Datasets:

Lucylulu

/

imdb

like 0

train_4171

I ran across this several years ago while channel surfing on a Sunday afternoon. Though it was obviously a cheesy TV movie from the 70s, the direction and score were well done enough that it grabbed my attention, and indeed I was hooked and had to watch it through to the end. I recently got the opportunity to buy a foreign DVD of this film (oops, didn't notice a domestic one had finally come out a couple months prior), and was very pleased to be able to watch it again (and in its entirety).I don't wholly understand the phenomenon, but somehow the 70s seem to have a lock on horror movies that are actually scary. The decades prior to the 70s produced some beautifully shot films and the bulk of our enduring horror icons, but are they actually scary? No, not very. Likewise in the years since the 70s we've gotten horror movies that are cooler, more exciting, have much better production values and sophisticated special effects, are more fun, funnier, have effective "jump" moments, and some very creative uses of gore, but again... they aren't really scary! There's just something about the atmosphere of the 70s horror films. The grainy film quality. The spookily dark scenes unilluminated by vast high-tech lighting rigs. The "edge of dreamland" muted quality of the dialogue and the weird and stridently EQ'd scores. The odd sense of unease and ugliness permeating everything. Everything that works to undermine most movies of the 70s, in the case of horror, works in its favor.Specifically, in this film, the quiet, intense shots of the devil dog staring people down is fairly unnerving. So much more effective than if they had gone the more obvious route of having the dog be growling, slavering, and overtly hostile ("Cujo"?). The filmmakers wisely save that for when the dog appears in its full-on supernatural form. The effects when that occurs, while unsophisticated by today's standards, literally gave me chills. The bizarre, vaguely-defined, "I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at" look intuitively strikes me as more like how a real supernatural vision would be, rather than the hyper-real, crystal clear optical printer / digital compositor confections of latter-day horror films.While the human characters in this film are not as satisfyingly rendered as their nemesis or the world they inhabit, the actors all do a decent job. The pairing of the brother and sister from the "Witch Mountain" movies as, yes, brother and sister, is a rather cheesy bit of stunt casting, but they do fine. Yvette Mimieux always manages to be entertaining if unspectacular. Richard Crenna earns more and more empathy from the audience as the film progresses. His self-doubt as he wonders whether his family's alienness is truly due to a supernatural plot or whether he's merely succumbing to paranoid schizophrenia is pretty well handled, though his thought that getting a routine physical may provide an explanation for what he's been experiencing is absurd in its naïveté.The movie's The-End-Question-Mark type ending is one of the only ones I've seen that doesn't feel like a cheap gimmick, and actually made me think about the choices these characters would be faced with next and what they'd be likely to do and how they'd feel about it.Detractors of this film may say it's merely a feature-length vehicle for some neato glowing retina shots, but hey, you could say the same thing about "Blade Runner". :-)

train_12156

Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top!

train_3216

Stoic and laconic soldier Sergeant Todd (a fine and credible performance by the ever reliable Kurt Russell) gets dumped on a desolate remote planet after he's deemed obsolete by ruthless and arrogant Colonel Mekum (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Jason Isaacs), who has Todd and his fellow soldiers replaced with a new advanced breed of genetically engineered combatants. Todd joins a peaceful ragtag community of self-reliant outcasts and has to defend this community when the new soldiers arrive for a field exercise. Director Paul W.S. Anderson, working from a smart and provocative script by David Webb Peoples, depicts a chilling vision of a bleak, cold and harsh possible near future while maintaining a snappy pace and a tough, gritty tone throughout. Moreover, Anderson handles moving moments of humanity well (Todd's struggle to get in touch with his previously repressed feelings is genuinely poignant) and stages the stirring action scenes with rip-roaring gusto. Russell gives a strong and impressive almost pantomime portrayal of Todd; he conveys a lot of emotion without saying much and instead does the majority of his acting through his body movements and facial expressions. Bang-up supporting turns by Jason Scott Lee as brutish rival soldier Caine 607, Connie Nielson as the compassionate Sandra, Sean Pertwee as the kindly Mace, Jared and Taylor Thorne as mute little boy Nathan, Gary Busey as crusty seasoned veteran Captain Church, Michael Chiklis as the jolly Johnny Pig, and Brenda Wehle as the sensible Mayor Hawkins. Better still, this film makes a profound and significant statement about the spiritual cost of being a merciless soldier and the importance of intellectual strength over physical might. David Tattersall's polished cinematography, Joel McNeely's rousing full-bore orchestral score, and the first-rate rate special effects all further enhance the overall sterling quality of this superior science fiction/action hybrid outing.

train_394

This is an incredible comeback from movie director mastermind, Tsui Hark. It is one of a few movies that deserves to come a face to face match to Steven Chow's Shaolin Soccer. From the moment the movie started,there was astronishing backdrops at every edge which weredeplicted with superb style. If you are a science fiction or chinese martial arts "geek", you'll love the excessive amounts of many 3D effects and realistic computer generated weapons. There, comes a fine performance(as always) from Ekin Cheung who plays "Sky King". He teams up with Louis Koo(Red) who i was very impressed by his flexible "wing" which deflected incoming attacks. The fighting movements of these actors were proficient in every way. Not only is the action superb but the has a somewhat complex storyline. Many Criticisers of this movie complain of the lack of story/theme or just "shoved in random bits of debrise" and even describe as "The Legend of Poo". However, the viewer cannot rely on watching Dragon Ballz and other similar Manga Cartoons to understand this movie. Others who are famarialy with "Wu Xia" movies will have a better appoach. In due respect. there can be one weakness that could be foreseen. The blow that was deliveried to the enemy at the very last fight scene could of been more substantially and devastiingly made.In spite of all this, its a must see.

train_7931

Man, if anyone was expecting a great zombie movie after reading that title, then you are a retard and you deserve to be disappointed. As for myself, I was expecting a low-budgeted cheeseball zombie flick- and that's exactly what I got. I wasn't disappointed at all. I thought it was a cool little movie. The zombies were exactly as they should be, because all of the zombies had JUST been turned, so they are freshly-undead zombies. Obviously they did that because it would've been pretty costly if they had done full-on rotted zombie FX. I understood the whole thing, I have no idea how anyone could seriously nitpick this movie. It's called "HOOD OF THE LIVING DEAD" for the love of God! Would you watch "Redneck Zombies" and ANY Uwe Boll movie and actually EXPECT it to be great? Of course not! So why there are some morons on IMDb whining like school girls about this movie, I'll never understand. Oh and YES, there ARE worse movies out there, so stop saying that this was the worst you've ever seen, 'cause you know you're full of it! You ever watch "ZOMBIEZ"???? Or "Feardotcom"????? Or "House Of The Dead"???? THOSE are some of the worst I've ever seen. If you can't see that it's just a low- budgeted zombie movie obviously made by zombie movie fans, then something's wrong with you. I just had fun with it. Thumbs up from me and I'd also like to see a sequel.

train_9131

'I only wanted to see you laughing in the Purple Rain.' This is an excell film. It should have been re-rated to PG-13. But anyways, Prince's first film and greatest. The follow-up sucked. But I haven't seen for years so here's what I can remember about it. The Kid (Prince) has to juggle with winning over the love of his life, Apollonia (herself), keeping his band together (The Revolution as themselves) and the tension in his family. But his rival band (The Time as themselves) is ruining his life. Like Morris (himself) is trying to steal Apollonia from The Kid. Just like Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance and 8 Mile. Really good. Rent it, laugh and cry and if you luv it, buy it.

train_24169

I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.

train_6565

I know the film snobs are snorting. But if you're looking for a surprisingly fun ride through the B-movie jungle, try "Jake Speed".A little thin at times, but its one-liners and the location more then make up for this. John Hurt(God love him), seems to be having fun doing his role as the ultra evil white slaver. The nemesis of Crawfords, Jake Speed. He adds a dimension to the film that only a pro like Hurt could provide. Crawford and Dennis Christopher( Jakes sidekick) are a good team,although you do wonder why they both put up with each other.However ,together both Crawford and Christopher portray a team that is just so much fun that, if you can get over yourself for a moment, you may find yourself acting like a kid again at the situations and the inherent suspense they provide.The delicious Karen Kopins does a great job as the damsel in distress that is more concerned about the motives of her rescuer then her tormentor.I have yet to find a movie that is as much fun without getting preachy,or bogging down the movie by trying too hard. Not every movie has to be the latest "Citizen Kane". And trust me,Wells was an original. So lets remember that sometimes, movies are for fun.Not social commentary or attempting to sway an audience politically. But just for the sheer fun of being alive and living in a time when our hero's live in a celluloid dimension.

train_1584

In Rosenstrasse, Margarethe von Trotta blends two stories to create a vibrant tapestry of love and courage. The film depicts a family drama of estrangement between a mother and her daughter, and the story of German women who staged a protest on Rosenstrasse to free their Jewish husbands from certain extermination. In addition to the dramatization of historical events, the focus of the film is on the saving of a child from the Holocaust by a German and the result of the child's experience of losing her mother. While Ms. von Trotta shows that the courage of a small number of Germans made a difference, she does not use it to excuse German society. Indeed, she shows how in the midst of torture and extermination, the wealthy artists and intellectuals of German high society went on about their lives and parties, oblivious to the suffering.Rosenstrasse opens in New York as a Jewish widow Ruth Weinstein (Jutta Lampe) decides to sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning that takes place following a funeral in which Jewish family members devote full attention to remembering and mourning the deceased. When her daughter Hannah (Maria Schrader), is forbidden to receive phone calls from her fiancé Luis (Fedja van Huet), a non-Jew, Hannah questions why her mother has suddenly decided to follow an Orthodox tradition that she previously rejected. When Ruth coldly rejects her cousin, Hannah questions her and learns about a woman named Lena who took Ruth in as a child when the latter's mother was deported and murdered by the Nazis, and she vows to find Lena and discover the secret of her mother's past.Her quest takes her to Berlin where she finds Lena (Doris Schade), now ninety years old, and interviews her on the pretext that she is a journalist researching certain aspects of the Holocaust. With unfailing memory, Lena tells her story of how, as a young 33-year old woman (Katja Reimann), she searched for her husband, Jewish pianist Fabian Israel Fischer (Martin Feifel), who disappeared and was presumed to have been imprisoned despite the protection normally given Jews in mixed marriages. Lena, in a radiant performance by Reimann, discovers that her husband and other Jews are being held prisoner in a former factory on the Rosenstrasse.Standing together in the freezing night, German women whose husband are missing congregate outside the building, their numbers growing daily until they reach one thousand shouting "Give us back our husbands". Lena finds Ruth (Svea Lohde), a young girl whose mother is in the building. She takes care of her, protecting her from the Gestapo and raising her after her mother is killed. Lena comes from an aristocratic German family and her brother, recently returned from Stalingrad, is a Wehrmacht officer. After being refused help from her father to free Fabian she enlists the aid of her brother who tells a fellow Officer, "I know what they do to the Jews. I saw it". Given his support, she is bold enough to bypass channels and go to the top where her beauty and charm prove irresistible for the Minister of Culture, Joseph Goebbels, a known womanizer. While this fictional part of the film has been criticized as degrading to the women protesters, it is a historical fact that Goebbels was very active in making the decisions affecting Rosenstrasse.The director Margarethe von Trotta, an activist, feminist, and intellectual, is no stranger to political drama. She directed a film about Socialist Rosa Luxembourg and Marianne and Julianne, a story of the relationship between two sisters, one of whom resorts to political violence to accomplish her liberal objectives. In Rosenstrasse, a film she worked on for eight years, she had to make compromises, adding the present day fictional element in order to have her film produced. That it works so well is a tribute to Ms. von Trotta's artistry and the beautiful screenplay by Pamela Katz whose father was a refugee from Leipzig. The events at Rosenstrasse give the lie to Germans, who say, "there was nothing we could do". Now von Trotta has shown the opposite to be true, that something could be done to resist the Nazis. It is tragic that the example did not catch on.

train_14735

I bought this movie and after I watched it I decided that I did not care for it. The acting was BAD. Was the principal a robot? He had no personality and his facial expression didn't change through the whole movie. At times the voices didn't match up. People talking and their lips didn't even move.

train_9704

I can't believe it's been ten years since this show first aired on TV and delighted viewers with its unique mixture of comedy and horror. This is the show that gave birth to a good part of modern British humor: Dr. Terrible's House of Horrible; Garth Marenghi's Darkplace; The Mighty Boosh; Snuff Box. Many have imitated this show's style, and I don't deny some have surpassed its quality. But Jermy Dyson deserves being remembered for having started the trend, with actors Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton, and Reece Shearsmith.Together they created Royston Vasey, a sinister small town in England's idyllic countryside, where unsuspecting tourists and passers-by come across an obsessive couple that wants to keep the town local and free of strangers; where the unemployed are abused and insulted at the job center; where a farmer uses real people as scarecrows; where a vet kills all the animals he tries to cure; where a gypsy circus kidnaps people; and where the butcher adds something secret but irresistible to the food to hook people on.This is just a whiff of what the viewer can find in The League of Gentlemen. By themselves, the three actors give birth to dozens and dozens of unique characters. The make up and prosthetics are so good I actually thought I watching a lot more actors on the show than there were. But it's also great acting: the way they change their voices and their body movement, the really become other people.Most of the jokes start with something ordinary, from real life, and then blows up into something unsettling, sometimes gut-wrenching. Sometimes it's pure horror without a set up, like in Papa Lazarou's character. Just imagine a creepy circus owner on make-up barging into someone's house and kidnapping women to be his wives. No explanation given. It's that creepy. Then there are the numerous references to horror movies: Se7en, The Silence of the Lambs, Nosferatu, The Exorcist, etc.Fans of horror will love it, fans of comedy will love it. As any traveler entering knows, there's a sign there that says 'Welcome to Royston Vasey: You'll Never Leave.' Any viewer who gives this show a chance will agree. Once you discover The League of Gentlemen, you'll never want anything else, you'll never forget it.

train_9218

First off, let me say I have wanted to see this movie for about a year now because I knew Angelina Jolie was in it and I love her. But my love for her has nothing to do with my opinion of the movie. Anyhow, no video stores carried it but low and behold the local library did. I watched it and absolutely loved it. Yes there were Italian stereotypes but it was done well and funny. It was not degrading in any way.Every actor and actress did a superb job. I laughed very hard at the sexual humor. Overall, I think this movie is well worth seeing if you can find it. It is adorable and just plain fun to watch. I rarely rank movies as a 10 but I give this one a 10!!!Go find it and watch it!

train_8485

Gung Ho tries to express many ideas and entertain us with a wiseguy comedy at the same time. The result is uneven, but generally entertaining. Keaton balances all three aspects of his lead character quite well. Wantabedde is even better. One warning: George Wendt is very poor in his supporting role. Otherwise, this is quite enjoyable time capsule.

train_23377

This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.

train_20780

Watching this I mainly noticed the ad placements. DHL, Aquawhite Strips, Rockstar and more. It's one product placement after another. It's quite obvious how this movie got its funding. Jessica Simpson's "acting" is laughable. Any Dick shouldn't ever get work because he plays the same lame character. The "story" is just a backdrop for this very long commercial. I can't believe this movie was even considered for theatrical release. The longer you watch this movie the more you're embarrassed for everyone involved. The only minor saving grace is Larry Miller and Rachael Lee Cook, who gets almost no screen time as Jessica's cousin. I'm embarrassed I watched the whole thing. I would recommend avoiding this one.

train_2905

This is a very funny movie, easy to watch, that entertains you almost all the time. The work of the Director is recognizable and the type of humor is his trademark. The movie is a typical police partners history like lethal weapon, but the jokes and comedy are of Argentinian sort. The twist is that one of them is a psychologist played by Peretti and has to go with detective Diaz (played by Luque) on his assignments while he also assist him (Diaz is troubled because his wife cheated on him). Some of the dialogs are hilarious worldwide: understandable and laughable anywhere. Is very good overall, it would deserved an 8, but I rated 7 because it gets a little down at the end. On a personal remark I must add that is a "bravo" for Argentinian Filmmakers, considering the little good is coming lately.

train_2276

If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.

train_13412

...for one of the worst Swedish movies ever...forgive me for being dull.First of all i haven't seen the first one (i was bored that's my reason for watching the 2nd before the 1st one), well i hope the first one is better than this, it was filled with weird cut scenes and very strange plot changes, For the people that have seen this and think 4/10 is high (belive me so do i), but it made me laugh a few times, because it was so bizarre so bad and i still laugh thinking of the punk that came up with this idea, what's next "Det sjunde inseglet II". Sequels not based on novel or book doesn't turning out great to often, and this is a perfect example of one.OK i'm gonna be honest with you: i did laugh a bit, it got a few decent jokes in it and slapstick humor. But don't buy it, rent it. Just let some other idiot do it or download it.4/10 This movie will be remembered and the director is probably laughed out already...

train_20403

I think i watched this movie, but don't quote me, as i may have fallen asleep during watching it as it didn't exactly "grip my excitement and imagination." At least i know i watched enough of it to know i won't be watching it again soon. Or ever.Jeez, talk about lame... Really lame. Totally lame. It wouldn't even appeal to a six year old. It basically had NO worthwhile dramatic impact. Zilch. Nada. Just shlock turned into dreck. Comedy? That was supposed to be comedy? Ya coulda fooled me-ee-ee...!Now, if the aliens had been insatiably carnivorous like in the movie "Critters", we could have had the human characters do something a little more profound than be overly smugly cutesy... like yelling and screaming and running for their lives so they wouldn't be eaten so the story could be something more exciting than watching paint dry.Don't bother watching this. It's not worth the effort. You can find something more interesting to do. Like watching paint dry. Or falling asleep.

train_17306

I don't know what it is with these Brady kids. First, Barry Williams publicly brags about having sexy with his TV sister, Maureen McCormick, then about dating his TV mom, Florence Hederson. Then, Susan (Cindy) Olsen does music for a bunch of porno movies. Then Mike (Bobby) Lookinland gets in trouble for drunk driving. Finally, Maureen (Marcia) McCormick and Eve (Jan) Plum might have had a little same-sex fling on the side. Now, Christopher (Peter) Knight is pursued by a beautiful young model in her early-20s during his stint on "The Surreal Life", which at first was fun to watch, and now they are married and in a very volatile and hostile relationship. The last episode, where she posed for a bunch of nude photographs with another naked girl for a scrapbook to give to Christopher for his birthday, was not a good move on her part. And he dealt with it in a very mature fashion, just picking up and leaving to clear his head. I think he was always bowing to her every need and now he's finally taking a stand. And I hate to say it, but I think she abuses him, verbally. The way she was torturing him for an engagement ring and the way she reams him for every little thing. Also she talks openly about having flings with other women and it is obvious she still sleeps around on him with women and men, which is not something any self-respecting human being should do when already married to someone. If this were a man talking down to his wife like that, and going out every night partying and having sex with other people, everyone would be rallying behind the wife to leave him. Why should this be any different. What started out as a cute little crush on another reality show blossomed into a huge disaster. Adrianne, as beautiful as she is, is like another Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, clearly in need of some therapy because she cries like a baby over so many silly things. I feel sorry for her, but Chris needs to rid himself of her, because he is a good man who cannot afford to be humiliated like this.

train_20040

The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, is by no means a good movie, but I can't really say it's one I regret watching. I could go on and on about the negative aspects of the movie, like the terrible acting and the lengthy scenes where Cage is looking for the girl, has a hallucination, followed by another hallucination, followed by a dream sequence- with a hallucination, etc., but it's just not worth dwelling on when it comes to a movie like this. Instead, here's five reasons why you SHOULD watch The Wicker Man, even though it's bad: 5. It's hard to deny that it has some genuinely creepy ideas to it, the only problem is in its cheesy, unintentionally funny execution. If nothing else, this is a movie that may inspire you to see the original 1973 film, or even read the short story on which it is based.4. For a cheesy horror/thriller, it is really aesthetically pleasing. It's pretty obvious that it was filmed on location instead of using green screen or elaborate sets, so we get to see some very great scenery. There are also many nicely composed shots. It is a very good looking movie.3. Nicolas Cage is not so much an actor as he is a force of nature. Whether you're a fan of his or not, it seems as if it's impossible for Cage to play a "normal guy". There is always some kind of eccentricity or nerdiness he brings to the characters he plays, and personally, I am always fascinated by watching him in any movie he does. Whether Nicolas Cage is great or terrible, he always brings his unique energy into play, and he is never boring to watch. He is terrible in The Wicker Man, but in the most wonderful kind of way.2. A student could probably write a hell of a paper on this movie, as it seems to be the strongest anti-feminist movie ever made. "See?" you could write, "this is what happens when women are allowed to run a society!" Also, the similarities between this "Summersisle" society and a bee colony are pretty interesting and worth noting.1. If you're reading this, there's probably a good chance you may have seen a YouTube video that has become very popular: a collection of "highlights" from the movie, including Cage running around in a bear suit, and of course, the infamous "AAGHH!! THE BEES!! MY EYES!!!" line. These scenes are hilarious out of context, and they are still fairly funny while watching them in the film's entirety.I bought the used DVD at Blockbuster for about 5 dollars...when you work that out, it's about a dollar per reason. It's a pretty good deal.NOTE: The Unrated version of the movie is the best to watch, and it's better to watch the Theatrical version just for its little added on epilogue, which features a cameo from James Franco.

train_7873

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

train_11729

elvira mistress of the dark is one of my fav movies, it has every thing you would want in a film, like great one liners, sexy star and a Outrageous story! if you have not seen it, you are missing out on one of the greatest films made. i can't wait till her new movie comes out!

train_13970

I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of "The Big Chill" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like "The Big Chill," it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt ("where have you been all this time" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did "Unca Lou" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, "Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?" She replied, "No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of."

train_15649

Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the "Wood"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!

train_21803

I am writing this review having watched it several months ago....the trailer looked promising enough for me to buy this lame excuse for a movie. It is a complete joke....and literally a spit in the face of real classics of the early generation of horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which they even had the gall to compare itself to on the back of the cover art. The producer who played Brandon should go flip burgers and serve up greasy hamburgers....hell he might not even be good at that either! The lighting was bad bad bad and a big annoyance through out the film you couldn't even see the actor's faces sometimes. I don't even remember the rest of the cast members which is sad really, bad they never do anything to impress you to make them memorable. That's all the time I will waste on this review PLEASE stay as far away as you can from this pile of junk even if you get it for 25 cents don't do it buy s piece of gum at least IT would keep you entertained!If you want good quality low budget fun, far better than this... then check out a Jeff Hayes film....because it takes talent to make it in horror and the kid has it!I gave this 1 star just for the cover art....thats the only thing worth liking abut this so called "film"-Rick Blalock

train_10200

All i hear about is how poorly the animation is done. It may not be up to par with what everyone expects, but look at it this way. Would you expect perfection in hell? It is my belief that the animation was made dry and gritty on purpose. It was great to see her character transformation in this movie, considering it will probably be as close to live action as we will ever get. I hope for a sequel very soon. If we want live action, i think we may be better off with Chastity or Purgatori. I don't think Lady Death would transfer well to film. But be that as it may, It is my own personal belief that all the naysayers about this movie are DEAD wrong. No pun intended.

train_12685

The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two. The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are. Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything. But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never. The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it. But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann. What a great, great director. See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.Thanks, Anthony.

train_20391

The IMDb plot summary in no way describes the essence of this film. It should have read 'Be prepared to be catapulted back to the prison of the 3rd pew from the back of your family's church at 8 years old, listening to the preacher drone on about God's will while all you can think of is getting back home to your Lego'.It starts off well intentioned, building intrigue by planting some real and surreal clues such as Renny's 'how did the cut on my thumb heal so fast?' moment. It then slowly morphs into a Christian jamboree, sacrificing its plot completely in a wash of evangelistic-induced babble. I believe I counted the use of the word 'pray' about 53 times in a five minute span near the end. After the 31st, I tried to twist the context of the word to its synonym, 'prey'. Sadly, this little mind game of mine made the film at least bearable for the last 20 minutes. Plus it made me laugh whenever a character would say 'prayer' ('preyer' to me) as it became totally zany. Indeed, even my Catholic wife sunk in her chair from boredom, almost to the point of ending up on the floor.For all the salivating Christians who ranked this film 8-10 stars, I suggest sticking with your theology-reinforcing safety standards like Circle Square, The Ten Commandments, anything from Narnia, Jesus Christ Superstar and the like. Stay away from more cerebrally challenging subject matter in films such as Jesus Camp, The God Who Wasn't There, What Would Jesus Buy, or the soon-to-be released Religulous.Maybe Robert Whitlow's book is better.

train_23848

Six GIs, about to be send home and discharged, get drunk and sneak into a cult meeting in Asia. Surrounded by hooded figures, two male dancers pretend to have a fight. Behind them, on an altar, a woven basket opens and a figure painted emerges and begins imitating a snake, finally biting one of the dancers on the neck. The imitation snake is dressed in some scaley looking body tights. (This is definitely a female imitation snake.) The cult member who has sneaked them into the secret meeting has warned the six men repeatedly that the ceremonies must not be interrupted and, most definitely, no photos must be taken or else they will be hunted down and killed. Naturally, the GIs take a flash photo, send the cult members into an angry hysteria, steal the basket containing the "snake" and run off with it into the Asian night.One of the guys, the most offensive and snarky, dies from a cobra bite on the neck, though no one can explain how the snake got into his hospital room.Back in New York, it all seems rather old news as the discharged men settle down into their civilian lives, still maintaining their bond with one another. Their jobs range from manager of a bowling alley (David Janssen) to graduate research student (Richard Long). James Dobson, Jack Kelly, and Marshall Thompson are also part of the neighborhood. Richard Long has a nice blond girl friend. Kelly is a somewhat reckless womanizer. But they all get along well enough and all of them seem happy.Then a dark, shifty-looking, mysterious woman (Faith Domergue) shows up and Marshall Thompson takes a liking to her and insinuates her into the group.Guess what happens. First Janssen is terrified by a shadow in the back seat and dies in a car crash. Then Kelly gets a visit from Domergue. Something scares him so badly he tumbles through the window and dies in the fall to the sidewalk. Long and Dobson begin to suspect what the viewer already knows -- that Domergue has had something to do with the deaths. They also reckon that maybe she's turning into a cobra, which is the case. Dobson confronts her with his suspicions and she proves his point.By this time Long and Thompson are thoroughly frazzled, particularly Thompson, who is in love with Domergue and has discovered that she is attracted to him, too, although he must explain to her what "love" is. No matter. A final reckless attack by the cobra woman against Long's girl friend -- not one of the six original offenders -- and Thompson must throw the snake out the window. On the pavement below, the body changes to that of Domergue. The end.I think I'll skip over most of the questions that the plot raises. I'll just mention one of the more prosaic ones in passing. Who paid for Domergue's fare from somewhere in Asia to New York? Who's paying her utility bills in the hotel? Who paid for her spectacular wardrobe? How come she speaks American English so well? What the hell's going on? The writers and director have clearly seen some of Val Lewton's modest horror films and, though not much effort has gone into this production, they've unashamedly stolen some gimmicks from Lewton. In Lewton's "The Cat People", for instance, the woman is transformed into a black leopard but, with one tiny exception, the threat is always kept in the shadows and is all the more spooky for it. Most of the transformations here use shadows too, but unlike Lewton's, the shadows are clumsy and unambiguous.Lewton also made occasional use of what he called "buses". Lewton's first "bus" was a literal one. A potential victim is hurrying alone through the dark tunnels of Central Park with only the sound of footsteps. Something or someone is following her. She freezes with fright under a street lamp. Something rustles the branches of the shrubs above her. She looks upward. There is a loud, wheezing shriek that makes your hair stand on end. It's a bus using its air brakes to stop for her. The producers used at least two "buses" in this film and they amount to nothing. A guy is walking distractedly across an intersection, for instance, and there is the sudden rumble of a truck that almost hits him. There is no set up to the shot. It's jammed in with a shoe horn.I don't much care for movies that perpetuate the stereotype of serpents as slimy, ugly, venomous, and phallic. As a matter of fact, no snakes are slimy, most are harmless, and many are extraordinarily beautiful. Furthermore, they're more feminine than masculine in their sinuous movements and serpentine approach to goals. You want a reptilian symbol for masculinity? Try a six-lined racerunner. It's a really fast lizard. When it sees something to eat, it rushes up and gobbles it down.Anyway, if you want to see some fine, low-budget scary films, don't bother with this one. Find "The Cat People" or one of Lewton's other minor masterpieces, of which this is an obvious copy.

train_14734

I bought this DVD for £1 and now i realise why. The acting was the worst I've seen in a long time. The lighting and sound are shoddy at best. The plot makes little sense even when sober (WARNING: I don't advise watching this film when sober.) This film feels like you're watching the home movie of someone who doesn't get out much. It really is a shame that all the very little money spent on this project went to such a waste, I look forward to seeing if any of those envoled still have a career, other than eva longoria who is the only "star" of this film that was apparently not hit with the bad acting stick. I'm sorry that none of this criticism seems constructive but I will say one thing to James Cahill, don't try it again. In the words of squirlyem "Its severely lacking in the good department".

train_7834

Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.

train_23960

Fairly amusing piece that tries to show how smart Orcas are but in the meanwhile (and quite oblivious to them) makes the audience feel stupid by making the most ridiculous film. Richard Harris plays Quint.. I'm sorry, that's wrong, he plays Captain Nolan, a fisherman who catches sharks for a living, but is lured by the big catch, and tries to catch a killer whale. When the capture of a female killer whale goes awry (don't ask) it's mate (don't ask) goes on a rampage (don't ask) and starts STALKING Captain Nolan (Don't ask). Soon, Captain Nolan realizes that they have something in common (don't ask). Pretty amazing film-making here folks. I got to tell you though, the beginning (with the whale noises and nothing much else) is pretty haunting and the end credits (with the most godawful song) is pretty entertaining.

train_18542

I should say right away that I checked the spoilers box only because I'm giving this comment the amount of thought proportional to what this mess of a movie deserves, and don't want to be held responsible for some plot point incidentally slipping out.This comment will take the form of a tirade for the simple reason that I am still under the influence of this movie, having just watched it, and the unique effect this has renders one incapable of the sort of forethought and paragraph structure required for coherent, reasoned criticism. That is not a compliment. It isn't the narcotic effect of a truly hypnotic or thought provoking movie. The feelings it stirs up combine like some uncomfortable emotional Voltron, composed of a confusing mix of some form of rage, the vague desire to take a shower, the rudderless, sinking feeling of true betrayal one gets when they realize they have given 109 minutes of their lives into the hands of someone who would not only squander it, but do so in such a pompous, artless way. And I probably wouldn't have done anything super productive with that 109 minutes anyway! But even if I'd spent it on something trivial, like a power block of masturbation and online poker, I would have felt more fulfilled when all was said and done.The problems with this movie are myriad, and in better times I'd articulate exactly what they were in a semi-adult fashion. But in keeping with what this movie deserves, I think I'll most likely stick to the realm of masturbation jokes and cartoon references.The most irritating and terminal flaw is that while watching this movie one is keenly aware that the makers and participants think they are making a much smarter movie than they are. Demonstrating the depth of knowledge one could pick up in a one semester survey of Western art history at a community college or trade school, the art-jargon is piled on thick and from all directions, with much of it supplied by talk between our hero, the tortured detective Stan (Willem Dafoe, who I will forgive for this movie due to him being Willem Dafoe) and his accented antique dealer buddy Blair (Peter Stormare, taking a break from playing a sociopath for whom murder comes easy by playing a 2-dimensional plot device in a movie about a sociopath for whom murder comes easy). And talk they do. In fact, we are dropped into this story at a crime scene that may indicate the reemergence of a serial killer Stan thinks he killed years earlier, so all the back story is established partially through unclear flashback, but primarily through stilted conversations between Stan and his dealer, or Stan and his colleague, the unforgivably irritating Carl (Scott Speedman). And although I differentiate the character Carl (Scott Speedman) from the actor who plays him by using parentheses, I must admit that very early on in the film I despised this character so much that I actually found myself sincerely wishing harm on the actor portraying him (Scott Speedman). Not anything too fancy. Not death or paralysis, necessarily.. But maybe herpes? Or maybe a stage light could fall on him and crush his arm? This is a dangerous digression, but I'm not editing it out because I want to leave anyone reading this who's thinking about paying to see this train wreck of a movie with a clear impression of the horrible wishes and feelings it stirs in even the most peaceful man.Well, I'm sort of running out of steam here.. over the course of writing this the sick feelings this movie brought up in a me have subsided, my head has cleared a bit. Realizing now that I'm still investing time in something related to this piece of sh!t is startlingly similar to waking up after a night of suicidally heavy drinking next to the heaving form of a still slumbering 200 pound college girl. Your first urge is a desperate desire to flee. This is natural.

train_3451

First of all, this film was not released to theatres (TESTED POORLY THEY SAY),I say they figured the story of crooked cops, politicians & dedicated newspaper people had been done to death,just send it DVD & cable TV> & take the money & run.That being said I usually like this type of movie, especially with this named cast. Morgan Freeman, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Spacey,L.L.Cool J, Cary Elways, John Heard & on the distaff side, Piper Perabo & Roslyn Sanchez.The plot & story have been done to death, BUT the above cast brings life to this violent movie & it is actually watchable.Justin Timberlake Is good as the dedicated young reporter for a throw-away newspaper edited by Morgan Freeman, The others are either crooked Cops,& Politicians or somewhat decent guys, The 2 ladies are the girl friends of LL COOL J & JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE & do whats required, It is quite violent, many killings etc, not for children. By no means is the a great film, BUT for what it is & the cast It is definitely good,Ratings *** (out of 4) 86 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)

train_3769

Oh, come on, learn to have a little fun. When I was a kid, oh, this movie was Oscar-worthy to me. I thought it was absolutely hysterical. One of the best movies I had seen.Now, it's a little stupid, but come on. If you enjoyed "Excellent Adventure", you should most likely have fun with "Bogus Journey". This was the movie before "Dude, where's my car?". Only this one is actually funny. Like I said, it's just a good time. It shouldn't be taken seriously and if you enjoyed the first one, you should like "Bogus Journey". It's just a funny movie with some memorable characters. For your enjoyment only, watch it, let go, and remember that it's a silly comedy. That's all.7/10

train_17025

Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run...

train_22853

I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner. The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.A wrinkle in time:*/****

train_8577

I think Hollow Point is a funny film with some good moments I have never seen before in action movies. Well,both Tia Carrere and Thomas Ian Griffith aren't so good in acting, but Tia Carrere is nice and good looking girl, isn't it? But Donald Sutherland is superb in his role so-so mad gangster.

train_18572

DeNiro is a master...one of my favourites. And I love GOOD sports movies {not into baseball so much, but hey, its sports movies, right?. I was expecting MUCH more for this movie. It seems to start out well: DeNiro is what I expected, Snipes {whom I don't really like} is very good as the spoiled star. Barkin's role, to me, was OK. She's a good actress, but seemed out of place in this role. To me, they always seemed to rush the scenes, and then it drags a bit in places. It just seemed tio me to be so uneven! Considering the cast and the plot, it could have been so much better. I rated it a '4', and I was being generous ~ I'm a tough one with numbers!

train_7980

Man On Fire tells a story of an ex-special forces guy with a drinking problem who accepts a job as a personal bodyguard of a little girl in Mexico during the wave of kidnappings for ransom. At first he's not to friendly, but then they befriend with each other, he decides to stop drinking etc., etc... then one day she gets kidnapped... and killed...And HE, won't stop at anything to get the revenge.That's basically the story of Man On Fire but expect some big twists at least a few times including the ending which is beautiful and will probably make you cry.That's also because of the great music Harry-Gregson Williams with Lisa Gerrard (Gladiator) composed.But the strongest part of the movie... wait... the thing is, everything here is perfect.First - acting. Denzel Washington is at his best, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken good as always, great Radtha Mitchell and AMAZING young Dakota Fanning. And that's not the end of the list...Then come the cinematography which is dazzling and along with superb editing, should have won an Oscar for sure.The story is... not just a revenge movie. The story is intelligent, the story makes you think... and is pure beautiful. Really.This is one of those movies you need to see in your lifetime, at least once!

train_24159

I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately. As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.

train_19697

OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.

train_9590

Documentary starts in 1986 in NYC where black and hispanic drag queens hold "balls". That's where they dress up however they like, strut their stuff in front of an audience and are voted on. We get to know many of the members and see how they all hold together and support each other. As one man says to another--"You have three strikes against you--you're black, gay and a drag queen". These are people who (sadly) are not accepted in society--only at the balls. There they can be whoever and whatever they want and be accepted. Then the film cuts to three years later (1989) and you see how things have changed (tragically for some). Sounds depressing but it's not. Most of the people interviewed are actually very funny and get a lot of humor out of their situations. They're well aware of their position in society and accept it with humor--just as they should. We find out they all live in "houses" run by various "mothers" and all help each other out. The sense of community in this film is fascinating.When this film came out in 1990 it was controversial--and a big hit. It won Best Documentary Awards at numerous festivals--but was never even nominated for an Academy Award. Their reason was "Black and hispanic drag queens are not Academy material". Fascinating isn't it? Homophobia and racism all together. Seen today it's still a great film--and a period piece. It just isn't like that anymore--the NY they show no longer exists. The balls are still held but not in the spirit we see here. Also drag has become more "accepted" in society (for better or worse). And I've heard the houses are gone too. That's kind of sad. I WOULD like to know where these characters are now--I know two died of AIDS but I have no idea about the others. And what DID happen to that 13 year old and 15 year old shown? Still, it a one of a kind documentary--fascinating, funny and riveting. A must see all the way! A definite 10. Where's the DVD???

train_280

Undying is a very good game which brings some new elements on the tired genre of first person shoot em ups. It tells the story of Patrick Galloway an expert of the occult and a formidable fighter who is summoned by a friend to his estate in Ireland to investigate some weird phainomena. The game is set in Ireland after World War one so don't expect to find weapons like chainguns or rocket launchers.All the weapons in the game can be considered antiques but the real fun in the game are its spells and the system they operate on.Our hero is ambidexterous so he can use both his hands at the same time: he casts spells with his right arm and uses his guns with the left.So you can shoot and cast spells at the same time which as you understand very fun and also unique to this game! The graphics are great and they can run very well on a medium power P.C..Level design is also cool and atmospheric. Mostly the game revolves around the Covenant estate and the mansion but there are many other locations waiting to be discovered as you progress. Thanks to the talent of Clyve Barker the game has an excelent storyline and plot (something very rare for a First person shooter) and i said before a great and very spooky atmosphere the voice acting is also good but not excellent. But the game has two main flaws. First of all it is quite linear so when your mission says for example go to that room all the doors in the house will be locked apart from those that lead to the room of your mission this may save time but it restricts your liberty of exploration.Secondly the fact all the weapons are antiques may not appeal to most fps players who are used to high tech weaponry. As far as difficulty is concerned the game is very well balanced. Most of it is of medium difficulty but sometimes it gets more difficult but not frustratingly difficult. Overall undying is a great game. Definitely one of the best fps out there.

train_22901

Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!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.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.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. 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.

train_6604

'Renaissance (2006)' was created over a period of six years, co-funded by France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom at a cost of around €14 million. The final result is a staggering accomplishment of comic-book style animation, aesthetically similar to what Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller achieved with 'Sin City (2005),' but this film employed motion capture with live-actors to translate their faces and movements into an entirely animated format. Presented in stark black-and-white, the film looks as though it has been hoisted from the very pages of the graphic novel on which it was based, and the futuristic city of Paris looms ominously above us. Directed by French filmmaker Christian Volckman, in his feature-length debut, 'Renaissance' draws significantly from other films in the science-fiction genre, and the tech-noir storyline isn't something we haven't seen before, but, from a technical standpoint, it is faultless.The year is 2054. The city of Paris is a crumbling metropolis filled with dark alleys and deserted footpaths, the recent installation of modern technology merely offering a thin mask to the pitiable degradation of the darkened buildings. The city's largest corporation, Avalon, achieved wealth through offering citizens the promise of beauty and youth, and the company's research department is continually striving to invent greater means of eliminating the aging process. Ilona Tasuiev (voiced by Romola Garai in the English-language version, which I watched) , a brilliant young scientist, is mysteriously kidnapped on her return from work, and so it falls to legendary detective Barthélémy Karas (Daniel Craig) to uncover her current whereabouts. Possibly holding the key to the woman's disappearance is Bislane (Catherine McCormack), Ilona's hardened elder sister, whose trustworthiness is in question, and Jonas Muller (Ian Holm), the dedicated medical doctor who adored Ilona as his own daughter.The eerie, dimly-lit city of Paris is reminiscent of Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner (1982),' and some of the technology looks as though it might have been borrowed from Tom Cruise in 'Minority Report (2002)' {which was, coincidentally, also set in the year 2054}. However, despite this familiarity, Volckman has created an exciting world for his characters to inhabit. Blending classic film-noir and science-fiction, the result is an eye-catching collage of harsh lighting and dark shadows, which, I should warn, occasionally becomes difficult on the viewer's eyes. The dialogue is a little banal at times, and the story, though engaging, doesn't offer anything strikingly original {except for the ending, which I thought was a bold twist on the usual formula}, but 'Renaissance' is intended to work best as a visual treat, and that it succeeds in this regard cannot be denied.

train_22875

This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10

train_24789

I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.

train_20359

My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see. I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment. The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.

train_18810

I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the "time facts" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored.

train_16973

Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.

train_19299

don't expect much from this film. In many ways this film resembles a film that Doris Day starred in in 1956,title, Julie. In this film Doris,who was a flight attendant,stewardess,in those days,landed the air craft after her derange husband,played by Louis Jordan shot the captain. She did a far better job,more convincing,than Kim Ojah,who took control of a 747 and manage to land it without much help from the control tower. I know a little about 747 aircraft,i use to be a flight attendant myself. Like i said,do not expect much from this film,it was done on a cheap budget. The producers were to cheap to use a plane with the name of a airline on it. Oceanic is one name that several movies have used. The only writing on this plane was the name of the company that made the aircraft.

train_13263

I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague.

train_5077

Indian cinema typifies cops of two broad categories: they are either the honest type or the bad guys. The honest guys always shout at the top of their voice and fight the system while the bad cops enjoy for most part but suffer at the end.This movie at least breaks this usual formula and gives a refreshing view of cops and their lives. The direction takes an inside look at the life of a young ambitious cop who. The music is interesting and the editing is a trend setter as far as Indian cinema goes.The movie is slow at times and the dilemma which Anbu faces when it comes to Maya is overplayed at times. But I would still give this one 9/10 simply because it has many firsts to its credit.

train_19315

The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain – actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father – ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!

train_359

I can't believe I am just now seeing this film -- I think perhaps I thought it was another movie about slaves being mistreated, and I avoided Roots for the same reason -- just as I have yet to see Schindler's List -- I don't want to be "entertained" by other peoples' pain, not matter how authentic or informative it is supposed to be.So I guess the main thing I noticed about The Color Purple was that it was not about black people being mistreated by whites. The black people were perfectly capable of raping their own daughters -- or giving them away to be treated as slaves by their "husbands". It was painful to watch, but everyone redeemed himself in the end, and the acting was phenomenal! I couldn't believe the character Oprah played at the age of 35! And I adore Whoopi to start with - she was amazing. I'm so glad I was feeling lousy yesterday afternoon and Showtime was running The Color Purple.

train_19637

The cars in this movie are awesome. The acting in this movie is awful. The plot and driving scenes don't make much sense and are equally bad. If you get really bothered by movies where someone shifts and suddenly goes ridiculously faster, save yourself the trouble and money. Good movie for racing fans? Well, there is a part where they make the mistake of referring to a NASCAR driver as a rally car driver. If you can't tell the difference, go watch it, you'll have a blast. It really comes down to this, there are really really really nice cars in this movie, they are driven horribly and are completely unrealistic. The acting is horrible mainly because of the extremely bad plot. If you want to see hot girls, turn on mtv or vh1 instead. I am disappointed that such nice cars would be represented in such a bad movie. If the class of the cars were to match that of the movie, they should be racing with rusted bicycles.

train_19732

I thoroughly enjoyed Bilal's graphic novel when it came out, and was amazed when I saw the trailer for this film, and even more so when I found that Bilal had directed it himself. The film, however, was a major letdown. The visuals are nowhere near the rich and gritty texture of the original artworks, and the story is poorly told. Bilal seems to have chosen to focus on the more esoteric aspects of the graphic novel, and he doesn't do a very good job at it, either.The most enjoyable part of the original graphic novel was the friendship-hate relationship between Nikopol and Horus. They were both out of their right time and place, forced together by circumstance. Most of all, they were funny and likable. Not so here. Nikopol has no discernible personality whatsoever, and Horus is a pompous twit who just wants to get laid. Even though the film is French, Horus doesn't have to be!We have all seen films we enjoyed, but wouldn't recommend to everyone, for some reason or other. I wouldn't recommend Immortel to anyone, except maybe as a warning not to overreach your talent and resources. Bilal's a master storyteller, but obviously not a master of every visual medium.

train_4764

There are some comments about this film that say that it is a bad and silly one and such an excellent actor as Pierre Fresnay should not have accepted to act in it.I think, just the opposite, that, even when the film is strange and has some weaknesses, the performance of Pierre Fresnay is so formidable that it converts the film in something excellent.His performance is probably the best in history.The film itself has a very polemic scene about the consecration of wine in the cabaret.For somebody who does not believe that a priest – even a defrocked one – can convert it in Christ's blood, the scene is perhaps bizarre. But for somebody who has been raised in a catholic framework, it is very emotive even if quite unpleasant.The scene of the death of the younger priest is tremendously shocking. But it is very well acted. Pierre Fresnay turns the crazy act of murder in something understandable within the temporal madness of his character, the tortured defrocked Morand who, in this terrible way, comes back to his duty.

train_10437

This is a slow moving story. No action. No crazy suspense. No abrupt surprises. If you cannot stand to see a movie about two people just talking and walking, about a story that develops slowly till the very end and about lovey-dovey romance, don't waste your time and money. On the other hand, if you're into dialog, masterful story telling, thought provoking ideas and finding true love in the fabric of life then this is your movie. I recommend you watch this movie when you are most alert, though, because the pace, the music and the overall tone of the movie can put you in a woolgathering mood. It's truly fantastic. I really mean that.Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are annoying with their mannerisms at times but, thankfully, the chemistry between the two makes the acting very natural, warm and tender. They act and feel each other out from the very beginning, making you feel as an intruder.In their conversations there are excellent commentaries on many subjects that will provoke thought and conversation between you and your partner. I thought it was too deep and too diverse for such young characters but I may be underestimating their intelligence. Still it did not ruin the movie.The overall story is very simple which I think gives the movie it's charm and ultimately it's power.BOTTOM LINE: The movie's flow is slow. The dialog is fascinating. The story builds gently, systematically and substantive. The build up to the finale is satisfying and in the end rewarding.

train_19975

To be honest I knew what to expect before I watched this film, and I've got to say it has the worst acting I've ever seen. It does have its moments, and on a comedy level its very entertaining, but i'm afraid its not scary, and stupidity is taken to a new level. There's a lot of unnecessary gore, and the plot is all over the place. I have no idea why the aliens were evil, and why they even came to this remote part of wales, (i mean who'd go there anyway?) but I didn't care at that point, because I was amused by the costumes, and the bad CGI. As far as B-movies go, this deserves the title of 'being so bad, its good', and kudos to the film-makers, because they probably knew what they were doing. Long may these films continue.....

train_11494

The Unborn is a Roger Corman production and as such is nasty and tasteless. If you hate pregnant women, check out this movie because it's chock full of preggo killings and failed abortions. Brooke Adams stars as Virginia. Her and her square of a husband go to some fancy fertilization clinic because they can't have kids on their own. There they meet Dr. Meyerling (James Karen of ROTLD 1 & 2). Dr. Meyerling has had a very high success rate at getting couples pregnant. (Insert joke here.) Is it because he's creating some genetic killer supermutant babies? That's what Virginia starts to think when she starts having some odd side effects and extreme moodiness from the treatment. That's when she starts taking matters into her own hands.On this one, you'll have to get the rest of the details somewhere else because if I told ya all the goodies this one had you might hurt yourself putting it on your Netflix rental queue too quickly. It's a bit slow-moving for a while but once it picks up in the final third, all systems are go! Very highly recommended by me on the strengths of its un-PC fetal violence. 33 1/2 out of seventeen stars.

train_22840

This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.

train_11782

Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power. I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.) So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school.

train_6164

Are we really making 'video nasties' again? In the guise of a digital wide screen big budget remake of 8MM, this is quite a ride. Unfortunately there is a bit too much story and at times this becomes like a travelogue as our heroine searches the sleaze spots of Paris, Hamburg and Amsterdam. I am however being rather churlish for the 'depraved' scenes, including everything from, hot wax, harsh whipping and rough sex to drowning, beheading and some. These scenes are immaculate and it's a pity Bruno and his budget couldn't stretch to make all the many characterful creatures introduced become more than simply caricatures.

train_24102

This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two "heroes" drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His "crying" is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The "effects" were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage.

train_19014

The film attempts to be a mockumentary--shot in the documentary form but with many obviously scripted parts--but fails in not providing the audience with any characters with which to create the illusion of the mockumentary. Also, the film purports to be about finding real love in Los Angeles, but is nothing more than an uninteresting look at an amateur filmmaker trying to make his first "big movie."

train_16265

I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece.

train_13150

Why Hollywood feels the need to remake movies that were so brilliant their prime (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes) but is it considerably worse why Hollywood feels the need to remake those horror films that weren't brilliant to start with (Prom Night, The Amityville Horror) Much like their originals these remakes fail in creating atmosphere, character or any genuine scares at all. Prom night is so flat and uninteresting its hard to watch, but for all the wrong reasons.It's a poorly acted, massively uninteresting and ultimately dull excursion that fails at everything its designed to do. It's clear Hollywood Horror is dead. Even The likes of The Hills Have Eyes and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre managed to ruin their franchises in style with buckets of blood and a decent plot. Prom night is virtually bloodless and I'm not even going to mention how bad the plot is. Its inability to seal the killers identify makes this the least suspenseful horror movie since erm... the original.One of the most notorious slasher films of the 1980s returns to terrorize filmgoers with this remake that proves just how horrifying high school dances can truly be. Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow) has survived a terrible tragedy, but now the time has come to leave the past behind and celebrate her senior prom in style.When the big night finally arrives, Donna and her best friends prepare to enjoy their last big high-school blowout by living it up and partying till dawn. But while Donna is willing to look past her nightmares and into a brighter future, the man she thought she had escaped forever has returned for one last dance. An obsessed killer is on the loose, and he'll slay anyone who attempts to prevent him from reaching his one and only Donna.Who will survive to see graduation day, and what will Donna do when she's forced to confront her greatest fear? Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis co-star in the slasher remake that will have tuxedo-clad teens everywhere nervously looking over their shoulders as they file out onto the dance floor. A plot that will probably put you off going to see this. Witch if you ask me is a good thing.Without much to work with, McCormick gamely tries to milk tension out of the most banal of situations. At one point, a girl backs into a floor lamp (a lamp!) and McCormick tries to pump it up into a jump-scare moment. Desperate times really do call for desperate measures. There haven't been this many shots of closets since the last IKEA catalogue.In the era of The Hills, My Super Sweet 16 and To Catch a Predator, there probably is a freaky, scary movie to be mined from the commoditisation of glamour and society's creepy obsession with youthful beauty. This is not that movie.My final verdict? Avoid at all cost. Nobody will like Prom Night, it's even a disappointment to thoses who usually enjoy hack-job remakes. Considering its absolute lack of blood or frights. A night you'll be in a hurry to forget.

train_2089

"The Good Earth" is a great movie that you don't hear much about anymore. There are a lot of big disasters and events, but it is also a non-passionate love story. All of this happens in a little over two hours, which is short by today's standards. The special effects and costumes are very good for the time period.I am surprised that Luise Rainer received an Oscar for such a limiting role. She basically only has three emotions: submissive, hungry, and heart-broken.The performances by the Asian and Asian-American actors are terrific.

train_23250

After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 – 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.

train_20948

Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.

train_11334

I would say that this film gives an insight to the trauma that a young mind can face when a family is split by divorce or other disaster. I would highly recommend this film especially to parents or individuals planning to have a family.I found the characters to be appealing and highly sympathetic from a multitude of dimensions.The scary monster although probably not scary to most adults, has a very real hint of what the overactive imagination of a child who is facing unknown terrors might create.I found the film to be delightful!

train_17176

Edwin Porter's 1903 short film entitled "The Great Train Robbery" bursts onto the screen with so much excitement and ingenuity that one prepares to be blown away by another pioneering early film. Just like Melies' "A Trip to the Moon", critics have hailed this as being the film that introduced the western genre into modern cinema. In my eyes, they were right. It had everything from the planning, the actual heist of the train, the murder of an unwanted civilian, and that looming final scene that makes you realize that these villains mean business – it was all monumental for its time. From here to Eastwood, every western filmmaker has used Porter's image in some form or another to create their own story. One cannot say that this film didn't open the door, but the struggle comes from the story itself. The genre was defined by Porter, but outside of its initial excitement – there really isn't anything to grapple onto. Perhaps I am jaded by the cliché modern westerns and their haphazard messages, but how can something be cliché before being cliché? To me, "The Great Train Robbery" seemed forced, untraceable, and unsurprising.Unlike Melies, Porter tells a very linear story. Robbers change the course of a train, rob it, then shoot at random people just to prove they are the true villains, and the final scene ends like any predestined film, without any surprises or glitches, and that looming man with a gun to your proverbial face. It is bland. Porter's film is boring. In the edition I watched, there was an addition of color near to the end to emphasize emotion, which felt cheap and was not encouraging to the filmmaker, or to the viewer. The issue remains that while it is important, Porter's film has been borrowed time and time again, it has in effect become diluted. The story itself does not carry the emotional powerhouse it once has. Unlike Melies early film, I cannot watch this again. I know what has happened, I know there is very little missing from behind the scenes, and that finally it is just what it has set out to be – a simple story leading from point A to point B to point C. This issue is not only my gripe with this film, but also the strongest element to see in such an early film. While it was dull, the fact that it told such a strong narrative – that our characters were characters with motives and drives, was outstanding to see. In an era where nonfiction films seemed mainstream, this broke the mold. Again, not that I am jumping on the prophetic bandwagon about this film – it is an important film – it just isn't a great film.Overall, I was eager to jump into this film to see where the roots of the western genre were planted, but I was equally as happy to leave this film behind. Porter is a talented director, and G.M. Anderson obviously went on to be very successful in the created field, but I just wasn't in awe of the film. I wasn't expecting big budget effects like Melies work, nor was I expecting a duplicate of "A Trip to the Moon", but I did want to see the same creativity, exploration, and originality. I felt Porter played it safe, if that can be said with such an early film, but I couldn't feel the excitement as our villains did their evil deeds. I wasn't rooting for anyone, and the final conclusion proved that the kitschy-ness of it had worn off minutes after the film started. It was pioneering, but not monumental. "The Great Train Robbery" has lost its space in the time capsule of cinema.Grade: ** out of *****

train_8602

One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one. It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent… Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ("I married an angel", "Tira tira tira la"), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen. Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream.

train_924

Father of the pride is a pleasant surprise: It is funny, witty and features some great voice acting. The show is about the family of a Lion who is acting as the attraction of Siegfried & Roy shows. Indeed all of them are stereotypes but that's what makes them so funny. FOTP is not a kiddie-cartoon it includes some crude adult humor but in a very mild way. It is full of popculture references and celebrity cameos and most of them are very well executed. I'd say I'll give the show a 7 out of ten because it is nice fairly well executed but not very original, I've seen most of those stereotypes many times before, even in that particular order!

train_3385

Soylent Green I found to be an excellent movie.If you like Logan's Run you'll like this.Yes the movie is old and there are no special effects and some of the acting can somewhat be best described as "cheesy" but the story is excellent.The story of how the world can be and its impact on society is very poignant.At the end the mystery wasn't a mystery but the story unfolded in an easy at the right pace.It's nearest modern day equivalent would be "Dark Angel" in terms of how the US is shown to be third-world country.

train_23544

Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!

train_3649

I've seen a lot of TV movies in my time as a student, the majority the normal waste of time that US television throws out. This one, however, was well crafted and plotted and had a very nice twist at the end. Having only seen Richard Dean Anderson in MacGyver and Stargate I was surprised with his excellent performance rather than the rather gamut of expressions from A-B that he normally gives. It was a pleasant surprise to see Daphne Zuniga after quite a long time dating back to The Fly II. Also nice to see Robert Guillaumme in a leading role again. I can't say that I ever take Jane Leeves seriously after her Benny Hill days but she just about managed to cope well in her role. All in all a highly recommended film.

train_18738

Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion!

train_3166

This show has come so far. At first EVERYONE in the cast from Eric to Fez, they were all new actors and actresses, fresh faces, and just look what they accomplished. They stuck with the show and it was a success. Its one of the best shows ever made and its probably the funniest sitcom I've ever seen in my life. It will be sad to see it end but if they end this show, I hope to God that the series finale goes out with one of the biggest bangs that any season finale has ever had. I don't care if the whole season sucks because they save all the fuel for the final episode. Go down swinging, get one last punch in. The show deserves it, the fans deserve it, if they go, let everyone know its going to end, like on Friends, and let the finale be huge. I say get Donna and Eric married, I say have Hyde and Kelso fight and become friends again, I say have something interesting happen between Fez and Jackie because Fez has been trying for so long, but of course it wont work out for him. JUST CLOSE OUT THE SERIES BIG TIME GUYS!That 70s Show will always be the best in my eyes. Eric, Kelso, Donna, Jackie, Fez, Hyde, I wish I had you guys as friends. You are the best!10/10...

train_18898

Richard Pryor's early 80s running down the street on fire incident must have affected him somehow. In his stand up,he jokes about it getting great laughs. It seemed to have done something involving the projects he chose. The Toy is about the lamest he ever chose,aside from I guess Another You.A movie where a white man buys his son a black man? Nice little bit of underlying political incorrectness before thee was such a thing. It's seeing Richard getting all sentimental that made me finally walk out before the end. I wanted to see Pryor get even with this brat,instead it becomes the misunderstood kid nauseum! At least Gleason had his moments. Ignore this and watch Pryor with Gene Wilder or any of his '70s stuff. This is a waste of any movie watcher's time!

train_18364

I am quite sure that this was the worst movie ever made. If you can't make a 13 year old boy laugh at silly humor you should give up comedy forever. Unfortunately Joan Rivers chose differently. The movie is full of predictable gags (some of these are racist) and very unfunny jokes. Particularly memorable is the scene where the doctor tells the lead character that the rabbit has died and he is pregnant (as I write this, I cannot believe this was actually a movie scene). The man rushes to a dead rabbit on the doctors desk and tries to give it mouth to mouth. ROTFLMAO! NOT! The punch line that can tell you how bad things are in this movie is "I knew I should have been on top." ha ha ha ha ah ugh ........

train_12342

The Sea is Watching was an interesting film experience. First of all, the overall feel was intense, internalized, claustrophobic, and small. Each frame seemed to be a photograph of something inside, something very focused and not part of a bigger picture. It was obvious what we were to look at in each frame. The physicality of the set itself contributed to that feeling of smallness and intensity. The lights along the middle of the road cut the road in half, and the tiny gate to the tiny settlement followed by the tiny and few cubbyholes that served as the establishments that made up what seemed to be the entire town. Even the view of the ocean was framed by a tiny landing on which one can count the number of longer grass swaying in the wind. No panoramic views. In fact, it reminded me of the Montmarte sequence of Moulin Rouge where the camera sweepingly focuses in to the windmill creating again a feeling of a small area where everything is happening.While the acting was passable considering I really could not discern how the lines were truly delivered, I felt that the actions were overly melodramatic and nonsensical. Why Kikuno would continue carrying on the way she did when Fusanosuke announced his impending marriage really didn't seem true – people hadn't really changed that much, and the character Kikuno was so strong and resilient that even if they were busy taking on O-shin's business for naught, the reaction seemed out of character and unnecessary and distracting. Another example of odd acting was when the drunk boyfriend of Kikuno showed up and Ryosuke decided to intervene and was pushed down the stairs, the way in which he got up and menacingly came up the stairs and the ensuing fight outside among the reeds was simply unsatisfying. It wasn't that I like fight scenes – au contraire – but it seemed a little stilted and again, overly dramatic.Otherwise, while not a beautiful movie to watch, it provided an interesting glimpse into the darker side of prostitution (as opposed to the geisha). Unfortunately, perhaps it fed into our expectations of wanton women (the "honey – I'll give you a deal" comments supported by the over-stretched actions) and seriously caused me to doubt whether indeed 19th century prostitutes really acted in that way. But once inside the house, the inner workings became most interesting, vivid and real and provided a scenario I never anticipated or imagined in my romantic view of Japan in the 19th century.

train_23845

I mean the word "pedestrian". Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly "all-American" that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in "The Cat People". I think "Cult of the Cobra" should really be titled "Cult of the Contractual Obligation". Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this?

train_8860

I am beginning to see a very consistent pattern form in the identity of 2007's films. If 2004 was the year of the biographies and 2005 was the year of the political films, 2007 can be identified as a year featuring a wide plethora of morality tales, films that portray, test, challenge and question human morality and the motives that drive us to do certain things. Although this identification is rather broad, I think that there are a handful of films released this year, such as 3:10 To Yuma, Eastern Promises, American Gangster, No Country for Old Men and others that specifically question and study human morals and the motives that drive us to acts such as violence or treachery. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a deviously stylish morality tale, and quite a dark, bleak and depressing one at that. And even better is the fact that it comes from one of the greatest classic directorial forces of our time, the legendary Sidney Lumet, who many have said has passed his prime but returns in full force with this viciously rich crime thriller.It's one of those films whose plots are so thick, that one is very reluctant to go into details. It is a movie that is best enjoyed if entered without any prior knowledge to the events about to unfold, as there are twists and turns. But the thick and richly wrought plot is not at all at the center of this film; the true focus is, as I mentioned, the morality tale; the motives that drive these two men to the actions they do in the film. In a plot structured like a combination between the filmographies of both The Coen Brothers (namely Blood Simple and Fargo) and Quentin Tarantino, we see two men driven under various shady circumstances to pull off a fairly simple crime that goes incredibly, ridiculously wrong, and reciprocates with full force and inevitable tragedy. And to make it all the more interesting, the film is told in a fragmented chronology that keeps back tracking and showing a series of events following a different character every time and always ending up where it left off the last time. Sizzling, sharp, thick and precariously depressing, Kelly Masterson's screenplay is surprisingly poignant and well rounded, in particular because it is a debut screenplay.But the film has much more going for it than just it's delectably sinister and quite depressing plot. First and foremost, the picture looks and feels outstandingly well. Sidney Lumet has, throughout his career, consistently employed an interesting style of cinematography and lighting: naturalistic and yet stylish at the same time. The film carries with it a distinctive air of style and class, with wonderful natural lighting that just looks really great. Editing is top-notch; combining the sizzling drama-thriller aspect with great long takes that really take their time to portray the action accordingly. And vivid, dynamic camera angles and movements further add to the style. The film is also backed by a fantastically succulent musical score by Carter Burwell.The screenplay does its part, and of course Lumet does his part, but at the film's dramatic center are three masterful actors who deliver incredibly good performances. First and foremost, there are the two leads. Leading the pack is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who has always been an excellent actor but has stumbled upon newfound leading-man status after his unnaturally fantastic Oscar-winning performance in Capote. His turn in this film is fascinating: severely flawed, broken, manic. Hoffman has some truly intense scenes in the film that really allow his full dramatic fury to come out, and not just his subtlety and wit. At his side is Ethan Hawke, who has delivered some fantastic performances in many films that are almost always overshadowed by greater, grander actors. Here, he bounces off Hoffman and complements him so incredibly well; in all, the dynamic acting between the two of them is just so utterly fantastic and convincing, the audience very quickly loses itself in the characters and forgets that it's watching actors. And then there's Albert Finney. Such a supple, opulent supporting role like the one he has requires a veteran professional and here Finney delivers his finest performance in many years as the tragically obsessed father to the two brothers who get caught up in the crime. I love how the dynamics between the three of them play out. I love how Hoffman is clearly the dominant brother and shamelessly picks on his younger brother even now that they're middle-aged men; and yet despite this, it is clear how Finney's father favours Hawke's younger, weaker brother. Also on the topic of the cast, the two supporting female characters – wives of the brothers – also feature fantastic performances from Amy Ryan and Marisa Tomei, whose looks just get better and better as the years go by.This film isn't revolutionary. These themes and this style have already been explored by the likes of The Coen Brothers, and it's very easy to imagine them directing this film. But for a film that treads familiar ground, it simply excels. Lumet employs his own immense directorial talent and employs his unique and very subtle sense of irony and style to Masterson's brilliantly vivid, intense, and morbidly depressing first-time screenplay. The lead performances are incredibly intense and the film features absolutely fantastic turns from Hoffman, Hawke and Finney; but the truly greatest wonder of the film is that three years after he won a Lifetime Achievement Oscar, much revered as the ultimate sign of retirement in the film business, Sidney Lumet proves that he still has the immense talent to deliver a truly wonderful, resonant, intense piece of cinema reminiscent of his golden years.

train_6738

Where the Sidewalk Ends is quite a good film-noir crime drama and is shot well in black and white and on location as well.A copper accidentally kills a bloke who is suspected of murder and to protect himself, he covers this up and blames it on another person he doesn't like who has committed a lot of crimes in the past. But towards the end, he owns up but not before falling in love with a woman he meets who is the lover of the person he killed...The cast includes Dana Andrews (While the City Sleeps, Curse of the Demon), Gene Tierney (Laura, The Ghost and Mrs Muir), Gary Merrill (Mysterious Island), Karl Malden (The Streets of San Francisco, Beyond the Posidon Adventure) and Craig Stevens (The Deadly Mantis). Good parts from all.Where the Sidewalk Ends is worth checking out if you get the chance. Excellent.Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

train_14035

I don't think you can get much worse then this. Put together bad actors, fake limbs, and three stupid stories and what do you get? This B-rate pointless excuse for a movie.The first story immediately shows the bad video quality and the acting is just really pathetic, especially when you bring in the 25 year old posing as a grandma with the usually grandma bun over the ears bit. Plus, the man is OK, but the woman is rather ugly. "You look great!" NOT! The werewolf in this one was the best one out of all three I'd say, but its still not impressive since it was all bad costume. The face on the woman later was decent enough for halloween but not for a werewolf movie.The more stories you go through the worse it gets. There are two lesbians in this next one who are completely retarded its ridiculous. The whole "I want to be a werewolf, too" "How could you do this to me?!" Was silly to say. You asked for it now get over it! The werewolf will not even be spoken of...its a rat!The third one has no point...almost forty five minutes of running and boring narration make up this story and the whole switch thing still didn't make it interesting. Boring!Music, Yes, bad...who couldn't even hear some parts it was stupid. Animals effects were either rat or pig-like which was stupid. They couldn't use lion sounds? Guess not, GOOD movies use that. Well, i =f you enjoy B-rates this is good for you. I got this movie since I'm a hardcore werewolf fan and i'll buy ANY werewolf movie and watch it more then once, but thats just me. If you prefer Good ones, don't waste your money. I beg YOU!

train_11284

When I was a kid it was Lex Barker's time as Tarzan. I often heard from older people that Johnny Weissmuller "was" Tarzan and I wouldn't understand why since I saw a couple of Weismuller's last films in the character and I thought he was sort of out of shape. It wasn't after many years that I came across "Tarzan and His Mate", and then I understood. Weismuller is in shape in this picture and has the presence and rugged looks the character demands not matched yet by other Tarzans such as Barker, Gordon Scott, Jock Mahoney, Denny Miller, Miles O'Keefe and Cristopher Lambert.As for this film I was also surprised by the sensual presence of beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan a strong, self minded, active and "no-inhibitions" woman as Jane way ahead of the times in which the film was made (Tarzan pushes her into a pond naked as she is amused; one of the explorers kisses her by surprise and though she doesn't kiss him back she sort of let him do for a bit and makes no big deal out of it); such behaviors were unthinkable with the "Janes" to come such as Brenda Joyce, Vanessa Brown, Virginia Huston or Dorothy Hart, all playing sort of too perfect sweet vulnerable women making it hard to believe they could survive in a hostile place like the African jungle.O'Sullivan character's sparkling personality steals the show out of Tarzan himself, except of course when it comes to action and Weismuller takes the lead easily; the combination is perfect. Another highlight in the movie is Cheeta's secondary role and not as the main lead like in later Tarzan pictures where she often saves the day."Tarzan and His Mate" stands as a fine product in its genre (Tarzan films) and perhaps as the best, though I have to admit that I also enjoyed "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" (1959) made with a higher budget and a strong supporting cast (and in spite of the just acceptable Gordon Scott in the leading role with his too perfect "all gymnasium" physical looks that doesn't fit for a rustic ape man).Good for Jane and her mate!

train_8031

This is one military drama I like a lot! Tom Berenger playing military assassin Thomas Beckett. This Marine is no-nonsense, in your face, and no questions asked kind of person who gets the job done. There you have Billy Zane("The Phantom" and others) who plays Richard Miller, a former SWAT form D.C., works for the government and takes orders only from them. Who needs a bureaucrat? I don't! When these two are paired, sparks should be flying. And how. However, Beckett teaches the young bureaucrat on how it works. When the other sniper hits, it's wits vs. wits, cat vs. mouse, gunman vs. gunman. And when the seasoned sniper is caught, it's up to Miller to put politics aside and save him. Who needs politics when you a pro like Beckett, he took orders from no one but himself, plays by the rules and not the book, and mutual respect is brought out despite the politics. The movie was a direct hit. Watch it. Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

train_15101

I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies. The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore.

train_14871

I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap.

train_800

I couldn't have been more thrilled; Just eight years old back in 1983, I was going to see a Star Wars movie at the theater! The best day of my life was about to happen. To that time, my only Star Wars experience had been a few HBO showings of Star Wars. I hadn't even seen The Empire Strikes Back yet.And boy, did that day deliver for my less critical eyes. Jabba. Big Rebel spaceships. The Emporer. A green-bladed lightsaber!! Wow! Since that magical day, I must have watched this movie hundreds of times. I can't even form an accurate estimate at this point. With those multiple viewings, I have of course observed that this movie - the REAL Episode III - does have its flaws.Of course in the context of a Star Wars movie, those "flaws" are more like "quirks".Millions had had their magical day in 1977 and 1980. In May of 1983, I had mine. And this was my Star Wars movie.

train_4289

I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that "Préte-moi ta main" has plenty of flaws.My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment "of romance" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema.

train_14046

I rented this movie for a few laughs. I had never seen the SNL skit, but with hits like Tommy Boy, and Waynes World, it couldn't have been that bad, could it? The answer: it was. This movie hardly was a means of relaxing after a hard day at work. I just kept waiting for a plotline and a funny part, but there wasn't any. The highlight was tiffany amber thieson, and thats just about it.

train_17407

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.

train_4457

Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood??

train_21215

Primal Species comes from B Movie legend Roger Corman and as such everybody who watches this needs to realise that this is a Low Budget B Movie and it knows it.A bunch of terrorists high-jack a Lorry and kill an entire army doing so, they believe it to hold uranium, but No..... It contains two Dino's with a taste for Human Flesh... Then a Crack team, who might as well be called Delta Force get called in.OK, This ain't Jurassic Park, and Yes The Dino's are never clearly seen because it's obviously a guy in a Costume that's not too dissimilar to Barney the Dinosaur - only slightly LESS terrifying,but come on guys this had about 1% of Jurassic Park's Budget and as such does what it can.Does this deserve to be in the bottom 100?....HELL NO!!! I think the nearly half of voters who give this a 1 - are being WAY WAY overly harsh, it's much closer to a 4... it's actually a lot better than a whole host of other movies not in the Bottom 100, and has a similar production value to a Sci-Fi Channel Production. (again Movies which get a overly harsh time from critics here on IMDb)The acting is as expected in a B Movie although none of the actors take it that seriously, neither does the scriptAll in All it's an enjoyable B Movie - Not for Film Snobs** out of *****

train_4801

I watched this with my whole family as a 9 year old in 1964 on our black and white TV. I remember my father remarking that "this is how it could have happened - Adam and Eve." I vividly remember the scene when Adam finds Eve, her eyes were blackened. I asked my father why were her eyes blackened and he told because she was tired and hungry. Having not seen this episode in 45 years, I still remember it vividly - the TV transmissions back and forth with the home planet, scenes of bombs shaking the headquarters, with the final scene of the two walking off, Adam carrying his pack and Eve following. It may not have been a theatrical work of art, but it certainly left an impression on me all these years.