Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.<br /><br />I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to "Beyond Rangoon" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.<br /><br />I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle.

Im sorry to myself, you know why. I feel pained from the viewing of this movie. I went to the theater with some friends to see this movie, and still did not give it the satisfaction of watching it in entirety ( i left with about 20 minutes left... hoping to god it might make me at least comfortable for a moment. ) most movies now, even this bad ones... when i watch them, there may be a small part in the movie where I feel some joy at times because of maybe a quirky joke or a good line... this movie on the other hand made me feel uncomfortable and mad at myself the whole time, especially since i wasted money on it. It was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, and definitely poorly acted...<br /><br />please, for the good of humanity, do not see this movie, even if your some guy who wants to say he has seen like every movie ever... just don't...

Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!<br /><br />Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.<br /><br />I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10

Any film about WWII made during WWII by a British production company has no latter-day peer in my opinion, respectfully. The confluence of so many things near and dear to my heart are in At Dawn We Dive: as a descendant of Admiral Horatio Nelson and student of all aspects of World War Two and particularly naval warfare, I favor depictions of subs and action in the North Atlantic and especially those which include the German side of things. For those unacquainted with target priorities, an attack on an enemy warship is the greatest event that a submarine can hope to encounter and such a rare opportunity would develop surprisingly similarly to what we see here. The pacing is deliberate and typical of the works coming out of the Ealing, Rank and British-Gaumont studios back in the day: frankly I prefer its quieter, more cerebral approach for its humanity and realism that engages far better than any over-produced Hollywood movie ever could. This reminds me of Powell and Pressburger's The 49th Parallel thanks to the powerfully persuasive Eric Portman, a favorite of mine. John Mills receives second billing and a smaller font in the titles, so this is clearly meant to be Mr. Portman's film but the whole cast shines. As for the title sequence, am I the only one who is utterly charmed by Gainsborough Production's lovely pre-CGI Gainsborough Girl?

Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret government place titled "RTX". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed their country for top secret information.<br /><br />Directed by the late Oscar-Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life. Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released. Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****/*****).

I love Ashley Judd and think all of her movies are great. Ruby<br /><br />in Paradise is one of her best. It is a very understated movie that you really have to watch close to appreciate it. A story of a woman trying to make it on her own and refusing to give in to temptations that would make her life easy. Some of her movies such as Kiss The Girls and Time to Kill probably did better at the box office and video rentals. They were very good movies<br /><br />also, but take the time to really look at Ruby and I think you will agree it is one of Ashley's Best.<br /><br />

Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.<br /><br />I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.<br /><br />GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.<br /><br />BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.

..Oh wait, I can! This movie is not for the typical film snob, unless you want to brush up on your typical cinematic definitions, like "continuity editing" and "geographic match". I couldn't tell where I was in this movie. One second they're in the present, next minute their supposedly in the 70's driving a modern SUV and wearing what looked like to me as 80's style clothing. I think. I couldn't pay long enough attention to it since the acting was just horrible. I think it only got attention because it has a 3d which I did not watch. If you're a b-movie buff, and by b-movie I mean BAD movie, then this film is for you. It's home-movie and all non-sense style will keep you laughing for as long as you can stay awake. If your tastes are more for Goddard and Antonioni, though, just skip this one.

I didn't like this movie for many reasons - VERY BORING! It was interesting how they thought what the future would look like in this, but seriously I was very bored watching this. There was hardly any action. Although the Classical orchestra soundtrack was very nice. The visuals were very creative. Whenever this movie pops on TV, I feel like changing the station instantly. Not because it is a bad movie, just because I know what I am in for when watching this - complete and total boredom. It is a movie I saw when I was young, but I never got into the science fiction thing... because it simply wasn't real. Just like this movie - very unrealistic. I never understood half the movie anyway.

waste of my life, .... the director should be embarrassed. why people feel they need to make worthless movies will never make sense to me. when she died at the end, it made me laugh. i had to change the channel many times throughout the film because i was getting embarrassed watching such poor acting. hopefully the guy who played Heath never gets work again. On top of that i hope the director never gets to make another film, and has his paycheck taken back for this crap. { .02 out of 10 }

In the '70s, Charlton Heston starred in sci-fi flicks of varying quality. "Soylent Green" is one of the better ones. He plays Robert Thorn, a detective in 2022 New York. In this future, most food is so expensive that everyone needs a product called Soylent Green. But when Thorn finds out the unsavory truth about this product, he finds himself on the run.<br /><br />I guess that it's only natural that this movie should seem dated to us nowadays. But even so, it still brings up interesting questions about what will become of our agriculture. Also starring Leigh Taylor-Young, Chuck Connors, Brock Peters, Joseph Cotten and Edward G. Robinson (in his final role).

The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.

Words fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility. <br /><br />The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.<br /><br />I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear in it.

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what people were smoking when they wrote how great they thought "Ethan Mao" was. I have seen better acting, character and plot development in pornos! WARNING: I am going to give away a key element to the "plot". After holding his family hostage overnight, Ethan lets his vile, evil, hated step-mom go to the bank - ALONE!!! - to retrieve the piece of his late mom's jewellery which he so desperately wants. Guess what? She calls the cops! Wow ... what a twist! I couldn't see that coming at all.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie was that it was less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />Pure, unadulterated rubbish!

"Shuttle" is an indie thriller about four young adults who get a ride late one night on a shuttle bus from the airport to find out that the driver is a sadistic psychopath.<br /><br />Although some of the sequences of scares and it's unconventionally interesting plot work, some aspects just don't. The bad dialogue and unlikeable characters gives a good reason to not care for them. But, often the suspense works and asks you the question of "What would you do?" and usually what you WOULD do isn't what these idiots on the shuttle do. <br /><br />If you're expecting a mindless, bloody horror film, you'll be mistaken. This is a film that causes you to use your mind, but, unfortunately, not until the end.<br /><br />Four out of ten.

Spoiler This is a great film about a conure. He goes through quite the ordeal trying to get back to his little girl owner. He learns a lot through his journey and meets up with a lot of other beautiful birds. If you love birds like my wife does, this film is for you. This film also has some sad parts that make the tears run. In the end it all works out for Paulie and his Russian friend. Rent this for the whole family, everyone will enjoy this.

This is quite possibly the worst documentary I have ever seen. It looked so amateurish. Chris Hegedus was one of the Directors of The War Room which was a great movie (albeit a little one sided), but it looked beautiful. Startup.com looked like it was shot in some guy's basement. The quality was so pitiful that I couldn't stand watching it. I saw about 30 minutes or so and I had to take it back to Blockbuster and get something else. I can't understand how something so amateurish some from someone like Chris Hegedus. How the hell did this win any awards to begin with??? The War Room definitely deserved an award, as did another great documentary called Ameragosa (both won awards). This documentary looked like it was done by Uncle Joe who also does weddings on the weekends. Shaky, dimly lit, unflattering lighting, bad sound, a 10 year old could make a better film than that guy did.

First of all, I don't understand why some people find this movie so anti-american. Sure, there are moments when the U.S. are accused directly, like at the segments of Youssef Chahine, Ken Loach and, to a certain extent, Mira Nair. But come on, they aren't naive accusations; instead, they are based on real and documented facts, and all the documents that the CIA released about Chile confirms this, for example.<br /><br />But returning to the film itself, what I enjoyed most on it is the variety of moods we find in it. We find children being educated for the respect of the all the people who died in the event; we find a unhappy couple that will be changed by the tragedy of that day; we find common people that have their feelings downgraded on the shadow of the events of September 11 and react differently to this, with dignity or frustration; we even find someone in the movie for who the fall of the towers grounds for a moment of real happiness.<br /><br />All these visions and others - as powerful as these or even more - make a consistent blend and help the spectator to have a glimpse about how different people spread across the world reacted to the events of September 11th. Thus, what we see is a panorama that is much more complex than whites and blacks, and this may make some people infuriated; but this is the world where we live, and in it there is no place for manicheistic ideologies, regardless of what presidents or priests may say us.<br /><br />Finally, I think it's a shame that there isn't even a release date for this movie in the United States of America. It's a shame because most of the american people is asking why this catastrophe happened, and this movie could give some clues to them. This film puts very clearly - differently of what some people of this forum think - that everything we do today will determine our future, and that the errors of the past will affect how we live today.

Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.<br /><br />In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.<br /><br />Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.<br /><br />Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded … 14 years after shooting shut down.<br /><br />Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues … long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.<br /><br />It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.

I must say, this movie has given me a dual personality. I've been told again and again to SHUT UP and start speaking like a normal person. But, it's very hard... no not the wang. Did you find that disgusting and disrespectful? Well, get in the mood for a lot more. This movie is just filthy! It's not a film to show your grand-parents, but you should show it to a teenager or some immature guy at your workplace. Anyway, back to the voice mannerisms. Fortunately this site has some Ladies Man (did anyone at the studio notice that there's supposed to be a apostrophe(?) between the e and s?) so you can always have a fine little something to say to your boss or the cops. I have a sheet in my wallet.

Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film.

Even if it's not labeled as a Slasher flick, it has all the elements. The fact that slashers are well known for it's low budget, lame plot, cheesy effects, and everything you may add, it doesn't means that there can't be good slasher movies. "Opera" fills the description. Even though it's part of Italian giallo; which is far from being a slasher sub-genre.<br /><br />Dario Argento proves that he deserves the label of one of the best directors in Horror. "Opera" is one of the most stylish Horror movies from the past 30 years. Though the movie takes place in a beautiful, shinning place; the situations and gore turns it to be one of the scariest places ever used in a Horror movie. <br /><br />I think of "Opera" as a stylish Slasher although there's in depth plot and character development. The cheese factor often used in most Slasher flicks is not present here but in exchange we got a suspenseful, visually stunning gore tale. The movie's plot is simple (as in every Slasher). There's a psycho in the opera that is somewhat obsessed with the lead actress/singer and forces her to watch gruesome deaths. The death scenes are extremely gruesome and are the best thing about the movie. The infamous "peep-hole" death scene is the highlight of the movie in my opinion. It's a terrific death scene that none other than Argento could release. The knife through the neck (and mouth) is another gruesome scene but less violent than the scissors death. The gore in "Opera" will please the wicked and lovers of violence.<br /><br />What I didn't like about the movie is the lack of coherence or logic. I mean, after watching the first death, the lead female, calmed as if nothing happened gets a ride home and doesn't makes much of a big deal about what she saw. Also, she's left alone in home and doesn't take security measures. Still, the suspense in the movie makes you forget the lack of logic. Argento knows how to create tension and how to scare the subconscious. For example, when Betty's friend tells her that someone was watching her from outside she freaks out and sets suspense in case that something happens. <br /><br />The direction of the movie is great. For an Italian giallo it's excellent. Argento's creative POV shots are impressive. The ravens also added a creepy feeling to the movie. Argento add his unique spice. <br /><br />"Opera" is one of the most underrated but popular through the Horror community for these reasons, in my opinion: -the peep-hole death scene (brilliant) -the ravens attack in the end -the opera setting -the knife through the neck and mouth -the heavy metal score combined with Opera music (this music never freaked me out before) -the killer's ferocity<br /><br />The only thing I don't like about "Opera" is the heavy metal songs used in death scenes. It's OK to disturb the audience but I think that the Opera music could've added a creepier feeling. Still, the "shocking" use of heavy metal is a singular disturbing aspect in the movie.<br /><br />Watch "Opera" even if you don't like gore. There's a lot of suspense and tension that could scare the most skeptical person. This is no "Suspiria" but it deserves to be among Argento's finest.

I'm one of those people who usually watch programs and keep my feelings about a show private. However, Pushing Daisies is my exception. I became curious about the program from the commercials that aired which gave glimpses of the premise of the show. I was skeptical about it at first, especially after the finale of Six Feet Under was still in my head. Here we go again, I thought. I watched the first, second, third and all the other episodes. Wow! First of all, I thought it took the subject of death and presented in a way that was palatable without being morbid. The characters were engaging and I like the thought of Ned the main character not being able to literally touch the love of his life, Chuck without the consequences of her dying.<br /><br />Most of the characters have a longing for things they can't have. Besides Ned and Chuck, Olive longs for Ned. Lily and Vivian longs for their niece Chuck and Emerson is always longing for the monetary rewards from the mysterious deaths they solve. I think the characters are picture perfect and believable. I like how Emerson who is black plays off of the rest of the characters since as an African American; I like the subtle cultural humor that sometimes comes from him.<br /><br />All in all, this visual fairytale is one of the most valuable pieces of entertainment that I've seen out of the 2007 season. I think the show has enough romance for the romantics and enough who-done-it for the mystery buffs. I just wish the writers would get back to work, so that the show can continue to evolve.

Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies). <br /><br />Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.<br /><br />At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.<br /><br />Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!<br /><br />

Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.<br /><br />Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.<br /><br />There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.<br /><br />It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.<br /><br />Totally abominable trash!

Generally I don't do minus's and if this site could i would give this movie -3 out of 10 meaning I really hated this movie. I thought Uwe Boll's alone in the dark was the worst i've seen yet but at least i gave it a 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion(Stephen Dorff shooting at nothing made me laugh so i boosted the ratings a bit). Hell if it was if compared to bloodrayne, Bloodrayne would win a Oscar for best movie if they were competing.<br /><br />Now to the plot, this movie is about the BTK killer which is fine but they've could have done better. The start looked OK but that's it I had to fast forward most of it because the death's where boring. I like killer movies and even if they suck they could still get some cool deaths. I'm not a fancy movie expert but believe me he would have shot himself if did see this. Sorry for rambling but there's nothing good to say about it, because it looks like someone took a camcorder and film this.. this.. thing of disaster. Uwe Boll your movies are no longer on my list of worst movies ever this took the cake.<br /><br />Well sorry i couldn't explain the plot(if there was one) but that was the best i could. Now if you don't mind i'm going to crawl into a corner and move back and forth and reminding me of how bad this movie scared me for life.... OK not for life

I have watch this movie almost every night that is was on HBO. It is of my opinion that it could have been successful in the theater, providing the advertisement leading up to it was top scale. I was thoroughly impressed with the actress who played Nanny. She is an outstanding actress. Of course, my favorite actor is Terrance Howard. He is a very understated actor and he deserves much more credit than he has received. Ebony magazine did do a nice article on him, giving him some of his due propers. Lakawanna Blue, gave me a understanding of the stories my parents use to tell us. They were from a similar town "Philadelphia, PA" were they had to have their fun in the junt joints and such. I also like to say that Mos Def is a incredible actor. He has found his calling. I've seen him in several movies where he has played a variety of roles, from thug to doctor and he has the stuff! Overall, please put Lakawanna Blues on video for rental.

THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE <br /><br />There are some movies that I could watch all my life and never grow tired of them, and this nostalgic favorite is one of them. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE was a 1987 attempt to bring the old favorites back to the forefront of animation, this time on the big screen. In an age when Disney dominated the film industry in terms of animation quality and box office, THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE stands as one of the best animated films that Disney didn't produce in the 80's.<br /><br />The story is simple and elementary, having Alvin, Simon & Theodore compete in an around-the-world race with the Chipettes (Janette, Eleanor, & Brittany). However, as the chipmunks encounter exotic dangers, they are unaware that they are the pawns in a major diamond heist.<br /><br />THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never was and never will be a film that soars thanks to an engrossing plot. And to people who didn't love it as a child, the film will probably never be more then an enjoyable, yet forgettable, animated movie. But for me, it will always be a little known masterpiece. Something about the film just clicks for me in a way few films do.<br /><br />Every song is fun, upbeat, and harmless. Highlights include the Chipettes in a slightly risqué Arabian dance to calm snakes. There's also a very sweet song in which the Chipmunks sing about traveling the world and we get to see them at major landmarks throughout the globe. One thing about the Chipmunk characters is that, despite the potentially annoying vocals, the songwriters always managed to write songs that were catchy without ever being grating. This film is no exception... it actually boasts one of the best Animated movie soundtracks of the 80's if you ask me.<br /><br />Every joke is cute, sincere and amusing. The bits between the bad guys and a pampered puppy are very amusing. And the shock of seeing the Chipettes nearly forced into marriage by a child emperor is as well. The comedy manages to constantly play to the kids so that they don't miss anything, but everything remains charming for the adults with enough nostalgia to keep them entertained.<br /><br />It's really just a fun trip that is completely humble in it's ambitions. THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE never aims to be anything more then it is, harmless fun. I'll be the first to admit this is a biased review because I have such a nostalgic fondness for THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE that I would never be able to give it a bad review... but nonetheless, it fills me with such a childish contentment while watching it. Everyone has their random favorite from childhood that no one knows, and for me it's this movie. And any film that I can watch over and over whether I am 5, 12, 23 or older is a great film in my eyes.<br /><br />... A- ...

This is another great movie I had the good fortune to see for the first time on the big screen (thanks to Rick Baker et al). Back in the late 80's I was a relative newcomer to the genre and only really new about the big three JC, SH & YB. I wasn't sure what to expect when I payed my hard earned money to see this in a "Triple bill of Classics" at the old Scala. I need not have worried, I was left breathless by this movie. If you're a fan of Hong Kong Action / Kung Fu movies and haven't seen this movie, do so NOW!

This is my favorite movie of all time. I just love all the trouble all the teams get into! Its great. Michael J. Fox looked so young.. but then again i guess he was!<br /><br />The teams are so stereotypical you just have to laugh.

The "silver screen" gets freshly polished with this beautiful film about aging happily and enjoying life's rainbows. There's plenty of silver hair on this silver screen, but the film's namesake is more like 85-going on-25 with his energy, humor and lust for life. The story of entertainer extraordinaire Uncle Frank, his devoted wife Aunt Tillie, and the zippy residents of the local area nursing homes inspires us to "live each day as if it's your last" and brings a glimmer of hope to those often-dreaded golden years. A great movie for young and old audiences!

On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life… <br /><br />"Mr. Imperium" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of "South Pacific" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden "Some Enchanted Evening" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.<br /><br />*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan

10 ITEMS OR LESS is one of those 'under the radar' pictures that is drenched in the simplicity that most independent movies have: honest, ad hoc performances by its two leads -- Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega who establish quite a complementary if unlikely duo. The great thing is, this entire movie looks improbable despite its 'road movie' roots. How Morgan Freeman's unnamed character psychically (not physically)arrives to where he meets this jaded check-out girl who has an unhealthy relationship with her current supervisor (who also happens to be getting it on with her philandering husband played by Bobby Cannavale in a small role) is somehow left for us to witness more than deduce and their witty banter -- two people on opposite sides of the coin of society -- is deceptively simple. So, in a nutshell, while there aren't any bang! moments of Earth-shattering revelations, this movie is a quirky little mood piece that probably otherwise got lost in the shuffle of indies which came out in 2006 but deserves to be seen, if only for its honesty.

Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.<br /><br />What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.<br /><br />Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.<br /><br />The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.<br /><br />Avoid this show at all costs!

I saw the movie and really could not stop my tears. Its tragedy that India has no such leaders after freedom, who dare to do justice with their own children, when they don't behave properly.. In current generation, politicians bring their children's into politics without measuring their caliber and skills.. I remember the dialogue from Gandhi 'What kind of society we want to create/make with such people (about Harilal)?' No wonder that it will be a dream that India will hardly have such leader in this or next generation.. Einstein was right when he said about Gandhi that 'After 50 years one would hardly believe that such person with body, soul and mind (Mahatma Gandhi) had ever lived on this earth.' I sincerely want to THANKS a LOT to Anil kapoor, Feroze khan and all film actors/actresses for this wonderful movie about great person and relationship with his son. All father and son should watch this movie once and take some lessons for both roles.

This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10

The other reviewers are way WAAAAY off as to why the Farscape show has been (temporarily) put to rest. It has NOTHING to do with the quality of the shows 'slacking'. In fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true. They kept getting better and better! :) I have seen every episode and when you simply watch them in order you really become in awe how much cooler it gets as they move on and on, and the wormhole & Aeryn subplots are really very interesting and gave it MORE vibe, not less. Before it was sort of chaotic, slow, and rather aimless. They spent like the first two seasons running from this foe type, but in the second two they were actually trying to DO something :) Also I have never seen such a great fun blend of sexy gals and attitudes in Sci-Fi. The blue girl - Zahn - was cool, but not 'sexy'. They literally got to the point where the gals were running around in leather corsets and high heels blasting aliens - now tell me, what could be cooler than that??? :))<br /><br />The real reason Farscape went off for a bit is because it was costing too much - and that is a GOOD thing for the fans, because the show, watched end to end, is really like a 60 hour long epic movie, with all the cinematics of the blockbuster stuff (ok ok they do use similar sets a lot, but the CG is great and the gals are sexxxy).<br /><br />Blah blah - the real reason is because TV shows are about PROFIT. It is a BUSINESS, and the Sci Fi channel or whoever was not getting as big a return on this expensive Farscape show as they could with junk shows like 'Stargate'. Lexx was actually cool until they got rid of the hot German girl and replaced her with this bizarre fat-lipped oddity.<br /><br />Anyway yes, remember this: Farscape kept getting better and better, until it was really like a little real movie each week. Then the networks decided 'hey people will watch any old piece of drek we shove on the air as long as it is the only sci fi thing on at that hour, so why are we spending all this money on Farscape, let's shove cheesy low-budget 'Stargate' down people's throats and call it a 'hit series' because it's like all we play every darn night LOL :))<br /><br />That's the way it goes. Also I gotta tell ya that Claudia Black is a really cool actress. After she got her facelift (got the baggy eyes tightened) she was looking really cool - one of those dynamic types like Judy Davis, and sometimes hot looking, sometimes ugly - like a roller coaster ride. I'd par Claudia Black with Lucy Lawless in style and substance - both VERY fun to watch - not just Chrichton :) And yeah you may say the pregnancy thing was cheesy, but how many sci fi shows have a BELIEVABLE and DEEP romantic subplot that actually goes somewhere and progresses?? It was legitimately cool as a romance story - the actors on the show are great. It really is a shame the show is in limbo for now, but I hope it comes back in more episodes soon and movies as well, because I will deffinately buy them! :-D

I saw not so fabulous rating on IMDb, but I went to see it anyway, because I am a big fan of Bible related material. First thing that bothered me was a little too much Indiana Jones wannabe movie, but it also looked like Casper Van Dien didn't see those Jones movies through (but he should). I believe he tried his best, but script just stunk. Music tried to be kinda Jones style too. Great work, but for such movie it seemed like too much work, like the video part did't deserve all that great music. Robert Wagner gave his best acting skills, he did a good job, but somehow the script was bringing everything down. "Jokes" are old school, somewhere 20 years old; they brought only cynic smile to my face. There are some really bad camera angels, SFX looks like homemade and unrealistic. Kevin VanHook had probably a good idea on the story (in my opinion, but I love such stories), but things just didn't work out in the end. Maybe he should put it on a paper when it was still fresh in his head. When I (in first minutes) saw that movie was going to be one of those 'low budget movies', I hoped that I will at least 'hear' a good story, but sometimes movies just disappoint.

While some of the things in Haggard are dumb and unnecessary, the overall package is good. <br /><br />Haggard follows Ryan Dunn and his friends Valo (Bam Margera) and Falcone (Brandon Dicamillo) trying to win back Glauren (Jenn Rivell), Ryan's ex. <br /><br />The story is followed and developed surprisingly well, it doesn't wonder off and become an episode of Jackass or Viva La Bam, although it does have a side story which doesn't hurt the main story.<br /><br />And, for all the Bam fan boys (And girls) there are multiple sequences of Bam skateboarding, perhaps the weakest aspect of the film. Phil makes 2 surprisingly small appearances, even Don Vito got a bigger (but pointless) roll.<br /><br />If you are hoping to see a comedy and escape Bam's craziness, then stay away from this movie, otherwise, enjoy the time you spend with it, if you can find it. There are some truly funny scenes in this film.

Being an Israeli Jew of naturally sarcastic nature as well as a lover of different and independent cinema, it always gives me pleasure to see a film that takes a view on the holocaust that's sensitive and respectful while also being original and unusual. While I haven't read the book – or, for that matter, heard of its existence prior to watching the film – and therefore cannot, like some other reviewers, comment on how they stack up in comparison, Everything Is Illuminated gave me great pleasure, and I can certainly comment on that.<br /><br />To label Everything Is Illuminated a holocaust film would be to do it great injustice, even though it is undeniably about the holocaust. So would labeling it as a comedy or a travel film, although it's about a journey and is as exceptionally funny as it is moving. Everything Is Illuminated is about Jonathan Safran Foer – played to minimalist perfection by Elijah Wood, in the most impressive dramatic performance I've seen him in yet, with a poker face that shows nothing and reveals all – a young American Jew, and an obsessive collector of family heirlooms and historical artifacts, who travels to the Ukraine on a journey to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. It's also about Alex, his tour guide through the Ukraine, and Alex's grandfather. What's fascinating about these characters is that in the beginning of the film they look like comic relief to balance out the melancholy nature of Wood's character; but both Alex and his grandfather go through fascinating changes throughout the film, and turn out to be at least as important as Jonathan. In fact, Boris Leskin's as the grumpy, self-declared blind grandfather turns out to be the finest dramatic performance in the film.<br /><br />Aside from the surreal nature of the film and the characters, the beautiful mix of original acoustic music and Russian folk music, the sensitive cinematography and the chilling contrast between the beauty of the landscapes and the horrors of history, what made Everything Is Illuminated a powerful and moving experience for me was the fact that from Alex and his grandfather we get a very different and original viewpoint on this painful subject; several excellent films, such as The Grey Zone and Downfall, have already given us the point of view of the lower-rank Nazis who are presented as human beings who aren't necessarily fully aware of the moral implications of their actions but are caught up in the reality of the war. Everything Is Illuminated presents a point of view rarely treated before: Alex's point of view is that of a young man who was born many years after the war, who sees it as hardly more than cold historical fact, who finds himself having to face up to the horrors his own people – and maybe his own family as well – were capable of. The change in Alex's attitude – and his grandfather's – towards Jonathan, towards the Holocaust, and towards the Jewish people in general, makes the film a fascinating and original study in character development.<br /><br />Everything Is Illuminated is a terrific directorial debut for actor Liev Schreiber, and one of the most original and unique films of 2005. It's a highly recommended viewing experience, especially or anyone interested in the holocaust and World War II.

I received a copy of this film from a friend for my 21st birthday, which he had obviously picked up for 99p from a bargain video bin.<br /><br />Never have I been so frustrated when watching a film - it was tedious, Adam West was wasted (literally) and, in retrospect, I cannot recall a single thing about it. My lack of enjoyment grew to such an extent that the second the credits rolled we smashed up the cassette and hung the tape around the living room. Just for good measure, we set fire to the cover.

Very good martial arts film and Jet Li is the best since the master himself Bruce Lee .Li is excellent as the low key librarian/cop who saves all time and time again . He has a presence and a look that is riveting and believable as the kung fu king that you don't mess with .Francoise Yip is simply beautiful in that mixed race original way that is unique because of her mixed heritage , she has an innocence and an allure all at the same time that I found unforgettable .The villain , the man with the sunglasses and long hair was very good as well but I can't find his name in the credits , can some one help me out with that ? Thanks ! Enjoy Hak hap or Black Mask , in any language its good entertainment !

I found the movie Judas Kiss excellent. Carla Gugino's performance was extraordinaire, probably her best in her career. Her facial expressions in many scenes, were unbelievably true to character, and they were exploited to its best by Director Gutierrez. All actors and actresses were very good in their performances. Emma Thompsom was, as usual, marvelous. Her acting capabilities are way above what would be required for this character, so she actually enhances it in the movie.<br /><br />The story, although sometimes over-intricate, is kept entertaining and pointed towards the end. Very, very good. A movie not to be missed. A story well weaved and brilliantly directed. Quality of film, excellent.

This movie is very good and the whole family would enjoy watching it.When Susie Q is of to her big night at prom she dies in a fatal car crash on her way to prom by kids who are drunk and high.As the years go by Susie's house gets sold and a family moves into the house that she loves.As the boy who now lives in the house sees Susie and is the only one who can.The two team together with his little little sister and try to save Susie's parents from being broke.Staring Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q.This movie will fell your heart with comedy,sadness and laughter.I hope that you see this movie because it is very good.But no one seems to have it on DVD or Vh's and it no longer comes on TV.

Ok, first the good: Cher's performance and the cinematography. Although I'm no Cher fan, she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. The cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance.<br /><br />The Rest: a thin plotline, Nicholas Cage's performance, and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an Italian-American family from New York. Firstly, everytime time Cage opened his mouth I cringed. I don't know what kind of accent he was trying use. I honestly don't, it sure wasnt any New York or Italian accent I've ever heard. It was quite surreal. And it wasn't because I'm some stickler for accuracy, his voice just cloyed in my ears. And I like Nicholas Cage in other performances. Secondly, and this is purely anecdotal, but I have many Italian relations, friends and acquaintances in New York City, and frankly I've gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the Italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. And that would be on a boring night at the house. What a let down.

Seriously. If this had been the first Shack movie, it would have been passable as funny, silly and goofy. Light satire commentary on the class system would make this an enjoyable late-night rental.<br /><br />However, everyone wants to compare it to the first film, and maybe that's not fair. The first film is a cult classic; what could possibly follow it up? Nothing. So take this second film as a stand alone, and it certainly has its moments.<br /><br />Jackie Mason is amusing, doing his best Rodney-wannabe impersonation. Is he as good as Rodney? No. Are his lines as good? No. But he is funny. The rest of the cast falls in line as being decent, but not outstanding. You'll recognize faces amongst the cast and wonder how they got to where they are today.<br /><br />The film is predictable, but aren't most in this genre? Again, it's not the best comedy you'll see, but if you like Cannonball Run-type fun, you'll enjoy this one.

Perhaps I would have liked this film more if I wasn't so attached to the characters in Henry Fool. To those who've never seen Henry Fool, I wouldn't worry. As Hartley jokingly said in his introduction to the film at TIFF, the film has lots of exposition and explanations.<br /><br />This film is very heavy in plot, which keeps the film moving. There are many humorous moments and the film certainly has Hartley's trademark humour and rhythm of dialogue. Over all, a technically well made film and sure to satisfy new fans of Hartley who are just beginning explore his work. As for the older fans who loved his earlier works like Trust and Amateur, this film could go either way. I have mixed feelings about the film and Hartley's later films in general. What Hartley does best is setting his stories in small situations, focusing on the intimate and idiosyncratic ways in which his characters interact with each other. Since his late 90s and onward, his films have widened in scope in terms of subject matter. Mass media in No Such Thing, Religion in the Book of Life and now Terrorism in Fay Grim. I don't know if Hartley's talents are suited to such big subject matter or if he's able to do it justice.<br /><br />Strangely enough, the film can still be reduced to intimate relationships, a simple love story about a woman who goes to seek out the husband she loves. The only problem is, I've seen Henry Fool and everyone seems incredibly out of character in this film. You can tell this film was written long after Henry Fool was finished without any intention of a sequel. Somehow, the terrorist plot feels conveniently tacked on through the use of Henry's books of confessions as a macguffin (in the hitchcockian sense). Fay's motivations for finding Henry seemed motivated purely by the needs of the plot rather than what being faithful to who fay was as person in Henry Fool.<br /><br />I guess I'm slightly disappointed in the film because it's not true to the characters in the Henry Fool and it doesn't exactly work as a straight ahead thriller. There's too much irony and wryness in Hartley's approach to such as big topic as terrorism. It somehow works and doesn't work at the same time. All I could say, you would either love or hate the film depending on your take on Hartley's work and how well you know Hartley's work. Fans of Henry Fool, be severely warned for a disappointment. For the rest, welcome to the world of Hal Hartley and enjoy the ride.

The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.<br /><br />From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.<br /><br />Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.

This show sucks. it was put on fridays on roller-coaster, and whilst it undoubtedly destroyed the running theme of Friday programming i shall judge it rationally... still i think it sucks. It really is super lame. Zoey and her stupid friends are weak characters and the pot sucks and is really lame. <br /><br />The lame continuuity and pot sucks and i reckon the dialogue and joes are weak. The weak humour and lame sucky characters suck, and the whole show is frankly a disappointment not worth watching. It sucks and is really, really lame. It really has to be one of the lamest shows on TV, really not worth watching. I mean how lame weak and sucky can a show get before it gets axed?

Poor Shirley MacLaine tries hard to lend some gravitas to this mawkish, gag-inducing "feel-good" movie, but she's trampled by the run-away sentimentality of a film that's not the least bit grounded in reality.<br /><br />This was directed by Curtis Hanson? Did he have a lobotomy since we last heard from him? Hanson can do effective drama sprinkled with comedy, as evidenced by "Wonder Boys." So I don't know what happened to him here. This is the kind of movie that doesn't want to accept that life is messy and fussy, and that neat, tidy endings (however implausible they might be) might make for a nice closing shot, but come across as utterly phony if the people watching the film have been through anything remotely like what the characters in the film go through.<br /><br />My wife and I made a game of calling out the plot points before they occurred -- e.g. "the old man's going to teach her to read and then drop dead." Bingo! This is one of those movies where the characters give little speeches summarizing their emotional problems, making you wonder why they still have emotional problems if they're that aware of what's causing them. Toni Collette (a fine actress, by the way, and one of my favorites if not given a lot to work with here), gives a speech early on about why she buys so many shoes and never wears them, spelling out in flashing neon the film's awkward connecting motif. At that moment, I knew what I was in for, and the film was a downward spiral from there.<br /><br />Grade: C-

"D.O.A." is a non-thrilling thriller from directors Rocky Morton and Annabel<br /><br />Jankel. The acting is okay and the screenplay is pretty bad. This movie also has some moments which will make you laugh at how stupid the scenes of violence<br /><br />are. For example, someone is shot near a window. We then see from outside<br /><br />the building what looks like that person jumped. I laughed my head off when this happened. This movie tries hard, but ultimately fails. Only watch this movie<br /><br />when you have no other choice.<br /><br />My Critique: **<br /><br />Rating: [R]<br /><br />Rating Reasons: Violence and language.*<br /><br />*There was no rating reason available due to its age.

This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.<br /><br />If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.

I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.

I think this still is the best routine. There are some others, like Rock's "bring the pain", and Allen's "Men are Pigs" that are hilarious; "Damon Waynes last stand" is also funny in a tearful way - but this routine has no errors. All the jokes are funny, and the time limit of 70 minutes is perfect. Just long enough to last 20 years. I just love how he allows the audience to be totally themselves and unrestricted. I'm a fan of the classics and for a guy who watched a lot of of Jim Carrey growing up, watching a more laid back comic is pretty cool. Not putting in a category with Ellen and Newhart, but something you can watch if you're bloated. Thanks Eddie, god bless.

I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.<br /><br />She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM<br /><br />Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.<br /><br />Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.<br /><br />A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.<br /><br />This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.<br /><br />What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.<br /><br />Why do they make movies like this in the first place?<br /><br />Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic)

After I couldn't ignore the hype about the show, I started watching season one and it struck me as really good and I was hooked.... for about 5 episodes, then it started to spiral downwards. Why? First, Ethan Suplee is scripted to act as a complete idiot confirming that very obviously by spewing out semi-random stuff in great expectations of it somehow becoming the next best joke.<br /><br />Jaime Pressly's got stunning looks, but if she thinks stretching lips to explore parts of the face to which they normally never go to and making strange grimaces to accentuate everything she says is hilarious, she's way off track. Maybe she thought her character would be too flat, faded and she wanted to make it colorful and spicy, but made a flood of colors, overkill of spices and screams out loud for attention and it hurts my eyes, ears and intellect.<br /><br />I really, really wanted to love this show, like I said, the premise is great, (comes from the same shelf as The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain) and Jason Lee is doing a pretty good job here, along with some of the other actors but there is no way no how I would get 'sucked in' and forget that this is just a show, because Pressly's and Suplee's surreal, extreme characters abruptly wake me when they show up. It's worth to note that their characters and acting would be fine if this wasn't a 70 something-part series and if they didn't get that much screen time.

It's become extremely difficult to find a good horror movie anymore, thought this movie was a good thriller.<br /><br />Could have had better production values but what kept me going was the suspense and the twists. I had real reservations before seeing this movie (because of the cover). I was afraid that it would be excessively bloody and gory. I was wrong.<br /><br />Although there is a lot of scary parts, there is a lot of suspense and drama too.<br /><br />The acting in Dead Line was better than what you would expect from a micro budget horror flick. The characters were believable<br /><br />The movie is really thrilling and quite scary at moments so it makes you grab your seat until the ending credits roll<br /><br />Because of its production values (the sound is not very good for example) 8/10.

Why, o' WHY! ...did I pick this one up? Well... i needed a no-brainer in the summer heat, and the cover looked cool.<br /><br />Of course I should've known better. This is a really, really bad movie. And it gets embarasing when the makers know it's bad, and try cover it up by adding some sexy/beautiful women, and some sex-scenes to it. Well, folks... it does'nt cut it, does it!<br /><br />If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid! (that is an order)

I suppose I always felt that Hotel du Nord was studio-bound, the movement of people cars and camera were just too effortlessly smooth and stagey to have been filmed on location. But no problem - it's still a much underrated lovely composition from Marcel Carne. The plot seems a bit choppy at times, as if they were making it up as they went along, but because it is unpredictable holds the attention to the bitter end. The money shots when the 2 lovers are alone in their room are saddled with some rather stilted dialogue, but it's all so lovely to fall into any inanity can be accepted. Are these 2 young people symbols of a cancerous hopelessness in pre-War France or simply idiots? Suicide pacts are fairly common; if the suicidees are young and healthy with their lives before them untrammelled would you think anything other than that they were just misguided fools?<br /><br />Arletty played the part of prostitute well - she kept that zipper on her dress busy throughout anyway! I've only seen a few films with Jouvet - he is the most impressive invention as pimp in HDN - my trouble is shallow: every time I see his face I think of Sonnie Hale in Evergreen!<br /><br />A remarkably atmospheric, well acted and photographed film with so much happening it needs a few viewings to get it all in place. Annabella and Aumont made an exceptionally beautiful couple; Francois (Heurtebise) Perier in his 2nd film had a small amusing part as a gay man. All in all: wonderful.

With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it.

Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever "zombie" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying "This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative

Another tiresome bore from Anthony Minghella, who seems to thrive on these big bloated super-productions that take over two and a half hours to do what any reasonable filmmaker would do in about ninety minutes.<br /><br />The story centers on Inman (a somnambulent Jude Law), who goes off to the Civil War having just barely started a sort-of romance with Nicole Kidman, a Preacher's Daughter who has recently arrived in the prettily photographed backwater town. The story cuts back and forth between Inman's trials and tribulations at war (which is, guess what boys and girls? HELL!!) and Kidman's trials and tribulations back at home (which are, very predictably, incredibly boring). Renee Zellwegger appears on Kidman's farm to help Kidman get it back into shape after Kidman's saintly Daddy dies of Inconvenient Character Disease. Zellwegger acts all squinty and bossy in that Granny Clampett kind of way, dispensing enough Tough Love and Homespun Wisdom to turn the stomach of even the hardiest watcher of Touched By An Angel.<br /><br />This film is, quite simply, excruciating. Avoid it like the big bloated Oscar-bait Bogus Pretentious Literary Adaptation nonsense that it is.

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is an overall wonderful movie. The blending of animation types is unique, the storyline is amazing, and the music is wonderful.<br /><br />The drawn animation is a special thing about many animations. How they expressed the characters, especially the horses, through their animation are spectacular especially. While the way horses communicate through body language is easy to understand, many young children and people who haven't studied horses might not understand. Without words, I would imagine it would have to be challenging to express them through the features. Because of this, I understand the 'eyebrow' they added to the horses (while real horses don't have those thick lines). One of the few things I noticed about horse habits that might have been portrayed strangely is that Spirit lead his mother's herd. In wild horse herds, the lead stallion usually chases the young colts out.<br /><br />Also, while some people might think portraying the white army officers as the 'bad guys' is stereotyping, think of all the movies in which the Native Americans have been portrayed as that. Sometimes back then; they did treat mustangs very poorly. For example, in real history, the Appaloosa breed was almost wiped out due to the Army officers. Imagine what would have happened to one of the worlds best loved riding breeds if the Native Americans had not saved them.<br /><br />I think it's amazing how the realism wasn't subtracted by making the horses talk to each other. Spirit's feelings were expressed by a little bit of narration, but mostly through the music (by Bryan Adams). The songs express the story really well, and Hans Zimmer and Bryan Adams did a great job telling the story through melodies and lyrics.<br /><br />The emotion I got when watching the movie, whether the first time or the twentieth (yes, I've watched it that much), you wouldn't believe. Some of the scenes take your breath away, while others seem to force tears into your eyes. The opening sequence, showing Spirit's homeland, puts you right into the spectacular action right away.<br /><br />I don't understand at all why some people are so hateful of this brilliant movie. Overall, I rate it a 10/10 - a must watch.

Personally I couldn't get into 'This is Not a Love Song', its a brilliant film and there's a great story line to it, I just found myself checking the time on my phone every two minuets to see how much was left of the film.<br /><br />I love the relationship between Spike and Heaton, there that close they depend on each other to get along in life. At the same time I wish the relationship was more than what it is. Heaton is in love with spike, but Spike Ibsen't in love with Heaton, or he doesn't know how to love him. The acts of betrayal, on both parts, have a big effect on the two men. They are both devastated by the fact that the other ran away and abandoned them, at a time when they truly needed each other for survival.

Who likes awful "comedy" shows like Little Mosque on the Prairie? The only two kinds of people I can think of who watch this are: One, Muslims and self-proclaimed Liberal defenders of every ethnic group who are so thrilled there is a show about Muslims that it doesn't even matter if the show is good or funny at all (which it is not). Two, old people and people whose idea of comedy is incredibly predictable, badly written, stale jokes.<br /><br />CBC needs to really take a look at what they are doing and who their audience is. If they keep only writing comedy for really old people then guess what will happen, their audience will die off soon and they will have no audience left. I'd be curious who even writes for this show? Do you think it's actually Muslims, or hip, funny young people? No, I bet it is old white guys who have been writing the same jokes for the same kind of bad CBC shows since the 1960's.<br /><br />When you look at the CBC comedy shows there are, Air Farce was only finally just taken off the air (thank goodness!) but we still have lame ducks like This Hour Has 22 Minutes and Rick Mercer that we are paying for, not to mention this poor excuse for "comedy" Little Mosque on the Prairie. It is supposed to be offencive and funny? Only the CBC would think this lame show is at all offencive or funny. Shame on the CBC for squandering our tax dollars on shows only a few people would bother watching.

This is a powerful film which seems to have never re-arisen after the Joe McCarthy censorship period. It influenced me as a Jewish teen-ager who had friends of various colors and whose father's family had suffered under the Fascist regimes in Europe during the second quarter of the Twentieth Century. Unlike the later rip-off, "On The Waterfront" which seemed to take some of the same themes and twist them to fit the enforced Hollywood political correctness of the time, it told its story direct and with respect for the characters and for the reality it fictionally reflected. It was an antidote to "Gone With the Wind", "Birth of a Nation", "Triumph of the Will" and so many other glorifiers of hatred and violence. I would place it alongside the recent German film (also virtually hidden in the US), "Rosenstrasse."<br /><br />I remember that the TV version, also black and white in format as well as story, was blacked out by some stations because the black hero's wife appeared white. As a young civil rights worker, it produced a conflict for me because on the one hand I was opposed to smoking cigarettes and on the other opposed the boycott in Georgia of a sponsor of the TV show, a major tobacco company (I no longer remember which one -- does anyone else?).<br /><br />I would love to find a CD of either the film or the TV show to let my sons see something that informed my opposition to racism universally (as opposed to only fighting racism against Jews) and recognition of the inherent connection between racism and militarism.

The Beat was an exciting movie about a couple of young punks trying to survive in 1980's New York. This involves fighting with the other street gang that they directly share a high school class with, trying to stay in school, as well as going to local shows that involve bands that look like the Dead Kennedy's and have the name Skulls for their band name. Rex (played by David Jacobson) Plays an autistic kid who starts to get a long with all of these kinds, and starts to show them that poetry is really beautiful, and if applied to what these kids do in life can really make things work out for the better! Billy Kane (Played by William McNamara) and Kate Kane (played by Kara Glover) are brother and sister. Although they roll with this crowd of thugs, these kids are not the same type of people as this group. They care for Rex and they care for others, and really show an enlightened side of themselves. While his sister sleeps with the head of the Gang, she is also falling in love with Rex, trying to show him that she is not a slut. But in the end, the teachers at the school finally get to him and want to put him in a mental institution, he finally feels it is time to end his life, while Animals of Sound played without him. But they like to think that he is not dead, he is just living his life to the fullest, riding sharks and being happy living in the ocean. This movie, was one of those movies where I was glad that I watched it. While it was extremely entertaining, it also had a big message to it. Something a long the lines that these kids had no direction, no future, no figure heads to look up to, but because a troubled kid came along they all realized that there was way more important things to life then fighting the local black kids, or being destructive to everything. Rex showed them the beauty in angry music. Rex showed them the beauty in Rats, Disease and Murder. Rex showed they the beauty in almost everything, while some of those things have no beauty involved, they still were able to see that when used in poems, these poems speak to people. Rex played an important part in this move, who changed everyones heart from depression, to see that there is hope for them, and thats why he started to show them; The Beat.

If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.<br /><br />The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.<br /><br />By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.

This was shown as part of the 59th Edinburgh International Festival, though for reasons best left to the powers that be. A lot seems to have been made of the fact that it's the first Thai language film, made with Thai actors & crew, but directed by a westerner. Needn't have bothered to be honest, as this film is dull, dull, dull. Why hint at something, why shroud an idea in mystery, why subtly invoke a feeling, when you can hammer the point home with terrible voice overs, obvious shots and over the top scenes> Nothing is left to the imagination as time and time again director Spurrier clumsily churns out endless clichés. No hinting, no guessing, it's all up on screen, no need to use our imaginations. Wonder when the 'scary' bit is coming? No you wont, 'cause the soundtrack will get more and more intimidating, rising to a crescendo of ominously. Hell, I'm making up words to describe how bad this is. Wonder whether the conjured demon is real or imaginary? Why tax yourself - it's really is a snake, and yes it's really is biting his crotch, and there's blood splattering everywhere. it's a strange, uneasy film for several reasons. It's supposed to be a horror film, but it's not scary - the jolts are signposted & obvious. It might be a scathing attack on the seedier side of Thailand, yet the director has a sleazy, lubricious style when it comes to showing barely pubescent teens. Maybe it was casting himself as the virginity-taking westerner that planted the seeds of doubt in my head. Or maybe the whole thing was just pants. Uninspired, insipid, repetitive, hackneyed - all candidates for best description, but dull seems most appropriate and honest. It's all been seen before, probably better, often with more thought, rarely with less imagination or flare. Sorry. Thumbs down on every count. Truly dire.

I have walked out of about 6 movies my entire life. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know how I sat through an hour of it. I must have been in a coma that night. I saw it in the theatre when it came out 8 years ago. I couldn't even remember the name, but I knew that Penelope Ann Miller starred in it. It must have really affected me to be wasting my time commenting on it today. Yech! Vomit! Barf!

Yet again, I appear to be the only person on planet Earth who is capable of criticizing Japanese films made before 1970. "Fires on the Plain" (1959) is another in the seemingly endless line of "classics" that get all sorts of praise for no apparently good reason. As much as I love to overgeneralize and psychoanalyze all of these moviegoers who have such horrible taste in film, it's still nearly impossible to rationalize why anyone would ever think that poorly made fluff like this should be proclaimed as some sort of "masterpiece." What I find truly ironic is that fans of derivative "classics" like "Fires on the Plain" focus so much on "inside the box" movie-making (orthodox grading standards like scriptwriting, acting, camera-work, etc.) yet it always seems like the most highly revered "classics" are most deficient in these very standards. For example, one of the laziest copouts for a filmmaker involves forced verbal exposition where characters basically explain everything for the viewer even when the constructed scenario is totally artificial. Most surprisingly, the very first scene in "Fires on the Plain" uses this indolent tactic to the extreme.<br /><br />After a funny head slap, the following useless dialogue assaults the viewer, "Why can't you grasp the situation? We landed to the west under heavy fire to reinforce units at Tacloban. We lost two-thirds of our men. Our artillery was sunk in transit. We tried to reach Burauen airfield by crossing the central mountains but without artillery it was impossible. The enemy's counterattack forced a fanout across the valley. You know that." So why, exactly, is one character telling another character something he already knows? Oh yeah, that's right, the makers of this film are too lazy to think of more natural ways to communicate this information. You see, a quality film would actually show these events happening, or at worst it would involve dialogue involving one character who has no knowledge of those events. Heck, even an opening summary in paragraph form directed at the viewer would have been better than what transpired here.<br /><br />Such instances of poor quality movie-making are littered throughout "Fires on the Plain" to the point where this film feels like it was written by imbeciles for imbeciles. For example, the lead character stumbles upon some skeletons wrapped in Japanese garb. Instead of doing the natural thing like – oh I don't know – giving a depressed mannerism, the character blurts out "Japanese soldiers." Thanks buddy, but I could have figured that one out for myself.<br /><br />Even worse, this movie is saturated with over-dramatic ploys. The most ridiculous scene involves a pair of boots. Picture this. A soldier walks along and finds a pair of worn out boots. One would think that such a find is utterly useless, but it turns out that the soldier's boots are in even worse condition, so he picks up the worn boots and leaves his SUPER worn boots behind. Fine, I get the point. The soldiers are in rough shape – a fact that is already clearly emphasized with their worn boots to begin with. The scene is ridiculous, but I was ready to let it go, until the SECOND soldier arrives! You see, he finds the previous soldier's SUPER worn boots and notices – get ready, cause here it comes – that his boots are SUPER DUPER worn boots! Lucky man, he picks up the SUPER worn boots and leaves his SUPER DUPER worn boots behind. But you see, that's not all – because the THIRD soldier then arrives! He finds the previous soldiers SUPER DUPER worn boots and inspects them, along with his own SUPER DUPER worn boots. Since both pairs suck, he tosses them both aside and smiles as he continues barefoot. At this point I was ready to throw my television through my living room window. The heavy handedness, overdramaticism, and paramount absurdity of this sequence is beyond bad film-making. It's SUPER DUPER bad film-making.<br /><br />There are a number of similar, completely stupid moments to be had. Like the time when the lead character asks someone, "Hey, are you dead?" Like the guy is going to answer "Yes" if he actually kicked the bucket. I'll also be the first to condemn the subpar performance of the lead actor, who is the quintessential posterchild for artificial reaction. I laughed hard during that opening head slap where his head slingshot back in place with this stupid, goofy expression on his face.<br /><br />The fact that this trivial fluff piece gets an IMDb average rating of 8.4 while a certifiable masterpiece like "A Tale of Two Sisters" (2003) only gets a 7.5 is the height of mass stupidity. And to think that some people actually delude themselves into thinking that "AToTS" doesn't make sense. Well, not every movie can have completely outrageous SUPER DUPER worn boots on its side.

From what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2.

Although most Americans have little knowledge of his work other than Star Wars, Alec Guinness produced an amazing body of work--particularly in the 1940s-1950s--ranging from dramas to quirky comedies. I particularly love his comedies, as they are so well-done and seem so natural and real on the screen--far different from the usual fare from Hollywood.<br /><br />This being said, this was the film that sparked my interest in these movies. It's plot was so odd and cute that it is very unlikely the film would have been made anywhere--except for Ealing Studios--which had a particular fondness for "little" films like this one.<br /><br />Guinness is a nerdy little scientist that works for a textile company. He wants to experiment in order to create a synthetic fabric that is indestructible, though he is not working for the company as a researcher but for janitorial work! So, he tends to sneak into labs (either during the day if no one suspects or at night) and try his hand at inventing. Repeatedly, he is caught (such as after he blew up the lab) and given the boot until one day he actually succeeds! Then, despite the importance of the discovery, he sets off a completely unanticipated chain of events--and then the fun begins.<br /><br />The film is a wonderful satire that pokes fun at industry, unions, the government and people in general.

Probably Bigas Luna's finest achievement for it achieves a delicate balance between sleaze, eroticism and surrealism. The delicious Mathilda May, who spent most of Tobe Hooper's "Lifeforce" in the buff, is the object of young Biel Duran's pre-teen lust. He can't get May's breasts out of his mind and wants so badly to suckle them and suckle the breasts of his own mother, too. His pursuit of May IS the film. As in Luna works such as "Lulu" and "Jamon! Jamon!", the director brings a slightly warped sexual sensibility to his strange but beautiful tale. The usual suspects will be offended, but those with open minds will enjoy this frothy erotic poem to the female breast. José Luis Alcaine's images are gorgeous and Nicola Piovani's score is sweet and rich. A gorgeous cinematic confection with a delightfully anarchic sensibility that the Spanish do so naturally.

This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.

80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.<br /><br />The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.<br /><br />What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.<br /><br />Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong.

Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.<br /><br />It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.<br /><br />For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.<br /><br />The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).<br /><br />Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.<br /><br />These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.<br /><br />The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.<br /><br />It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: "Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?"<br /><br />Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.<br /><br />It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.<br /><br />Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.<br /><br />These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.<br /><br />Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out.

The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.

An inventive, suspenseful exercise in claustrophobia. A Japanese thriller that sets itself a tough challenge by being entirely set in two rooms. Not completely successful, but taut, surprising and well-acted. One might find the film somewhat reminiscent of SAW – two men trapped in room and pitting against each other – but unlike that film it dares to stay with its premise and keep the hero locked in his cell throughout the film. It's like watching a lab experiment. Some might find the contained suspense tedious, but this reviewer found it enthralling. The sound and imagery of the film are stunningly well realized. This is a certainly a good film to use to show off a good home video system. Just right for a late night movie fest, when one is in the paranoid mood. It certainly kept me awake that night.

Far by my most second favourite cartoon Spielberg did, after Animaniacs. Even if the ratings were low, so what, I still enjoyed it and loved it, was so funny and I adored the cast, wow Jess Harnell and Tress Macneille were in there and were just fantastic, the whole cast were brilliant, especially the legendary Frank Welker.<br /><br />I'd love to see this cartoon again, was so awesome and the jokes were brilliant. Also I can remember the hilarious moment where Brain cameos in it, you hear his voice and it played the PATB theme instrumental, that was just fantastic, I love it in those cartoons when cameos pop in. I wish this cartoon and Animaniacs came back, i loved them

Ray Bradbury, run and hide! This tacky film version of his short story from the 1950s about time travel and the effect it might have on de-evolution is not well known from the theatrical run (did it have one?) and exists now as a DVD on the shelves released during a slow week.<br /><br />What looks to be a fancy sci-fi thriller form the opening scenes quickly fools us as the computer generated graphics are re-run unaltered throughout a film that is supposed to be about different 'trips' back in time where a major company sells macho guys in 2055 the chance to hunt dinosaurs by paying exorbitant fees to travel back in time to prehistoric jungles. One slip of the foot/butterfly while on one of these ventures and the course of evolution is altered with resultant time waves rolling over the planet changing everything to man-eating plants and beasties. Of course there is a pretty damsel who knows how to reverse the process and a hunky man to risk his life to act on her orders and everything is eventually OK.<br /><br />Yes, that is the story...and the most surprising fact about this poorly scripted, abysmally acted mess of a film is that it attracted some fine talent to portray the comic book flat characters. Edward Burns (all buff and hunky) is our hero du jour, Ben Kingsley is the requisite bad corporate guy sporting a ridiculous white wig, Catherine McCormack is the know-it-all woman creator, and Wilfried Hochholdinger as an evil one - all are superb actors and should have known better than to align with this flop. And the saddest thing is that for those who like this genre of sci-fi monster thrillers the creative department sold out with some of the corniest animation to hit the screen in a long time. A must miss. Grady Harp

Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha<br /><br />Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.<br /><br />The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.<br /><br />Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.

Derek Jarman has shown us time and time again that dialog is not his strong suit. He is a painter, and paint he does. His films are almost always visually splendid, but about as exciting to watch as paint that is already dry. Watch his movies in fast forward, the really fast setting that you can only get on DVD. In The Tempest, Jarman does very little with the script or the characters, using them as simply a lattice to hang a very long and well-constructed cinematographic frame. He even goes so far as to contradict Shakespeare's original script to achieve these excrucriatingly slow and lifeless scenes. There is none of the romance, magic, trickery, or urgency the script calls for, little spontaneity, and the character of Caliban in particular is reduced to a quivering and insane idiot of sorts, similar to Gaveston in Jarman's Edward II. It is too bad that this is just about the only film version of The Tempest available.

I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it – it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, "special" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.

A German freshman, Stefan hitch hikes to Paris during summer break were he falls for a mysterious young woman he meets in the Paris freak scene. He then follows her in the famous isle of Ibiza, the hippie joint were meets Wolf, a man who throws Hitler-Jugend knives, owns bars and hotels and keeps Estelle under his thumb with dope. The couple tries to escape Wolf, Stefan gets hooked with dope and jealousy for Estelle, who's groovy and a free spirit. Great photography and music, plot is quite usual for the period but it's not an exploitation kind of movie, cold and dramatic. The moral is quite strong (he was looking for the sun...) but I would not say it's a film against drugs even it puts enphasy on drug use.

Good luck finding this film to even watch - it's not yet released on tape or DVD. I saw on release in the early '70's, was lucky enough to catch it via American Cinematheque's preservation efforts, and it still has some tangible moments that stayed with me for thirty years.<br /><br />No reason to repeat rwint's accurate comments here. As a come-out Director soon after the soaring success of Five Easy Pieces, Jack N has been said to have managed the low budget effort as best as possible, and it certainly shows in the wandering and meandering that could have used some re-cutting. But it's also a memorable icon for it's time: the all very intense clashes of late 60's college sports, student movements, sexual revolution, and more. <br /><br />Why see this film? It was probably a ground breaker in some scenes: the frisky male bonding in the after-game showers; Karen Black's scene with Tepper in the car will catch you a little off guard - but it's the first use of a word I hadn't witnessed in film before; and the casual and unexpected use of nudity overall. There are probably others I'm omitting.<br /><br />Look for a nice surprise of a young Cindy Williams in one of her first films; a thin David Ogend Stiers; Mike Warren fresh out of his powder-blue UCLA uniform and readying for a dark-blue TV uniform; Robert Towne - Actor; and a whole lot of folks simply playing themselves.<br /><br />Now: any connection between Harry Gittes last name, Robert Towne, and a certain character in Chinatown and the Two Jakes?<br /><br />It gets a "7" based on Karen Black. You'll see why.

The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.<br /><br />Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.<br /><br />This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.

This movie is based on the book, "A Many Splendored Thing" by Han Suyin and tackles issues of race relations between Asians and Whites, a topic that comes from Han's personal experiences as an Eurasian growing up in China. That background, and the beautiful Hong Kong settings, gives this love story a unique and rather daring atmosphere for its time.<br /><br />Other than that, the story is a stereotypical romance with a memorable song that is perhaps more remembered than the movie itself. The beautiful Jennifer Jones looks the part and gives a wonderful, Oscar nominated performance as a doctor of mixed breed during the advent of Communism in mainland China. William Holden never looked better playing a romantic lead as a journalist covering war torn regions in the world. The acting is top notch, and the chemistry between the two lovers provides for some genuine moments of silver screen affection sure to melt the hearts of those who are romantically inclined.<br /><br />The cinematography really brings out fifty's Hong Kong, especially the hilltop overlooking the harbor where the two lovers spend their most intimate moments. The ending is a real tear-jerker. Some may consider sentimental romances passé, but, for those who enjoy classic Hollywood love stories, this is a shining example.

I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero.

Made the unfortunate mistake of seeing this film in the Edinburgh film festival. It was well shot from the outset, but that's the last positive comment I have about the film. The acting was awful, I wonder if actual gogo girls were hired? But it was the plot that was truly laughable, in fact that it was laughable and not boring is the only reason I gave this 3/10.<br /><br />** Spoilers below **.<br /><br />I just want to mention a few of the scenes that really got the audience laughing:.<br /><br />Shoving the girl in the field: who would have thought that a kid shoving another kid could be acted so badly. A real eye-opener.<br /><br />The getting on the bus scene: the girl is getting on the bus. But, according to the music, the world is ending.<br /><br />The rolling under the clothes line: Wow, this one really demonstrates the plot writer's skills. In the room, followed by raw meat and skill selling. Why not just get her to perform all three 'sins' at once? At least then the film might have been slightly shorter.<br /><br />The running down the stairs of the mall: watch as one of the girls takes to flight down the stairs pursued by a flesh eating Dau, no wait .. she *is* just walking quickly trying not to break her nails.<br /><br />The running covered in blood: this is definitely my favourite scene, and a fitting end to the movie. A half marathon in red paint, completed by vaulting up stairs and over the bridge, only to be sent flying most unrealistically by a passing car. Not only this, but this suicide is undertaken by the most self obsessed girl in the film, now that's sticking to character for you.<br /><br />I'd like to think that this film was created by a 16 year old and their mates. Sadly, having met the director at the presentation, this is not the case.<br /><br />But, if you're in a sarcastic mood, and fancy a laugh with a few mates.. then still don't even think about it.

I will never be a member of any club that would have me,<br /><br />especially this one.<br /><br />Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a<br /><br />female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for<br /><br />blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's<br /><br />wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage<br /><br />is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire<br /><br />family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who<br /><br />attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this<br /><br />up).<br /><br />The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr<br /><br />and Starr's kid.<br /><br />Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He<br /><br />spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than<br /><br />Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like<br /><br />he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the<br /><br />most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes<br /><br />for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster<br /><br />and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid<br /><br />also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching<br /><br />violence against children is really entertaining.<br /><br />The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer<br /><br />Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.<br /><br />It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's<br /><br />coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the<br /><br />background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include<br /><br />vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.<br /><br />Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's<br /><br />"Martin."<br /><br />Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at<br /><br />arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one<br /><br />tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,<br /><br />you will need it.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual<br /><br />violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual<br /><br />references, drug abuse, and adult situations.<br /><br />

Like the first film in this series (SLAUGHTER, 1972), I think it would be a mistake to just label this a "blaxsploitation film". Sure, Slaughter is a tough, gun-toting, Black man but it's more of an action picture regardless of the color of the leading man or the bad guys--and a very good action picture at that.<br /><br />For the second and final time, Jim Brown plays the title character. The film begins with one of the goofiest scenes I can remember in a film. As Slaughter and his friends are enjoying an outdoor party, along comes a biplane and begins spraying the group with machine gun fire! No, Slaughter isn't so tough that he then shoots down the plane with his .357! But Slaughter is ticked and no one is sure why this hit was happened--however, Slaughter is going to get to the bottom of it! Well, it turns out that the hit was attempted in retribution for the last movie. In it, Slaughter takes on the Mafia and kicks lots of butt down in Mexico. Now, in a horribly bungled and clumsy attempt, the guys in the plane kill and injure quite a few people but miss Slaughter. And, because the job was bungled so badly, the mob boss (Ed MacMahon!!) orders the pilot and gunman killed by his brutal assassin (Don Stroud--in a very typical sort of role for him). Stroud is great--scary and nasty to the core, but Ed MacMahon as the boss?! Wow, that's an interesting twist! <br /><br />Slaughter is now stumped. He figured out who the two guys were in the plane but by the time he got to them, they were dead. So, to help him along in his own private vendetta, Brock Peters (who plays a cop) tells him who the mobsters are who ordered the hit and got Slaughter to agree to help by doing some illegal undercover work. So, Slaughter and his pimp friend break into the mobster's mansion and steal a list of payoffs to key government and police officials. And, naturally, there is a lot of shooting and bloodshed in the process.<br /><br />Stroud isn't about to let Slaughter get away with this and kidnaps Slaughter's girlfriend. Now it's a standoff--Slaughter has the list but if he doesn't give it back, the lady is dead. Being a tough but gallant man, you might just be able to guess much of what happens next.<br /><br />The action is very good in the film and Jim Brown is menacing and tough. The only negative I noticed was that while having MacMahon play this nasty boss, at the end, he simply folded--and way too quickly. When Slaughter catches up to him, MacMahon becomes a wimp and all the previous nastiness disappears--and this is too much of a cliché and inconsistent. Still, despite this minor quibble, it's an engaging film that is NOT for the kids due to all the violence and boobs.

If you like poor SE, (some) bad acting and a total lack of credibility, this is a movie for you. So a really cheap looking movie, but I liked it anyway. Why? Because I like those kind of movies. I can't help but smile when I see these kind of movies....... What were the producers, actors, director and SE people thinking when they made this film? Don't expect an "Abyss" or "Alien", just a (very) low-budget horror/adventure movie.<br /><br />There is one nice "splatter"moment when a guy's head is shot off, but for the most, the horror is pretty tame. The final monster is pretty cool too.<br /><br />It's only 73 minutes long, so you can t go wrong there. Maybe you can pick it up at your local videostore or watch it on TV. I'm sure you will have a good time watching it.<br /><br />But don't say you weren't warned.............

One of John Ford's best films 'The Informer' doesn't feature any grand scenery of the American West. Instead the intense drama Ford was known for plays out on the no less rugged terrain of British character actor Victor McLaglen's face. The former prizefighter, who once faced Joe Louis in the ring, delivers an Academy Award-winning portrayal of disgraced IRA soldier Gypo Nolan on the worst night of his life.<br /><br />The plot is gracefully simple: In 1922 Dublin, a starving and humiliated man who's been thrown out of the IRA for being unable to kill an informant in cold blood, himself becomes an informant. For £20 he betrays a friend to "the Tans" and for the rest of the night he drinks and gives away his blood money in rapidly alternating spasms of guilt, denial, self-pity, and a desperate desire to escape the consequences of his actions. <br /><br />It is the remarkable complexity given to the character of the seemingly simple Gypo that is the film's most impressive achievement. In most movies a burly lout of Gypo's type would be cast as the heavy, he'd have at best two or three lines and be disposed of quickly so the hero and the villain could have their showdown. In 'The Informer' Gypo himself is both hero and villain, while the showdown is in his inner turmoil, every bit of which is explicitly shared with the audience.<br /><br />Because Liam O'Flaherty's novel had previously been filmed in 1929, RKO gave Ford a very modest budget. The director and his associates, particularly cinematographer Joseph H. August, turned this to their advantage in creating a claustrophobic masterpiece about a man at war with himself. In addition to McLaglen's Oscar 'The Informer' also won John Ford his first along with wins for Best Screenplay and Best Score.

Let me depart from many comments I've read here, and say that this film ranks as one of the five best Bonds, along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Licence To Kill, and For Your Eyes Only (the ONLY time Roger Moore actually played the role of Bond, instead of futzing around). Of course, Sean Connery pulls the whole thing together -- as co-writer, co-producer, and in his best performance since From Russia With Love. He is fit, energetic, and obviously enjoying himself. His acting is mature, confident, and laced with the right amount of humour. This is in contrast to his mechanical performance in Thunderball, his sleepwalking through You Only Live Twice, and his jowly, paunchy romp through that cartoon known as Diamonds Are Forever!<br /><br />This is an imaginative reworking of Thunderball, without having the sets and machines overwhelming the characters and plot. This cast is far superior, as well. Klaus Maria Brandauer brings his unique style to the role of Largo, without relying on an eyepatch, SPECTRE ring or a boring uniform. Kim Basinger is athletic and lovely, Barbara Carrera is dynamic, and for once, we have a great Felix Leiter in Bernie Casey. The depictions of M and Q are original, and the addition of the bumbling agent Small-Fawcett is fun without lapsing into slapstick.<br /><br />Director Irvin Kershner makes good use of his locations (the Bahamas and the French Riviera) without losing sight of his actors. Although close inspection reveals some mediocre special effects and lapses in continuity, Kershner keeps the film moving at a good pace, unlike Thunderball (which even its director, Terence Young, did not like). Obviously fans will miss the gun-barrel trademark and the 007 theme music, but they are, after all, owned by Eon Productions.<br /><br />Michel LeGrand may not have composed the most memorable score, but it captures the atmosphere of the locations without being overly intrusive. Not surprisingly, his best moments are in the south of France, with his French love song (at the health spa) being particularly attractive. And tell me, how many really remember the music for Moonraker? I personally would rather forget Man With the Golden Gun and A View To a Kill!<br /><br />The Eon folks can sneer at this film if they like. (Yes, Octopussy made more money.) At least Connery's mature 007 didn't swing through the jungle emitting a Tarzan yell. He did not frolic with a Bengal tiger, nor did he fight off "Indian" snake charmers with a tennis racket. Despite Eon's desperate efforts to stop this production, Kevin McClory and the late Jack Schwartzman put together a fine film, one that I think Ian Fleming would have appreciated.<br /><br />If, however, you would rather see James Bond get kicked in the shins by a dwarf, engage in another tiresome struggle with "Jaws", jump into bed with Grace Jones, or lead a slapstick firetruck chase through San Francisco, this is NOT the film for you!

Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.<br /><br />Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!

The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.<br /><br />Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.<br /><br />As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.<br /><br />Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.<br /><br />On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.<br /><br />When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.

I don't remember too much about this movie except that there was a distinctly gratuitous destruction of luminaires (lamps). Almost every fight scene included the unnecessary and wanton destruction of useful light fixtures, even if outfitted with cheesy, '70's-style, cylindrical shades to keep with the time setting of the story. On one occasion, raucous lamp destruction takes place in a domestic fight scene between the brothers in both the living and dining rooms of their mother's house, with fixtures in both rooms being taken out. Yet, the most malicious destruction occurs moments later in a bookie's office and includes, but is not limited to, the toppling of a fixture with a ceramic horse-head base, which is consequently disintegrated, and the severe denting of a cylindrical shade as a guy falls back into it during another fisticuffs fight. Later, that lamp is toppled as well when the guy is shot, incurring further damage to the plastic-coated shade.<br /><br />While this movie encourages a particularly wasteful attitude toward lamps, one should keep in mind that lamps, regardless of their cheap construction or gauche, top-heavy appearance, are still valuable for the illumination that they provide. However, if you ever feel the need to vicariously smash a lamp, I would highly recommend this movie.

There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".<br /><br />There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.<br /><br />I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.<br /><br />Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.<br /><br />I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.<br /><br />Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.

Is torture ever right? No The answer is simple and absolute with no qualifications possible. The reason as this film showed is the effect torture has on a society. The values that have been hard fought for in Western society through centuries of revolution and struggle are for ALL men and women to be allowed to live in a free and open society. One where individuals are treated equally and with respect to their essential rights as humans. To protect this society institutions have been developed to deal with wrongdoing openly, fairly and honestly. These institutions have been adapted and honed through generations of hard work. One could argue that these are the true bedrock of democracy as they belong to us all, allow us all to be heard. If we allow undemocratic, inhumane acts to be committed in our name, if we split our society into those who have rights and those who don't then we undo the work of our ancestors. Moreover we are all complicit and all guilty and tainted. Whether those that we accuse are guilty or not is of no importance. We are defined by our attitudes and our responses.