as it settles to a near stop, as if this had never been captured on film before. There's a similar approach to a typical sunset, as if there's something unusual about it. The fight scenes are very substandard, as if the filmmakers had to use the first takes. To add some production value, there's a scene of the real Rio carnival about midway through. I'm guessing there were various budget problems, especially evident in the climactic battle, where fake sound effects and smoke cover up a lot of bogus action, such as the lack of even real-looking guns - it calls to mind those times when kids use plastic guns and pretend bullets are being fired, falling over unconvincingly. There are touches of sadism, such as torturing a character to get answers, and female nudity, an early depiction of such after some restrictions were lifted. But, mostly, you'll be rolling your eyes. Hero:3 Villains:5 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts/Chases:3 Gadgets:4 Auto:4 Locations:6 Pace:3 overall:4

Very typical Almodóvar of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.<br /><br />The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a "very select" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do.

I love Claire Danes, and Kate Beckinsale looks amazingly immature in her role. The movie is flawed only because it seems the two accused seem to be in some Monastery, working like monks in the grass and under strict almost martial-arts-like discipline. The acting and filmography and amazing colors of what is supposed-to-be Thailand is eye-catching, but Claire Daines steals the entire movie, and is unexpectedly profound in her learning the hard lesson of life itself to the very end, in an act of amazing unselfishness unheard of and completely unexpected in the real world. The flaws are minute and I recommend the film, which seems buried sadly forever to rare TV showings. I for one want the film for my collection- a collection of only "10" rated films. Watch it, you will be very touched.

I know it was supposed to be a long walk, but really!!!!<br /><br />The costumes were a bit yuk, but still... it was the 1970's I suppose!!!<br /><br />It was a bit long and dull, so give me the newer version any day!

Michael Ritchie's "The Couch Trip" is a wonderfully anarchic comedy about what makes a good psychiatrist. It is so subtle and wicked that you start to realize what a stinging satire it really is. It is also Dan Akyroyd's best movie, made in a particularly great film year (1988)for him. First, "The Great Outdoors" and now this.<br /><br />Akyroyd stars as John Burns, a career crook who fakes insanity to escape prison. Now, a dumb comedy would just be about this. But "The Couch Trip" uses this as a springboard for everything else. Beverly Hills psychiatrist George Maitlin (Charles Grodin, subtly hilarious here)has a nervous breakdown and a replacement is selected: Lawrence Baird, who happens to be Akyroyd's psychiatrist! You can pretty much guess what's going to happen, but the great thing about "The Couch Trip" is not what happens, but how it is done. <br /><br />"The Couch Trip" gives Dan Akyroyd the best role he has ever had. His John Burns is one of the truly original comic creations in movie history. Wicked one liners and physical humor are a part of it, but what makes it special is that Akyroyd makes Burns a lovable character. We root for him and grow to like him a whole lot during the 98 minute running time.<br /><br />But Akyroyd isn't alone here. He gets strong support from other great comic actors. Walter Matthau joins the hilarity as a con artist minister who catches on to Burns' secret and commits genteel blackmail. Charles Grodin "slow burns" his way to another great comic role as the burned out psychiatrist. Grodin has been one of the most underappreciated actors in Hollywood. It's criminal they haven't used him more often. Richard Romanus plays Grodin's slimeball lawyer to perfection.<br /><br />"The Couch Trip" is one of many films made by the now-defunct Orion Pictures Corporation that are currently unseen. MGM spent a fortune buying the Orion library but have yet to truly cash in on their acquisition. "The Couch Trip" joins "Dressed to Kill", "Blow Out" and countless others in gathering dust rotting in the vault. Shame on MGM for their inaction. Hopefully, with new management, "The Couch Trip" will find the audience and respect it deserves.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars

This was perhaps the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. Forget that it's clear no research was done regarding Detroit (forest in downtown Detroit! Bwahaha!!). The writing was horrible, the premise completely implausible, and quite frankly, the characters were embarrassing. I cannot for the life of me understand why seasoned actors would stoop to such a low and participate in something this god awful. Now, I have never seen the original and don't know if this movie pays tribute to it's original form. It's my understanding that the original was not set in Detroit. Why they would deviate from that without researching details about the setting only tells me that it was more than the cast that was looking to pay the rent. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this junk, unless you're from Detroit and wish for some comic relief.

For animation buffs it's a must, but even general audiences will enjoy THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, a very early example of 'pixilation' by the hard-working pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz. Starewicz and his helpers painstakingly manipulated a cast of flexible insect figures to tell this story, paving the way for the likes of Willis O'Brien, George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, and legions of modern digital effect creators.<br /><br />THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is only about 10 minutes long, but packs in lots of amusing detail as the story follows the amorous adventures of two beetles from their home to a nightclub, a hotel, a cinema, and, eventually, a prison cell. There are two brief dance numbers at the nightclub (performed by a frog and a dragonfly), a scuffle between a beetle and a grasshopper, and a large-scale donnybrook at the cinema, which ends with the projector bursting into flames. Pretty elaborate goings-on for 1912, when even John Bray and Winsor MacCay were just getting started, and Walt Disney was still in grade school!<br /><br />It's interesting to note, too, what an impact the alteration of a silent movie's title cards can have on the story being told. I've seen two versions of this film offered by two video companies, and watched them back-to-back, and although the image content itself is almost identical, two different sets of intertitles tell two very different stories. (And the plot outline someone provided above tells yet a third story, which suggests that there's another version out there somewhere.) The British Film Institute's print, which has rhyming intertitles, tells the story of two sibling beetles, each secretly married, who hide this information from one another in order to inherit their late father's fortune. The other, Russian print, tells a simpler story of married beetles who are each guilty of infidelity. In the Russian version Mr. Beetle visits his girlfriend at the "Gay Dragonfly" nightclub, while in the English version brother Bill Beetle visits his wife at the music-hall. Personally, I prefer the straightforward-- and spicier --Russian story; the BFI version tries to cram too much plot into what should be a simple tale, and some of the rhymes are a bit awkward.<br /><br />Still, in any rendition, THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is a delightful film, and would make an ideal lead-in to that other great animated work which features beetles, YELLOW SUBMARINE.

Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that – not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there…

I wasn't quite sure if this was just going to be another one of those idiotic nighttime soap operas that seem to clutter prime time but, as it turns out, this is a pretty good show (no small thanks to talented casting). Four female friends with diverse backgrounds get together and share the weekly goings-on of their love-lives. The hour long program follows each of them separately through their often screwed up quests to find love and it does it without being boring or trite. Sharon Small's "Trudi" is the homemaker one (allegedly widowed after September 11th) who gets a little preachy and annoying with her friends (who tend to be a little looser and more creative in their endeavors). It's great to see Small back on t.v., as she was great in the "Inspector Lynley Mysteries". The chick can act. Orla Brady's character (Siobhan, a lawyer) is perhaps the most damaged but still very sympathetic of the women, as she wrestles with her kind but self-absorbed husband Hari (Jaffrey, formerly of "Spooks") in his driven desire to have a child with her, regardless of her needs. The final two members of the cast are the effervescent Jess (Shellie Conn), an events planner who's a wild child who sleeps with anyone and everyone, gender not specific, and Katie, (Sarah Parrish) a somber doctor who's affair with a patient AND his son have sent her career and love life spiraling out of control. That being said, I'm hooked now and hope that the BBC continues cranking this series out because it's good, it's different and it's got a great cast.

I recently waisted 8 € by going and see this movie in the cinema. It was a waste of time and the only feeling you get going out of the theater is a slightly nauseous of all the disgusting social pornography. <br /><br />It could have been interesting if it had a quite absurd twist but it hadn't so it was just plain awful with maybe one or two scenes which could have been taken out and made to very nice short movies.<br /><br />Another thing I thought about is the way the director uses all the Finish stereotypes as characters. It is quite extraordinary how you as a Finish director can make a movie with the worst stereotypes of your own nationality. It was sad to sit and and hear the audience sitting and laughing at things that they thought was typical Finish but in general just is making fun of people.

If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.

I was VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.<br /><br />Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones.

"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.

This outlandish Troma movie is actually a very good movie. It is known as their epic and best and most highly rated production. Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore. Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is "Street Trash" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies. I have one Troma movie, "Terror Firmer", which has a reputation as their goriest and nastiest movie. I enjoyed "Tromeo and Juliet" so much, that I need to finally watch "Terror Firmer". This is a 2-disc Collector's version with four commentaries and many many features. "Tromeo and Juliet" is an absolute hoot and highly recommended.

The Turner Classic Movie Channel has spent the month of January doing the films of one of my favorite actors, Robert Montgomery. His films are mostly rarely watched these days, except for those that were atypical for most of his career - meaning that the roles that frequently reappear on television are THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, JUNE BRIDE, NIGHT MUST FALL, THE SAXON CHARM, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, RAGE IN HEAVEN, THE EARL OF CHICAGO (in short the films he fought to get the roles in because they were not the usual comic fluff he usually appeared in). It's ironic that nowadays when one thinks of Montgomery's career it is the films that were mostly made after 1937 that are pushed - the ones that broke the original image that MGM and Louis B. Mayer pushed. The pity of this is that Montgomery was a gifted comedian, and saved many films from being routine.<br /><br />PETTICOAT FEVER is one such film. Made in 1936 with PICADILLY JIM and TROUBLE FOR TWO it was a banner year of good performances by Montgomery, and helped lead to his being able to convince the powers that be at MGM to allow him to play "Danny" in NIGHT MUST FALL the next year.<br /><br />PETTICOAT FEVER is set in Labrador, and Montgomery is a weather station operator there named Dascom Dinsmore. He has been living there for five years, and has not been in the company of a woman (except for Inuit women) for most of that time. He has a girlfriend of sorts named Clara (Winifred Shotter) who he sort of proposed to, but it's been two years since he has heard from her, so that he believes she has given up on him.<br /><br />Dinsmore's world is rocked when Sir James Felton and Irene Campton (Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy) show up. They were flying to Toronto for a business meeting that Felton was to address. Felton is engaged to Campton, but Dinsmore finds her enchanting...and gradually she finds him equally attractive. Certainly the pompous, self-important, and hopelessly inept Felton is no competition (it is a measure of Owen's acting that he keeps the character entertaining even if one finds it hard to believe such a boob is a Canadian captain of industry).<br /><br />There is something surreal about this film - probably due to the original play. While the "Labrador" scenery is quite phony looking it does serve it's purpose for the comedy (witness th polar bear sequence). But the height of the surrealism is the dinner Dinsmore serves his guests, a dinner of "pemmican steaks", which Owen eats with real gusto. Owen (a minor noble as a baronet) is dressed in normal clothing - a winter suit for the climate). But Montgomery is dressed in his suit of evening dress (as though attending a ball at the embassy). Loy, seeing him dress up, likewise puts on a gown. They are being served by Dinsmore's servant - assistant, the Inuit Kimo (Otto Yamaoka), who is wearing a suit of evening dress too - it turns out that it is Owen's! Owen, who earlier insisted that Dinsmore change into clothing more suitable to his station, is the only person who is improperly dressed for this dinner!! Montgomery was MGM's most elegant actor in a tuxedo or evening dress (Franchot Tone was the his closest rival). It is a toss-up in movie if Montgomery or Fred Astaire was the more elegant figure in such suits. Hard to decide.<br /><br />The course of love does not move smoothly in comedy or drama. Clara shows up (we are tipped off too early about this at the start of the film when we see her on an icebound ship). Will Dinsmore break with Clara? Will Irene break with Felton? The film is funny, and Loy and Montgomery make a nice couple. They had appeared together in one other film, and both were in separate scenes in a second, before this movie. But this would be their last film together.<br /><br />One last interesting point - at the start of the film when the credits are shown, you see illustrations of men and women in comic situations. They are based on the art work of John Held Jr., the great cartoonist/illustrator of the 1920s and 1930s - who was the recorder of the flapper and "Jazz Age". It's an unusual choice - as it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's plot or Labrador.

This adaptation for TV was a wonderful vehicle for Bill Irwin to show his ability to perform physical humor. With the backdrop of a struggle between an actor and his writer/director, Bill uses his clowning antics to showcase a variety of skills including hat tricks, pantomime, dance and various physical devices.<br /><br />Although it takes a big swipe at the entertainment industry and his craft, it is engrossing for people of all walks and ages.<br /><br />This work was televised as a PBS special. Bill performed a piece of it on the Tonight Show, but out of context it did not go over well.

So, what's the reason? Is there some sort of vendetta against this AWESOME show or somebody involved therein? Why would the best show I've seen in years be canceled? I'm addicted. I saw this show on randomly last fall, and immediately loved it, and watched it every week. Then it went away, and I tried to Tivo it, but it wasn't being aired. So I forgot about it for awhile, until I found the episodes on ABC's website. Now I want MORE. I agree with everybody else - with the rest of the junk on TV today, it was refreshing to see something as well-rounded and developed as this. I watch Boston Legal for my eccentric-comedic fix, and House for my intellectual-mystery-jackass fix. My wife loves Grey's Anatomy for its "realism", and I do love/hate the show, but it could not be farther from real for me. WAY too much drama. Everything that can go wrong, does. But for once, there's a drama that's REALLY real. Real people, real problems. Sure, there are some extremes like a former gangster turned good, girl running from the mob, etc., but these people (especially in NYC) are really out there, and I relate to each and every one of them. I can't seem to get enough. I just hope that ABC will get their heads out of their bean-counting butts and continue this show. Get some respect for having a QUALITY drama out there. This could be one of the best shows of all time. If somebody will just let it.