Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

For some reason, various young couples hiking through the Italian Alps split up to see who can reach their campsite designation first. James (Gregory Lee Kenyon) enters a cave, finds a skeleton of an ancient demonic gladiator and becomes possessed by the spirit of "Tyranus" when he puts on a helmet belonging to the corpse. He then spends the rest of the film running around in the woods hunting down his friends and hacking off their limbs to add to some stew to bring the undead "Demonicus" back to life. This shot-on-digital Full Moon release is stupid, senseless, has terrible acting and sound and the (Los) Angeles National Forest is a poor substitute for Italy. However, it's pretty high on the unintentional laugh scale thanks mainly to the overwrought lead performance. Whether bug-eyed running around in cheap-looking armor brandishing a sword or spouting neurotic Latin gibberish about demons and resurrection, Kenyon's ridiculous facial expressions and awkward line delivery must be seen to be believed. Oh well, at least he's not boring like most of the rest of the cast.

I wanted to watch this, to get a inside look at the show. It told the story more of Robin Williams, then Mork & Mindy. Still, thought it was great. We got to see, Robin always being 'on', no matter what. The performance of Diamontopolous was awesome.<br /><br />The introductions of the main players, seem so real to me. Roebuck as Garry Marshall was wonderful. He was so charming in this, which helped me get through all the Williams energy. The little behind the scenes pieces of his other shows (Happy Days, and Laverne & Shirley), was enlightening. I also thought Richmond-Peck's Harvey was also a nice rock in the pond. (This is a good thing).<br /><br />This movie told the age old story of Hollywood folks, going through the ups and downs of stardom. It kept me glued to my TV, and I learned to love Robin, well hell, mostly everybody seem to be the super people I sometimes think Hollywood is. Go figure.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder why the network people are always played to be idiots. We never saw the head of ABC. Just heard him, like Charlie from Charlie Angels (I wonder if this way planed?). It seems so sad, that a show at number 1, could be so destroy by their own network.<br /><br />I think this story could be told about anyone's life, as they climb the ladder of any job. Movie, and TV stars are always loved or hated by so many people, that you grew up with, you just want to reach back in their past, to remember your own past. I Remember watching the show, and always wondering what does happen in their personal lives.<br /><br />Mork and Mindy, will always be part of me, and I got to see part of them. It may not all be the truth, it's also all not a lie, but in the end, it told me a wonderful sad, happy story.

Watching this again after a gap of many years and remembering the flop it was upon its original release, I am surprised at how well it has held up. One of the reasons for its failure was that one generation just thought it was over indulgent crap and a younger one was disappointed that it did not show the full hippy glory. Seen now it is clear that Antonioni was already aware of and fascinated by the heady mix of fervent enthusiasm for change and a lack of any clear vision for the future. The lead pair are excellent and it is shameful that they took so much flak for the film's perceived failure. They are ideal and convey perfectly the various contradictions and demonstrate a pure delight in lovemaking. I blame others for the over emphasis on the student revolt sequences at the start but have to say that from there on in this is one of the directors most beautiful looking pictures and he certainly got the very best out of the man made and natural landscapes. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the highly explosive ending.

several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.<br /><br />at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />9 out of 10

I think the movie was pretty good, will add it to my "clasic collection" after all this time. I believe I saw other posters who reminded some of the pickier people that it is still just a movie. Maybe some of the more esoteric points defy "logic", but a great many religious matters accepted "on faith" fail to pass the smell test. If you're going to accept whatever faith you subscribe to you can certainly accept a movie. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the Aja-Yee Dagger is the same possessed knife Lamonte Cranston had so much trouble gaining control of in "The Shadow". No mention of it in the trivia section for either movie here (IMDB), but I would bet a dollar to a donut it's the same prop.

In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. <br /><br />They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.<br /><br />They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.<br /><br />They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).<br /><br />They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.<br /><br />They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).<br /><br />They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.<br /><br />They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.<br /><br />That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.

I LOVED this movie. Not as great as "50 First Dates", but it's definitely a repeater, especially on a rainy day or with a group of girlfriends. Yes, the plot was "cute" and maybe even unbelievable, but what's so bad about a feel good movie. Drew as Josie and her romance with the teacher is so sweet and brother baseball wannabee adds to the movie's good feeling. With all the junk out there, what's so bad about a good movie the whole family can enjoy? Without being embarrassed while watching with your kids! Drew is an awesome actress that really seems to be unappreciated for the most part. This is definitely one of her best roles!

In Where The Sidewalk Ends, Otto Preminger reunites Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney, surely in hopes of recapturing the magic of his Laura. But they're wildly dissimilar films, set in different strata of New York (not to mention at opposite poles of the noir universe). A fine mist of the Gothic hovers over the upscale Manhattan of Laura, with its erotic obsession and faint whiff of necrophilia; Where The Sidewalk Ends is pure urban soot and grit befouling a town of basement apartments, steam rooms and parking garages.<br /><br />But it's every bit as fine a movie as its revered forerunner, and dyed-in-the-wool noir (Laura, by contrast, one of the clutch of films from 1944 which the French first dubbed `noir,' was still very much a sophisticated murder mystery). Daylight enters only on very temporary sufferance, and director of photography Joseph LaShelle makes the most of the alleys and brownstones, the docks and the El. This is quintessential big-city - specifically Big Apple - noir, like several others from the bumper crop of 1950, like Side Street and Sleeping City and The Tattooed Stranger and Edge of Doom.<br /><br />As the movie opens, police detective Dana Andrews is on the carpet for his brutal ways, particularly his vendetta towards crime boss Gary Merrill (whom we learn was set up in business by Andrews' ne'er-do-well father). When an out-of-towner is stabbed to death at a floating crap game operated by Merrill, the hair-trigger Andrews roughs up a witness, causing him a fatal crack to the skull (exacerbated by a steel plate installed in the veteran's head). Realizing that his job's already on the line, Andrews dumps the body in the river after making it look like the suspect had taken a powder.<br /><br />Of course, that's far from an end to it. The corpse is discovered, his estranged wife turns out to be Tierney, and all the evidence starts to turn toward her father (Tom Tully), a hack driver who happened not only to have been cruising the same mean streets the night of the murder but to have ample reason to want his abusive son-in-law dead. But the embittered loner Andrews finds in Tierney a summons to his better nature; he tries to exonerate her father while still keeping his own involvement in the whole sordid business a secret....<br /><br />Not so epigrammatic as Laura, the script for Where The Sidewalk Ends (by Ben Hecht) shows a pungency of its own (in a second dressing-down, his superior tells Andrews, `Look at you - all bunged up like a barrelhouse fag').<br /><br />But while Laura spread its attention over half a dozen characters, here Andrews is all but the sole focus (even Tierney's role is far less central than her half-spectral Laura). And Andrews may never have excelled his performance here. It's tight-lipped and taciturn, but never more eloquent than when his face is silently registering the anguish to which his own obstinacy has brought him. He's a pent-up sufferer who can find release only through the safety-valve of violence (he even lashes out against his loyal partner, Bert Freed). To be sure, he finds too swift a road to redemption though the agency of his beautiful co-star. But that was the style of the times, and a sweetened-up ending does little to undermine this New York story of violence, corruption and urban entanglements.

I thought this was a splendid showcase for Mandy's bodacious bod. If you don't expect anything else, such as clever plot twists and believable character development, you won't be disappointed. Consider this a Sports Illustrated shoot whose character goes around killing people, especially those who threaten to come between her and her 'Mommy' (Suzanna Arquette, who obviously doesn't want to play the sex kitten - she leaves that up to her daughter).<br /><br />Mandy's face is a little too perfect, but her body is a complete 5-alarm fire, up there in the ranks of Sophia Loren when it comes to natural bustiness, a perfect 7-to-10 ratio of waist to hips, and splendidly configured legs, right down to her feet. (There has to be some ideal configuration of thighs to knees to calves to ankles that is altogether pleasing to the eye; Mandy certainly is the model for this idealized ratio).<br /><br />And no flat butt to boot, which seems to be the undoing of many a busty babe with curves everywhere except in the 'nether hemispheres'. Mandy might have used a body double in the rear shot of her losing her towel as she descended into the candle-lit hot tub with her blindfolded German-Guy Victim No. 2, but from all I could see from her bikini shots, she had the butt for it and didn't need a double to prove it.<br /><br />Mandy's acting abilities had little to do with her impression of a psychotic 'Mommy's Girl', with the obvious erotic lesbian overtones. Her bisexual nature (allowing herself to be boinked in the hot tub after a long flirtation with German Guy No. 2, who also happened to be her mother's lover) added an additional dimension to an otherwise one-dimensional caricature of adolescent female horniness conflicted with pathological murderous impulses (always by water with the men - the ultimate fate of the Latina housekeeper was edited out in the televised version for some obscure reason).<br /><br />Mandy's Uber-Nordic facial features coupled with her Uber-Voluptuous body could either be a blessing or a curse. If Mandy really wants to further her career as an actress, I'd advise her to immerse herself fully in the Romance Languages, especially Italian and Spanish - and maybe French, although I don't know if they would go for her type. But this would enable her to reconcile her Bo Derek face with her Vida Guerra body - but maybe her face is just a little too Nordic, and she has shown off too much of her extraordinary body in a cheesy movie to enable her to advance to any more fame that was enjoyed by Michelle Johnson of the 1980's whose early fame in Blame it on Rio was followed by a series of skin flicks that failed to make it off the ground.<br /><br />Vambo Drule.

Idiocracy felt like Mike Judge took my thoughts on society and put them into film. In fact, the movie is a social commentary. Almost feels like a documentary at times. Luke Wilson did a good job playing a boring average joe (Like in most of his movies).<br /><br />Of Course Idiocracy was an extreme of the current state of society. But that's what makes most comedies funny, a extreme of any situation. Fiction isn't that much different then reality.<br /><br />With kids praising materialist Hip-Hop culture and taking pride in being ignorant. When people feel useless in life, they breed. Giving them a purpose in the world. And it seems only the worse people breed the most. I can understand how others don't like it. It doesn't help most of the jokes were 2nd grade bathroom humor. Not much different than a Kevin Smith film.<br /><br />Idiocracy throws away logic, reason, any intelligence (For good reason).<br /><br />Mike Judges comeback was a knockout.

An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird.

I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....

The performances by the male leads make this long-hard-journey west interesting throughout. The soundtrack by the Sons of The Pioneers is one of the most beautiful I have every heard. The journey itself is somewhat episodic, and Joanne Dru is badly miscast. Overall, this is a very heartwarming and heartfelt western.

I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!

When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that)

I am very sorry to say this but "Thunderbirds" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a "spoof" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film.

The performances were superb, the costumes delivered a unique feeling for the period and being a Victorian Living Historian, I was impressed with the accuracy of weaponry and attention to detail.<br /><br />I wouldn't say you need any knowledge of the Kelly saga to stay with the flow of this movie but to comprehend the happenings and attitudes of the time you will require a bit of basic historical knowledge. Do not expect, as some rather silly people do, any of the characters to have the Auzzie accent as we know it, it was, at that time, a country during infancy.<br /><br />OK, the story had some elements of fiction but these are required for a wider following of the film. Gregor Jordan said in the extra feature on the DVD that he wanted his movie to 'inspire an interest', and that is exactly what happened with me so this movie gets the thumbs up here.<br /><br />See it and you WILL NOT be sorry

I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film, so I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it and found it to be most noteworthy. It's noteworthiness is mainly due to the talent and appeal of it's star, John Garfield.<br /><br />Garfield plays Jack, a boxing star who is framed for murder. He must go on the run, and ends up out in the sticks with Gloria Dickson and the Dead End Kids. Here is offered a chance for redemption, yet will the past catch up with him yet? Garfield was an actor ahead of his peers. Before the term 'Method' was even coined and before Brando ever screamed 'Stella!' he brings 'natural' to the screen. His earthy quality and amazing acting talent dominate this production. Also interesting is that his role here as a boxer has shades of that 'Golden Boy' role he so desperately wanted to covet on screen. Garfield looks the type and goes the distance as a boxer, proving his acting worth.<br /><br />Ann Sheridan is here in a small role at the beginning as Jack's trampy girl Goldie. I haven't ever thought much of Sheridan, but I liked her here. She plays well off Garfield. Dickson's' performance is a little tired and she does not share good chemistry with Garfield. The Dead End Kids are here, and Garfield seems their natural idol (even more so than Cagney). Claude Rains is miscast, and he looks uncomfortable in the role in many a scene. Strange, as he always was such a reliable actor.<br /><br />Also interesting to note is the director- Busby Berkeley, best known for his early musicals with dancing girls and kaleidoscope images, directs a different genre here with remarkable ease. He maintains a gritty atmosphere throughout admirably.<br /><br />A very good film that deserves greater attention 8/10.

I thought it was an extremely clever film. I was very pleased with it and truly couldn't' ask for more. I actually own the film because I didn't return it to someone... Which I should do, but I really want to keep it due to how much I enjoyed it. Also, the fact I don't own too many foreign films and this is a first. Now, I personally love Finnish stuff so, that definitely added to how much I enjoyed it. But overall, its worth watching. However, if you're not into the whole trying to understand Finnish or read Subtitles bit, then this film is not for you.<br /><br />9/10 for sure.

This is my favourite Columbo. Martin Landau (excellent!) plays twins, one of whom may have committed a murder. This Columbo is unusual because the usual murder scene at the beginning doesn't give you any clue to which one did it! Peter Falk is on form as usual in this episode written by Steven Bochco (who also wrote 'Murder by the Book', my second favourite episode). The supporting cast are great especially Julie Newmar (very under-rated) and Jeanette Nolan as the house keeper that Columbo just keeps on upsetting. The surname of Martin Landau's characters in this is 'Paris'. That was the surname of Leonard Nimoy's character in Mission Impossible. Coincidence? Or a Steven Bochco joke?

I found 'Time At The Top' an entertaining and stimulating experience. The acting, while not generally brilliant, was perfectly acceptable and sometimes very good. As a film obviously aimed at the younger demographic, it is certainly one of the better works in the genre (Children's Sci-Fi). Normally, I would say that Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia produce the best movies and TV shows for children, and 'Time At The Top' does nothing to discount this theory! I don't think that continuity and great acting are important to younger people. A good plot and an imaginative screenplay are far more important to them. Both are in abundance in this film. The special effects are good, without detracting from the story, or closing the viewers off from their own imaginations. It would have been very easy to inject an over-load of SFX in this film, but it would have totally destroyed its entire 'Raison D'etre'. <br /><br />The settings and camera work are of a very high standard in this movie, and complement the fine wardrobe and historical accuracy. Overall, this film is highly satisfactory, and I recommend it to all viewers who can see the world through children's eyes, or those that try to, like myself! Now, I really must read the original book, as soon as possible.

Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, who were both so memorable in 1944's "Laura, re-teamed for this excellent 1950 film-noir.<br /><br />An embittered policeman, Andrews as Mark, can't get over the fact that his father was a hoodlum who died in a police shootout while trying to break out of jail. As a result of his bitterness, Mark doesn't know when to stop using his hands. It's this inability that leads to the accidental death of a small-time hood.(Craig Stevens)<br /><br />In trying to frame gangster Gary Merrill, Mark unintentionally puts the heat on innocent cab-drive, Tom Tully, who is the father of Gene Tierney, who was separated by Stevens.<br /><br />This is a well-thought out film dealing with the conscience of a basically decent human being.<br /><br />The ending is not exactly upbeat as Mark will have to face the music. At least, he finally admits to what he has done.

I went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie / thriller. 4 out of 10

In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).<br /><br />The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.<br /><br />Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.<br /><br />This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end.

After his earlier movie "Videodrome", which definitely shows similarities to this movie, director David Cronenberg again ventures himself in the world of virtual reality, in which truth and fiction mix. It's virtual reality taken to a whole other level.<br /><br />"eXistenZ" is an highly original movie that is well directed and acted out but above all very well written. The movie features a fascination and well thought out concept, which gets greatly executed by director David Cronenberg.<br /><br />"eXistenZ" is a movie that knows to constantly fool you. Just when you thought you figured things out, another surprise awaits around the corner. Things are never like how you think they are, especially when the line between truth and fiction gets explored. You just never really know what is the reality and what is the game-world, right till the ending. It makes the characters and events all very unpredictable and also provides the movie with a great ending that will leave you thinking even more.<br /><br />The movie has a perfect kind of game-play storytelling, mostly with its character appearances and its puzzling events. They have to complete a certain step or task first before they can continue in the world and find out what their purpose in the game is.<br /><br />The movie knows how to create a perfect balance between realism and surrealism, without ever going over-the-top with either one. The storytelling keeps the movie as simple as possible, though of course the movie isn't always that simple to follow because of its events, dialogs and unusual environments.<br /><br />The movie is not only just weird though. I was actually surprised to see that "Videodrome" has an higher rating on here, thought it's a far more inaccessible and 'odd' movie. The movie is also still made entertaining and has a good fast pace. It doesn't ever allow the movie to get stuck in its more philosophical moments and deeper meanings. It also makes this movie perfectly watchable for people who normally don't watch this sort of movies.<br /><br />The movie is good looking, with subtle effective special effects a great visual look, that also provides the movie with a certain required 'gaming' feeling.<br /><br />The movie is well cast, with Jude Law in a role you don't too often see him in, that of a shy insecure person. It once more shows how actually versatile Law as an actor is and that he is way more than just another pretty face from Hollywood. Jennifer Jason Leigh also was a great female lead. She hasn't really played ever that many big parts in big productions but with this movie she shows why she nevertheless always have been regarded as a big movie star. The movie also features some other well known actors, in much smaller roles, such as Ian Holm and Willem Dafoe.<br /><br />An highly original movie that is well worth watching, especially if you have seen "Videodrome" previously.<br /><br />8/10

I rented this movie without having heard (or read) anything about it. What a shame! This movie is intelligent, witty, hilarious, fast-paced, and realistically ridiculous. The characters manage to get developed without relying too heavily on clichéd, tired stereotypes. It was refreshing to watch. I couldn't help thinking that marketing would have helped lob this not-so-mainstream movie into the starved-for-intelligent-comedy mainstream. The quality of the dialogue and the ease with which the actors execute a huge range of awkwardness, heartbreak and comedy is so rare these days--I felt that the actors must have really enjoyed participating in something this rich. How is it that National Treasure was number one at the box office for three weeks in a row--it is so weak in too many ways to mention. I guess I'm just happy that movies like "Seeing.." are still being made somewhere out there.

It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.<br /><br />The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.<br /><br />I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.

This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a "sleeper", this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie?

Rabbit Fever is one of those film oddities. It's an enjoyable 90 minutes, demands little of the viewer, and delivers as much, and on any terrestrial television channel even in a prime time slot I think that Rabbit Fever would be rather well received. Which makes me wonder why it has been pushed into cinemas.<br /><br />The movie is filmed in the style of a television documentary, and introduces us to 6 women who have am addictive relationship with the Rabbit Vibrator. The film is primarily focused on investigating a supposed addictive quality to the famous sex aid product. The narrative is 100% tongue in cheek throughout.<br /><br />The storyline is strong, an introduction to some well rounded and likable characters, some enjoyable back-story, peripheral characters and situations develops into an engaging story, and pleasing conclusions. Sadly there's nothing that feels clever or new. <br /><br />Rabbit Fever has some sharp moments, a few switches that hint at what the writers are capable of, and all credit to them it's not just 90 minutes of knob gags and innuendo, I could probably watch it with my mother. But there's a laziness about some of the scenes that holds it back, those moments went you are up for it, when you want it to be outrageous, and all you get is a dollop of sit-com.<br /><br />I chuckled, I left the theatre feeling empathy for the characters, but I also left with the bitter thought that someone had taken a 90 minute reel of made for TV, light entertainment and tried to put it into national cinema. <br /><br />I think Rabbit Fever achieves some of what it set out to do, it's a quirky subject, a rounded storyline, a well presented cast and a good diversion for 90 minutes. But there's nothing in this that can justify the extravagance of a movie theatre environment. Quite the opposite - a few commercial breaks would have given the viewer chance to grab a breath of life that Rabbit Fever seems to lack.

The precise text of an ad (except the word Chinese, as in Grauman's Chinese, at the end, should appear in caps but IMDb's racially sensitive formatting won't let it), as published in the Los Angeles Times of October 2nd 1930, reads as follows (with " / " denoting the break between each line in the ad):<br /><br />GALA WORLD PREMIERE / Tonight / 8:30 PROMPTLY / TONIGHT all Hollywood and Los Angeles boulevards become THE BIG TRAIL to Grauman's Chinese Theatre...the rendezvous of all that is beautiful and brilliant...the gathering place of stars...celebrities...the great and the famous!<br /><br />Thousands will fill every seat...many thousands will line Hollywood Boulevard to watch the gala festivities attending this world premiere!<br /><br />Tonight all Southern California pays homage to the great American Epic, which faithfully depicts the thrilling, soul-stirring romance of the American Pioneers..who won the West and left us a heritage of Peace..Liberty..and Happiness.<br /><br />Raoul Walsh's / The BIG / TRAIL / Story by HAL G. EVARTS / FOX MOVIETONE PRODUCTION / SHOWN ENTIRELY IN / GRANDEUR / Cast of 20,000 featuring / JOHN WAYNE MARGUERITE CHURCHILL / EL BRENDEL / Tully Marshall Tyrone Power / David Rollins / Frederick Burton, Charles Stevens, Russ Powell, Louise Carter / William V. Mong, Dodo Newton, Ward Bond, Marcia Harris / Marjorie Leet, Emelie Emerson, Fran Rainboth / Andy Shufford, Helen Parrish / Production Manager Archibald Buchanan / Settings by Harold Miles, Fred Serren / Chief Grandeur Cameraman Arthur Edeson / Sound Engineer George Leverett / Chief Film Cutter Jack Dennis / ADDED FEATURE: / Fox Movietone News Exclusive Interview with / GEORGE BERNARD SHAW / Direction Carli Elinor / GRAUMAN'S / Chinese / Direction of Fox West Coast Theatres / Twice Daily Thereafter / 2:30 --- 8:30 P.M.

If there's one theme of this film, it's that people can cope with hardship by having a good imagination. This family is poor, their father works graveyard, and their mother works double-shifts, and Peter is constantly picked on for a variety of reasons, and becomes increasingly frustrated that he is often mistaken for a girl. He is just starting to approach that age of 10 or 11 where your perceptions start to change, and thinks like your appearance start to matter. The backdrop of this story is the 1967 World's Fair and the Centennial of Canada. The film's greatest moments come during the various fantasy sequences where we see just how they cope. Watch the flim, and if you've ever had a childhood friend that you dreamt with, and then for some reason, lost, you'll really like this film. Perhaps kids will like this film, but only adults will truly appreciate it, including its references to bolshevik's and what parent's will do for their children.

typically, a movie can have factors like "arousing", "good feel", "sense of purpose", "plot", etc. There's always something that can be taken out of movies, its just a matter of how compelling the reason is, for me to own it in my collection. 'Tale of two sisters", as they call it when it was released in my country, has tremendous feel and an eventually (mostly) self-explaining plot. i love horror movies that revolve around a house. titles that come to mind are "The Others", "The Haunting", "The haunting of Hell House". this movie will be a another great example that i will remember. the movie had extremely rich colour, in the way the house was decorated, in the clothes that the characters wore, in the open-skied daylight scenes that is in contrast to most horror movies, which, typically makes use of desaturated tones and gloomy environs (think Honogurai mizu no soko kara, Dark Water, which is another show i like) that gives this film a sense of aesthetics and joy when it wasn't in its, more, gripping moments. the characters are extremely believable. this may be partly attributed to the familiar setting of this movie. maybe domestic issues are easier for both myself as well as the actors to identify with, and the actors become their characters with exceptional finesse. the director toys with timelines, in order to give the audience the story in bits and pieces, allowing them to come to their own terms of interpretation, instead of presenting everything in a linear fashion. this is a positive aspect of this film, in my opinion, and, perhaps, it is my interpretation of this movie that allows me to find it enjoyable. i would definitely look out for this on DVD.

The strange people living in a town go about their lives. There's the licker a guy who licks everything, a dumpster diver that finds a body which he takes home to live with him, a crazy girl with a doll dressed like her, a guy who wants to cleanse girls of their wicked ways...offbeat in the extreme, this shot in black and white movie is better with out the color. The monochrome takes the edge off the two steps up from home movie feel. Like a Troma movie, this movie is fun in fits and starts but mostly its weird for weirds sake and soon becomes a crashing bore since one you see the set ups you can kind of guess where its going a lot of the time-not always- but enough for it not to be fun.(Though I didn't see the cleansing coming). Worth a shot if you've nothing else to watch and you're waiting for the next set of Golden Girls to come from Netflix.

**Possible Spoiler*** Adam Sandler is usually typecast in Comedy,but in "Reign",gives a deeply moving performance.While there are people who showed Courage facing post September 11,2001,Sandler plays Fineman,a widower who is lonely and "lost in his own world".Johnson(Cheadle),a practicing dentist,encounters his old College buddy(Sandler)and wants to catch up on "Old times".We see,as in Rain Man(Dustin Hoffman),Fineman also gets emotional and withdrawn in stressful situations.Oldies music,appears to be a comfort and "Psychological" crutch for him to lean on.<br /><br />Johnson looks for,in Fineman,that certain pleasure and ease missing in his Family.He also feels unhappy and unsatisfied in his Job.In the same instance,He also wants to make sure his friend does not fall through the social "cracks".I came away from this movie,with a different outlook and more sympathetic Compassion for grieving families.

This video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.<br /><br />Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350/month apartment filming this with their $1,000/month each video crew of 12.<br /><br />I used to respect Morgan, but now his "30 days" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.<br /><br />C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table?

The worst movie I have seen since Tera Jadoo Chal Gaya. There is no story, no humor, no nothing! The action sequences seem more like a series of haphazard Akshay Kumar Thumbs-Up advertisements stitched together. Heavily influenced from The Matrix and Kung-Fu Hustle but very poorly executed.<br /><br />I did not go a lot of expectations, but watching this movie is an exasperating experience which makes you wonder "What were these guys thinking??!!".<br /><br />The only thing you might remember after watching it is an anorexic Kareena in a bikini.<br /><br />The reason why I did not give a rating of '1' is that every time I think I have seen the worst, Bollywood proves me wrong.

This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous!

Now before I tell you the synopsis this is a non-spoiler review. Bone Eater hits its mark for being the worst movie of the year. I don't know how these movies even get onto DVD. If I saw this in theaters I would get extremely upset. Bone Eater is about these people who dig up an ancient burial ground and find some bones. It's the 'Bone eater' and the more bones he eats the more powerful he gets.<br /><br />First of all I thought okay well the DVD artwork looks creepy and it sounds creepy. When I rented it and looked at the DVD label it looked scary. But then when I played it in I could agree on one thing- the title 'Bone Eater' is better than the movie itself. Tell me what's more stupid? A bone eater that just attacks by throwing a bone ate you and you disappear? Don't worry that's not a spoiler you see that happen in the first 5 minutes. Or is it more stupid that 'Bone Eater' has a horse? You know what I think is the stupidest? The whole movie.<br /><br />The CGI is awful. Yeah I thought the idea of 'Bone eater' was creepy but once you see the actual thing you think this is some kind of action movie or just a cruel, mean joke. The film felt longer than Titanic and this was half an hour. Once the film actually has its moments of suspense it just stops. I admit the acting was not the best but actually decent and that the violence wasn't over-the-top but everything else is a stinker.<br /><br />Overall Bone eater is a film you can skip. If you like interesting movies with great creatures, great CGI, and suspense 'Bone Eater' is a film to skip. If you like bad movies no matter how cheesy they are then 'Bone Eater' will satisfy.

"Cement" is a bad movie about a bad cop (Penn) with a bad attitude and a bad disposition who has a bad guy in a bad way up to his cajones in fast drying concrete. While we're waiting for the cement to dry and the film to figure out what it's about, we're periodically jerked back in time without rhyme or reason so we can watch events leading up to the cement thing. A boring junk flick overall, "Cement" suffers from lack of a story, a clumsy execution, and that most ubiquitous of filmdom's faults; no reason to care. A time killer for the needy couch potato at best. (D+)

A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.<br /><br />This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.<br /><br />Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.<br /><br />But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.<br /><br />I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic "I Spit on Your Grave". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.<br /><br />My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).<br /><br />Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is a comedy based on the classic Roald Dahl book. Wes Anderson directs, and respectably takes the short book of the same name to the big screen in a full length film. While I respect what Anderson, an incredibly talented man did, the film seemed to have gotten lost in its own clever spirit. Anderson seems to have left the story behind knowing that he is a talented man, and if this happened to be a bad film, it would be his first bad film. Just like when you go to school and have your first bad day, this is Anderson's first bad day in film making, so I am going to let him off easy. I will admit it did have a cleverness and nice spirit to it, and the animation is nice, but the film gets progressively harder to get into, leaving the story behind and having random shots of random things happening. The characters are good, also. Jason Schwartzman voices Mr. Fox (George Clooney)'s smart ass son, Ash, and especially engaging. The film does not quite make it up to a level of terribleness, but it certainly gets closer and closer as it goes along. I'm sure Wes Anderson will get back on track with another amazing film when and where he decides to make another film, but for now, I'm sorry, Wes Anderson, this film of yours was a big disappointment.

I remember catching this film on a C4 screening a year ago and I was completely blown away by the whole thing. I thought the film managed to represent such a diversity of genres; the supernatural, a love story, the intrigue of crime, and so many more.<br /><br />I was hooked on the whole thing after a minute or so and was really concerned about the characters. It made me feel terrified at one second for Jimmy, and then had me laughing away at the gangsters in the next... and all the time I had my fingers crossed that things would work out for Jimbo!<br /><br />Heath Ledger and Rose Bryne are superb, Bryan Brown is absolute quality and had me creasing up, along with David Field, who was funny as well as being an evil git.<br /><br />Since I saw this film I managed to order it on DVD and as a result, every person I show it to has been hooked in much the same way.<br /><br />This film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon or a lazy evening, and it's one that you can really appreciate with your mates around.

No matter what anyone tells you, there is a mere fact to the word "possession" in film circles -- such as "what possessed you to greenlight this film?" Religion doesn't have anything to do with it, but common sense does. That is, if your head is clear and you are of sound mind to make a judgment.<br /><br />On many levels I tried to rationalize where this film would entertain....or even interest the average consumer. The star? The story? The unique idea? A buddy movie that kids would love with a dinosaur and a black woman? On, my goodness! I am sure when this was an "idea", it sounded good. But somewhere during the course of development...someone should have pointed out where the idea could not translate into a piece of entertainment anyone would wish to watch or pay for...unless they were very much deeply under the influence of alcohol or drugs and saw something the rest of us could not see.<br /><br />Regardless, this is a complete mess. Mess, mess - sin and a mess.<br /><br />Who cares about the plot (what plot?) et al. Whoopie got a paycheck, but I would have been embarrassed to take it. I sure hope she fired her agent/manager/publicist over this career move. Obviously not, she went on to make more bad films. And more bad films. Sad.

Well, I saw this movie during the last San Sebastian Film Festival. The reaction to it was...let's say as funny as the movie unintetionally is. It happened that they showed a copy with terribly wrong spanish subtitles. They seemed to be a translation from chinese to english and then to spanish. It was all confusing, the genders were switched (girls appeared as boys and boys as girls), and my friends and I remember great lines... but because they were so absurd. All in all not a good movie, but if they ever show it on tv, and you have nothing to do, and if you want to laugh (again, not so much with the movie) then go ahead, "Visible secret" is your film.

Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.<br /><br />Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.<br /><br />You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.<br /><br />3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.

Reporter Kimberly Wells presents the minor side of the news; puff pieces that don't hold much news merit. While shooting footage on alternative energy at a nuclear power plant, an accident occurs. Friend and cameraman for Kimberly, Richard Adams illegally films the men controlling the incident in the control room. Jack Godell, head of the control room, prevents the reactor from disaster. After an investigation into the incident shows nothing is wrong, Jack can't help but feel something isn't right. On discovering that the weld seals on the generator pump are cracked, Jack with Kimberly and Richard seek to tell the public and shut down the unsafe plant.<br /><br />Nearly made thirty years ago, The China Syndrome is a riveting drama that still holds so much relevance today. Nuclear power has always been a hotly debated subject, whether it is the safest source of alternative energy, radioactive waste, and are nuclear plants waiting to be the next Chernobyl. Just not about nuclear power, The China Syndrome explores freedom of speech, right of press and big business. On Jack's findings of falsified information, his knowledge halts a massive investment on the construction of another nuclear plant, which many men seek to profit from. Kimberly, desperately wanting out on the puff news, sees the fight for truth is more important than boosting her career; constantly pushed by Richard, never wanted to be silenced demanding the public be told of the accident.<br /><br />Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas and Jack Lemmon are simply flawless. Fonda shows Kimberly as a fragile woman on her exterior, yet emotionally hard and determined to reveal this cover-up. Douglas brings a strong performance as Richard, fighting for honestly and truth. Lemmon shines over all as Jack., his performance is highly charged drama.<br /><br />The China Syndrome is riveting viewing, that still holds much relevance today as it did when first released.

publicity got me to the theatre<br /><br />advice will take you away from this waist of time.<br /><br />very bad everything.<br /><br />do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?<br /><br />X

OK - as far as the 2 versions of this movie. There were 2 people involved in the making - John Korty and Bill Couterie (George was just the producer - he really didn't have any kind of say so in the film - just helped with money) - the 'Adult' version was made possible by Bill Couterie. John Korty didn't like or approve this version (as it was done behind his back). Thanks to Ladd films going under, they didn't advertise this movie and threw all their advertising cash for "The Right Stuff", hoping it would pull them through;... and it didn't. SO, this movie never really had a chance. When "Twice" made it to cable (HBO) - they showed the reels with Bill's version and John threatened to sue if it was shown anymore (did you notice how the 'adult' version wasn't on for very long?). Showtime got the 'clean' version. The version on the videotape and laser-disc is the version approved by John (who holds more power than Bill). It's a pity, really, as the 'adult' version is actually better and DOES make more sense. But it's VERY doubtful that it will ever be released in that version onto DVD (or any other format short of bootleg). Sorry to disappoint everyone. I know all this info as I used to be the president of the Twice Upon A Time Fan Club (still have numerous items from the movie - used to own a letter-boxed version of the 'adult' version, but it was stolen - only have a partial HBO copy of it now). 8 stars to the 'adult' version - 5 to the 'clean' version. Any other questions, just ask.

Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.

This is loosely based on the ideas of the original 80's hit . It's set in the modern day as we see a base in Afghanistan get destroyed by a UAV right at the start.<br /><br />And that's exactly where the movie jumps the shark. UAV's aren't armed. They could be but I don't think it's ever been tried for real. We get to see the computer that has masterminded this operation, called R.I.P.L.E.Y. We are introduced to "hacker" Will Farmer (he's good at chemistry & electronics which doesn't make him a computer hacker) & his love interest, Annie) & Will's 1st attempt at hacking is not only a complete failure his IP address is also logged and Annie guessed who it was. We also meet Wills mom who works for a chemical company.<br /><br />Wills taking money from his neighbours bank account (Mr Massude) isn't a hack (he helped him set up the account), we then get a nod back to the original movie where they decide against playing Global Thermonuclear War & they play The Dead Code. The trace the RIPLEY office are running is NOT on Will but on Massude's pc so all the evidence they were gathering was useless against Will.<br /><br />Exactly why RIPLEY shut Will's machine down isn't explained (he's only playing an online game?) & also why it felt the need to have to shut down all the electricity in the entire block he lived in as well. Why a counter terrorism agency would see this as a viable target is extremely questionable. As for RIPLEY activating his mobile phone? I think not, it wasn't connected to the pc and the message wouldn't play unless he actually answered the phone so there's more bad "hacking" science there too.<br /><br />RIPLEY agents arrive at Massude's home, take him away & Will is given a envelope which turns out to contain a lot of money. Will searching for the licence plate of the car that took Massude isn't a "hack" as you never see him break into the DMV computer. The RIPLEY agents who grab Dennis in the airport as he's looking for Will have no authority to arrest or detain him. Will's mother hadn't "been stealing chemicals & Bio agents" either. And even if she did they had no right to arrest or detain Dennis. Patriot Act or not.<br /><br />I don't know why Will was worried about being arrested for any crime in Canada as its a totally different country with different laws to the US.<br /><br />The computer has gone rogue and all the action its taken against Will, his mother & Dennis wasn't sanctioned by a Government agency. The phone phreak we see Will do is the 1st show of any hacking skill in the movie, we also get a hack into RIPLEY which seemed too easy for such a powerful system.<br /><br />The "guy" who ran into Annie at the airport & was also watching them in the street was nothing to do with RIPLEY & the laughable notion that RIPLEY could track a cellphone whilst underground was as stupid as the idea that a computer reads lips.<br /><br />Another reference to the original movie when they mention Stephen Falken as the designer of the system RIPLEY replaced, the Joshua Project. We discover that the "guy" who ran into Annie is Falken (not played by the original actor sadly) who faked his own death.<br /><br />We also get to see WOPR as "what's going to help" them beat RIPLEY and they kept the same voice used back then. Falken & WOPR are destroyed too quickly after being hardly used at all (the same explosion should kill Will, Annie & the Russian. It's also unlikely they'd create a self-contained computer system that has the ability to nuke or drop chemical weapons on the country it operates out of.<br /><br />The whole "Decontamination" plot & idea are totally unbelievable. Those kinds of orders would have to go through the President or Joint Chiefs Of Staff. So yet another laughable & unbelievable idea.<br /><br />The IP hacks against RIPLEY aren't done by Will, he just contacts one of his friends who suggests & implements the idea. It's excessively laughable that Will would get a login just from increasing RIPLEY's operating temperature. Having Joshua as a backdoor into RIPLEY (especially after it had been blown to bits) is an incredible cop-out and screams of a very desperate writer who had no ideas left and wanted to get this movie over and done with.<br /><br />There is an awful good where RIPLEY is playing Dead Code and we see a countdown (saying 17 minutes) then RIPLEY says "Decontamination in 30 minutes", how crap is that when they can't even keep up with their own timer? RIPLEY's attack mission against Philadelphia is halted (far too easily in my opinion) and it decides to attack Joshua in its internal circuits and reroutes the missile aimed a Philly to Washington where RIPLEY is stationed. The idea of the Nuclear exchange to make RIPLEY realise what she's doing won't work (surely she'd already know if she had Joshua insider her as he'd already learnt this lesson in the original movie?) is yet another nod back to the original movie.<br /><br />Their cop-out at having RIPLEY repeat Joshua's exact same words form the end of the original movie just goes to show how many original ideas they were unable to come up with.<br /><br />If you want to point fingers for bad & stolen ideas the men to blame are Randall Badat & Rob Kerchner. This is an awful movie and is best avoided.

Goldeneye will always go down as one of thee most legendary games in VG history. Their is no doubt about that. But this game, although quite different, could quite possibly be the modern-day Bond champ, of its time.<br /><br />This was not a bond game based on material from another medium. This was a completely new; scripted game. Which even had its own theme song! (wouldnt be bond without it, haha!) Gameplay was excellent, and if you're a fan of the bond games or films alike, you'll enjoy it.<br /><br />Unlike some/most games, these cast members portrayed their characters themselves, as opposed to fictional creations for the game. Which gives it that more cinematic feel. With a very 'bond'-able storyline, you feel like you're in the game as much as you get lost in a movie.<br /><br />Enjoyable in all aspects, from start to finish. Even after beating the game there's still plenty more to be done. With the ranking system and unlockables to be achieved, as well as its multi-player missions, this is a stand-out game. Despite being quite old now, in video game years. It's still a good game that you can pick up & play whenever you feel the need to get a little more Bond in your life. Even now just thinking about it, I've got the theme song stuck in my head. Such a great cast and well-written storyline.<br /><br />The story comes to life on the screen, almost as if the actors were their in front of you, and is every bit as entertaining as the game itself. Superbly done, in true bond fashion. Which can only be named Awesome, Completely Awesome.<br /><br />I've gotta go throw this game on now. If you haven't played it yet, you're missing out!

Oh my God... where to begin? "Chupacabra Terror" is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes "Demon Slayer" look like "The Exorcist". Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.<br /><br />First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a "cool" monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad. <br /><br />Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied. <br /><br />The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Peña delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick. <br /><br />The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable. <br /><br />I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something "different" than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage.

I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.<br /><br />The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...<br /><br />There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.<br /><br />Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...<br /><br />Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.<br /><br />How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.<br /><br />Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too.

I've had this movie on tape for years and started watching it again this morning (while waiting for my laundry --- how ironic!) mostly because I wanted to hear Benjamin Frankel's title music again. I ended up sitting through about the first half hour, entranced by how wonderfully assured the direction, writing, and performances are. The movie is like a who's who of 50s British character stars: Cecil Parker, Michael Gough, Miles Malleson, Duncan Lamont, and particularly Ernest Thesiger, great as the dessicated old giant of the textile mills. Not to mention Alec Guinness and Joan Greenwood, not character players as such but charming, charismatic leads. This is science fiction in its purest form and droll comedy as well. An all-time classic, and I hope no one ever tries to remake it!

I was not nearly as smitten with this as many other reviewers. Sure, it has a pair of lovely girls playing erotic, lesbian vampires. Marianne Morris and Anulka D. play these two lovely sirens with razor teeth that run up to cars on a road out of the way, hitch to their home(at dusk), and invite their prey...sex-starved men to their boudoir. What happens there...well, after they disrobe and kiss each other mostly, they kill their visitors. Director Jose Ramon Larraz does have some flashes of brilliance with his camera. Some scenes are quite eerie and effectively shot, but sex alone does not hold a film up(no pun intended...at least consciously). There really isn't much of a story here. We have the two girls. We are shown some inexplicable and unexplained beginning where we see them shot with pistol. Why? What does it mean" Why do we have the guy that stays for several days greet a guy at the hotel that insists he knows him from years ago? Does that have a purpose? Of course I have even more general questions like what is a couple of nice-looking girls doing as vampires in the English countryside and having a wine cellar filled with wine from the Carpathians? Anyway, the script is riddled with such flaws. It is also very sparse on the action outside of catch victims, wine and dine them(quite literally), and then go to bed in the crypt. The end gets going with some juicier scenes, but it is anti-climatic. There are, as I said, some effective scenes by the director...I particularly liked the way the girls dressed and were filmed in the woods looking for their prey. The house is also a most impressive set. And both girls are as I said very lovely. Marianne Morris in particular stands out - in more ways than one. For you older film fans, silent screen veteran Bessie Love has a brief cameo at film's end.

"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.

Rupert Friend gives a performance, as Prince Albert, that lifts "The Young Victoria" to unexpected levels. He is superb. As we know, Queen Victoria fell into a dark, deep depression after Prince Albert's death and looking into Ruper Friend's eyes I understood. The film doesn't take us to his death but to an incident that may very well could have cost his life. An act of love. I believed it, or I should say, him. I believed what he felt was real. Nothing or anybody gets anywhere near the delicacy and profundity of Friend's characterization. Emily Blunt is good but I didn't believe for a minute she was Victoria. No real sense of period. It may no have been her fault but her prince deserved the crown.

This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind "Batman Forever" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.<br /><br />Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how "Batman Returns" can be considered at all disappointing.<br /><br />True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in "Batman," a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.<br /><br />Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's "Richard III"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.<br /><br />There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.<br /><br />Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton.

The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much.

Besides the fact that this guy is a liar, he is also a total idiot, and a thief in the comedy community. Once when I attempted to watch this excuse for a television show, I believe i actually threw up in my mouth a little. I can't help but feel a little bit dumber every time is see one of his horrid commercials while I am enjoying great comedy central programs like Reno 911 and American body shop. It shows like this that make me worry about the continual existence of mankind. It's hard to believe that even Joe Rogan can make someone look like an moron. Please begin praying now that comedy central will realize their mistake and end this show as soon as possible. Haven't we suffered enough?

In 1929, director Walt Disney and animator Ub Iwerks changed the face of animation with the release of the very first installment of their "Silly Symphonies" series, "The Skeleton Dance". Iwerks and Disney had been collaborating together since the early 20s, in Disney's "Laugh-O-Gram" cartoon series; however, their friendship suffered a tremendous blow when Iwerks accepted an offer by a competitor to leave Disney and start his own animation studio. That was the birth of Celebrity Productions, where Iwerks continued developing his style and technique (and where he created the character of Flip the Frog). While his work kept the same high quality, it wasn't really popular and by 1936 the studio was closed. Later that year, Iwerks was hired by Columbia Pictures, and Iwerks decided to return to his old skeletons for another dance, this time in color.<br /><br />1937's "Skeleton Frolics" is essentially, a remake of the 1929 classic "The Skeleton Dance", the movie that borough him fame and fortune. Like that short film, it is set on an abandoned graveyard, where at midnight the creatures of the night come alive and begin to play. The dead rise from their coffins, ready for the show that's about to begin, as a group of skeletons has formed an orchestra, and begin to play a happy tune. Now, it's not easy to be a musician made of just bones, as some of the orchestra members have problems with their body parts, however, the band manages to put a good show and another group of skeletons begin to dance. A lovely couple of them faces the same problems that troubled the orchestra: it's hard to dance with loose body parts. Everything ends at dawn, and just when the sun is about to rise again, the skeletons run towards their graves.<br /><br />Directed and animated by Ub Iwerks himself, "Skeleton Frolics" follows faithfully the pattern set by "The Skeleton Dance" years before, although with a crucial difference: Iwerks did the whole film in Technicolor. The bright tonalities allowed Iwerks to create a more visually appealing film, and also to use the many new techniques he had been practicing since leaving Disney, creating even better effects of depth and dynamism than those he conceived before. It is certainly a more experimental film than "The Skeleton Dance", although sadly, this doesn't mean it's necessarily a better film. For starters, the film is practically identical to the one he did with Disney, with the only differences being the music (more on that later) and the color effects. It looks beautiful, no doubt about it, but it definitely feels kind of unoriginal after all.<br /><br />However, it is not the unoriginality of the concept what truly hurts the film (after all, Iwerks executes it in a wonderful way), but the fact that the musical melody created by Joe DeNat for the film is pretty uninteresting and lacks the charming elegance and whimsical fun of the one done by Carl W. Stalling for "The Skeleton Dance". In other words, while DeNat's tune is effective and appropriate for the theme, it's easy to forget about it rapidly while Stalling's song has a unique personality that makes it unforgettable. Being a musical film, this is of high importance, and so the mediocrity of the music brings down Iwerk's flawless work of animation. Personally, I think that with a better musical accompaniment, "Skeleton Frolics" would be remembered as fondly as "The Skeleton Dance despite not being as groundbreaking, as it's still a fun film to watch.<br /><br />It's kind of sad that most of the work Iwerks did after leaving Disney is now forgotten due to his poor success, however, it must be said that if Iwerks lacked the popularity of Disney or Fleischer (Disney's main rival), he did not lack the quality of those companies' films. It was probably just a case of bad luck what made the man who gave life to Disney's mouse for the first time to face failure out of Disney. Despite its shortcomings, "Skeleton Frolics" is a very funny and visually breathtaking film, that while not exactly the most original and fresh film (one just can't help but thinking of "The Skeleton Dance" while watching it), it definitely reminds us that Iwerk's skeletons are still here to haunt us, and inspire us.<br /><br />8/10

This has got to be the worst case of over acting since the silent era. Not just one or two actors but virtually the entire cast. Lee Majors and Bo Svenson were fine but the rest of them look like their first time acting.<br /><br />So the budget was not tremendous. Much of the costumes and set were believable but there were many things that jump out at the viewer to let us know that they couldn't double check or get all of the props to match the period.<br /><br />I can't think of one aspect of the film that I liked or didn't shake my head. Your time will be better spent burning lint collected from your bellybutton.

Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.<br /><br />However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.<br /><br />Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it. <br /><br />MINOR SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.

49. PAPERHOUSE (thriller/horror, 1988) Sick in bed with a fever 11-year old Anna (Charlotte Burke) has only her drawings to keep her company. Her health progressively worsens as a series of mysterious 'black outs' grip her. In each of these episodes she dreams of a house in a desolate field, with only a sickly-invalid boy named Marc (Elliot Spiers) inhabiting it. When a dark, unknown danger threatens her idyllic "paperhouse", the life of Marc is put in jeopardy. Her life is also in danger as these dreams mirror her own state of health.<br /><br />Critique: Haunting first debut feature from British director Bernard Rose. Taken from a fable ("Marianne Dreams") by Catherine Storr, it leaves plenty of other 'original' fantasy works in its wake. Whenever a story deals with dreams and nightmares it is hard to give it the mixture of fable and reality to make it work in film form. Director Rose successfully captures the children fantasy world aspect along with a darkness that seeks to usurp them.<br /><br />Feverishly scored by Phillip Glass, Rose knows how to use music wisely with expertly timed 'jump out of your seat' moments. Most thrillers are very sloppy in this all-important aspect of scaring the audience into not knowing what the next scene will bring. I also like the way he captures suspense and never lets it go or falter sluggishly into the next sequence of events. Also, his mastery of placing objects within the frame (as in his P.O.V.shots) gives the cinematography an added dimension it would otherwise seem to lack. Only in Europe will you find such ominous looking places as the ones presented here: the lonely house, the fields, coastal towns, watchtower etc. <br /><br />Rose would follow this film with "Candyman" (1992), a true 'thinking person's' horror gem and bona fide cult horror favorite.

I love the frequently misnomered "Masters of Horror" series. Horror fans live in a constant lack of nourishment. Projects like this (and the similar "Greenlight Project" with gave us "Feast" - like it or lump it) are breeding grounds for wonderful thought bubbles in the minds of directors with a horror bent to develop and bring to maturation food for we who love to dine on horror.<br /><br />This one began with a kernel of really-kool-idea and ran ... right off the edge of "where in the world am I going with this?!!!".<br /><br />I don't know how to spoil the spoiled but "SPOILER AHEAD" All of a sudden ... no, there was that light drifting across the night sky earlier ... we have long haired luminescent aliens (huh? ... HUH?) brain drilling males and ... yeah, I get it but ... well ... the worst curse of storytelling - a rousing and promising set up without a rewarding denouement.<br /><br />Cue to storytellers ... your build up has to have a payoff that exceeds build up. Not the other way around. Storytelling math 101.<br /><br />End of Spoilers - Big Oops!

The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.<br /><br />Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.<br /><br />This wooden production left me cold.

A lot has already been written about the film itself, so instead of adding to the noise I just want to say a few words on the two female actors.<br /><br />It has to be a daunting prospect for any actress to star, in a sense, versus the spectacular Monica Bellucci, but Romane Bohringer pulls it off to sensational ends. A film starring Monica Bellucci where I fall in love with the other girl?? That's not supposed to happen.<br /><br />It's been said a thousand times, but Monica Bellucci strikes the saddest figure in modern cinema. I have never before seen such innate sadness. She would not be out of place breaking Lon Chaney's heart.

From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.<br /><br />The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.<br /><br />The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.<br /><br />At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.<br /><br />It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.<br /><br />4/10

its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!

Totally forgettable. Specially because of the weak acting. This is the first movie I've seen with Dax Shepard. To my surprise, he's been around since the late 90's. I thought he was a newcomer, since his acting was so bland. I could say the same about Liv Tyler. Although I've seen her do well in other movies, she gave Clare Cooper a strange personality. Liv is not the kind of actress that will give the character a fiery, emotional personality like Diane Keaton would be able to, but it was pretty strange to see her say her lines in whisper mode. It seemed that altogether there simply wasn't a very good chemistry going on between the actors, and I think Diane Keaton sensed that as well. She's a fantastic actress, but seemed just a bit over the top in this movie. It felt like she just wanted to get this movie over as soon as possible. I wouldn't blame her.

My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.<br /><br />Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.<br /><br />The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.<br /><br />The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.<br /><br />All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it.

John Heder was absolutely horrendous in this movie. I felt like I was watching a bad college kid act for the first time in a student film. Anna Farris was par for the course, not good, but not horrible (plus she's cute). Dianne Keaton should have known better. Jeff Daniels was the only saving grace in this movie (even though it was poor judgement on his part as well). <br /><br />All in all, I would avoid this at all costs. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it! <br /><br />John Heder will forever be stuck in the typecast role of' the dorky kid,' unless he does some SERIOUS work on his acting chops.

the real plot...<br /><br />A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM.

A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.<br /><br />The anti-Semetism in this film/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.<br /><br />Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino.

This movie grabbed me with the incredible opening sequence which tricked me into a complete reversal of perspective, so I was hooked by the time the title came on. The theme of this movie is that everyone is acting, trying to re-invent themselves, but not in a tricky way like Identity or the Usual Suspects, but in the way we all try to make whatever banal life we find ourselves in a little more interesting. The scenes in the chicken warehouses are spectacular. At one point Jorgen (who owns the chicken farm) attends a seminar in laughing, where he's the worst student. His discomfort at this lets you see the depth of his yearning to change himself. The movie made me wonder about the hidden mysteries that lie behind the surface of the most commonplace people I see every day. There's not a lot of plot here. Guessing the old man's secret is pretty easy, but the fascination lies in trying to guess what all the other characters will do when they figure it out. This movie appealed to me in the same way that Sideways did, although the characters couldn't be more dissimilar.

Brought to you by the following among others:<br /><br />1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)<br /><br />Yigal's Career: <br /><br />Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982<br /><br />2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)<br /><br />3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.<br /><br />Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!<br /><br />I think, therefore I am.

If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction.

I was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post as well.

I liked most of this film. As other reviews mentioned it has a good cast, the plot is interesting enough. All in all it is fun to watch.<br /><br />But the ending, I feel, is completely botched, it left me bewildered. Yes, you expect people crossing and double-crossing each other in this sort of movie, but quadruple-crossing? Well, if it's justified by the plot then why not? <br /><br />But that's the bad part, there's completely no need for it. After a certain point it's all scheming with completely no meaning. (here comes the SPOILER). After the airport scene Enrico and his accomplices already HAVE the money. I couldn't understand the need for the rest of the scam. Is it all necessary just to rub Federico's nose in the fact that he's been fooled? I don't buy it.<br /><br />So 6 out of 10 for 3/4 of the film and 2 out of 10 for the ending.

I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.<br /><br />This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.<br /><br />There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.<br /><br />The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.<br /><br />We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.<br /><br />This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.<br /><br />The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..<br /><br />Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_

The plot is predictable. It has been done many times in other movies. You have competing summer camps in this one: the rich kids vs. the underachievers competing for "bragging" rights in the typical camp contests, while the kids and consolers pursue pranks, sex, and "a good time!" "Are You Ready For The Summer?" Meatballs is the first (and best) summer camp movie for feel-good comedy. As others have posted, it's no Citizen Kane, but this type of movie isn't meant to be. The film works because of the wonderful comic timing and classic one-liners of Bill Murray. His scenes with a camper where he tries to raise the kid's self-esteem are very good. Bill's one-liners throughout the film are very funny.<br /><br />I also like that this movie isn't dirty or explicit like so many other "teens at camp" movies today. There is some mild sexual innuendo and maybe one or two cuss words in the entire film. But Meatballs is the type of teen movie that is actually appropriate for the younger crowd. It's rated PG.<br /><br />This is a movie that you have to see a few times to get all of the jokes! When Bill Murray is on the screen or making one of his classic "PA Announcements" you are drawn to the film. Bill seems to carry the movie all by himself. But he does it so well, that when you see Meatballs, you will realize that this is the film that made him a star! A side note to this review is to avoid ALL of the Meatball movie sequels. They are horribly bad.

One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of "The Magnificent Seven" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)

Have you ever, or do you have, a pet who's been with you through thick and thin, who you'd be lost without, and who you love no matter what? Betcha never thought they feel the same way about you!<br /><br />Wonderful, wonderful family film. If you have a soft spot for animals, this is guaranteed to make you cry no matter your age. I used to watch this movie all the time when I was a little kid, and I find that now, at age sixteen, I love it as much as I did then. I could never decide on a favorite character then, and I still don't think I can! I love all three of the animals. The dialogue seems very real and comfortable, like a loving, but feuding family. I do love Chance, and how at the end he says that he has a family at last. Cheesy, yes, but one must remember that this is meant to be a family film, and it fulfills that role perfectly. Sassy has just the perfect dose of "sassiness" and Shadow is the perfect leader/role model to the young, adventurous Chance.<br /><br />The animals way outshine the humans, but of course most of the teary moments are to be had during an interaction with them (ie. rescuing Molly, and the end). Not to mention the incredible soundtrack that gives each moment even more emotion, and an accompanying heart-swelling feeling. I give this 9/10. To be compared to (and even rated better than) Cats and Dogs and Babe.

Time travel into the past is tenuous at best as a topic. In this episode a man who has been thinking about the possibility, finds himself at the date and location of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He tries everything he can think of in the short time available to him with predictable results. Of course, he is thought to be quite mad. He is arrested and eventually remanded to the very man he is attempting to stop. Serling was bright enough to let him return to the present, but is the present the same? This is kind of a precursor to "The Time Tunnel" where time travelers on a weekly basis were given the same task, overcoming what had already happened. Unfortunately, the implications of the distortion of time and the future always negate the result. Unless you have something like Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder."

This wretched movie shows that not even some of Gollywood's best can salvage a true landfill deposit..<br /><br />I could spend much time describing everything that was bad about this effort, but that would require more time and I've already wasted 91 minutes watching...IT.<br /><br />Looking at it now, after Brando's death, shows how tragic the life of one of our greatest actors had become.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland? Why? <br /><br />I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. I'm overdue to do something interesting. Bye.

Another popular screening for a British picture at Coalville's Century Theatre. A well crafted, solid drama with an ever developing plot and ongoing 'twists in the tale'...as the lies piled up! A masterclass of acting by a flawless cast, well marshaled by first time director Julian Fellowes. Outstanding performance, as usual, by Tom Wilkinson but good turns by all concerned including supporting actors Linda Bassett and John Neville. Our audience was engrossed by this film, which includes a couple of shock incidents which really make you 'jump'. A good tight production at around only 80 minutes, probably produced on a very limited budget, but a success, which should see Fellowes directing again for the big screen. Some publicity for the film seemed to suggest it was set in the 50s (as per Nigel Balchin's novel)but obviously this is not the case. Recommended viewing.

You'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. It talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions Armstrong's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. It makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near-catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. And it takes the "thirty seconds" call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.<br /><br />If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for "From the Earth to the Moon" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one.

Where to start. The film started out pretty well, but after the 30 min mark i caught myself watching the clock. The horror at the start of the film was good but then the story kicked in. It just got stupider and stupider as time ticked by.<br /><br />The actors gave an average performance in this movie however, i got a bit bored of Vinny Jones constant scowling in the film.<br /><br />As the film dragged on, and take my word for it, it dragged on, it just got more and more far fetched.<br /><br />*** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** SPOILER ALERT *** Just when i thought the film could not get any worse, towards the end loads if skeleton looking monsters turned up, just to eat the dead people which made no sense at all. It turned out to be some sort of flesh eating cult and the good guys die at the end. The ending in fact just made me laugh at how bad it was. Once the lead role disposes of Vinny Jones, he becomes the new killer.<br /><br />In closing, this film made Creep look like the best horror film ever made. I gave it 1 star because the female lead did a pretty good job but even she could not save this train wreck of a movie!!

I had high expectations for this indie having perused the many thumbs up reviews. Then....<br /><br />Here's my additional 'two cents' to the already posted, excellent 'lost in translation' review. Premise: Morgan is 'stuck' in a dusty small town where he meets lovely Scarlet who is working in the local supermarket. Can Morgan help elevate the lovely Scarlet from her trailer trash life?<br /><br />Realistic dialog? NOT. How about that shopping in Target. First, Freeman looks at the Target interior as if he's walked into Harrods. Then, he's bowled over at a T-shirt rack confirming he has NEVER been in any store visited by lovely Scarlet. Morgan is detached from any and all aspects of Scarlet's reality and is portrayed as gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in Scarlet's life.<br /><br />One reviewer enjoyed the Scarlet and ex-hubby fight scene where her survival, a car in this instance, requires she physically attack her ex hubbie. Does Freeman run to her defense....naw...he's cowering in disbelief and totally incapable of dealing with such a blunt aspect of her very real, sorry lot in life. <br /><br />Freeman's character believes a car wash and new very revealing, tight fitting blouse is the key to Scarlet's job interview. Another sign that Freeman is CLUELESS. Freeman's endless 'stage talk' where all aspects of Scarlet's reality are reduced to one or another stage related Freeman experience was irritating. <br /><br />Freeman is right to emphasize that Scarlet is young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignores the brick walls she faces vis a vis: uneducated, no white collar skills or experience, VERY POOR, no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem. Scarlet learns such life lessons from Freeman as: some people pay $100 for a T-shirt and a revealing blouse may open doors in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skills. In the end Freeman offers Scarlet little more than strange diversion with a 'star',not even paying for gas for Scarlet's dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which Freeman cares not to know.

I am glad to read so many negative comments about the Tritter plot. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. They like House's gruff nature and his intelligence, but really dislike the vindictiveness of this continuing plot. It cuts into the real nature of the hospital story and makes everyone angry at police authority. It needs to have a more caring nature instead of the vindictiveness to everyone at the hospital. Also, there seems to be many questionable legal aspects to what Tritter is actually doing. He alone cannot freeze accounts and have the authority to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for patients. A lot of the vindictiveness he is showing also is hurting the very sick patients at the hospital and the is not a good storyline to portray. I voted the episode awful not because of the story itself, but when you insert the Trittor piece it turns me off and the rest of the plot gets hurt by it, People say they hate to watch the story lines anymore. Please change it. Get Tritter out.

Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice ("we are all special friends"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed.

I love this film and it is such a wonderful example of a family jeopardy, a romantic love story, and a very sad story plot. Everything was just so perfect and excellent about this film. It was such a great mixture of actors and actresses and with some laughs and a lot of cries this film deserves to get plenty of awards. With the mention of beautiful scenario, and although I would relate this film to The Notebook and The Family Stone, it was sort of much more cunning, sad, and brilliant than those films. The Evening tells of a love story between an old woman dreaming back to her younger years, and her two daughters stay by her side while she is not well. The story dating back is so strongly told and wonderful I was sitting on the edge of my seat. You really get to know all the characters and by the end, I was wanting to watch it all over again. This is a amazingly sad and vividly acted and plotted movie that is really one of a kind and should be seen by all for how wonderful it really is. All the performances are astonishing and the film captures your attention from the very beginning and never lets go. I loved it, and am so glad that I watched it for it was truly an astonishing film...

As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called "experts." Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters. <br /><br />However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as "Ben-Hur," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."<br /><br />Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the "good" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the "bad" thief is something of a "hunk."

THE FOURTH MAN (Paul Verhoeven - Netherlands 1983).<br /><br />A film based on a novella by Gerard Reve, that works best as a thriller. That's quite surprising, considering Reve roughly needs a hundred pages for just a minor plot twist and tension is the last thing on my mind when reading his work.<br /><br />"The Fourth Man" is top-heavy on symbolism. Paul Verhoeven is generally extremely preoccupied with proving something to mostly hostile critics and I'm never sure what it is exactly he is trying to prove. He usually underestimates his audience and tells his story in such an unsubtle way, he quickly diverges from the original idea or storyline, and almost seems to forget what needs to be seen on screen and what needs to be left out. In "The Fourth Man" he is not as explicit on detailing the plot as he is with sex and nudity (of which there's plenty) but, as in most of his films, he seems afraid the audience wouldn't get it and hammers home the story with overt symbolism mixed with some supposedly shocking nudity and graphic sex scenes. There's hardly a scene without sex or full-frontal nudity, most of it so maddeningly gratuitous and in your face, it undermines an otherwise good story. <br /><br />Nevertheless, when you can cope with Verhoeven's pretty obvious satiric approach, it's quite an entertaining thriller at times with some intriguing plot twists and good performances all round, Thom Hoffman and Jeroen Krabbé in particular.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 7/10

I love old Burt Reynolds movies. They're funnier and better than every other movie combined. They might as well have stopped making movies after "Cannonball Run 2", but I guess how could they have known that there weren't going to be any more good ones? Man this movie's good. Burt Reynolds has to dress up like a chicken and drive around in a racecar a lot, and the luxuriant Loni Anderson is on hand, looking extremely hot in an eightiesly way. Burt and Loni, those were the days! I used to have this magazine that had Loni Anderson in it advertising for a vaccuum cleaner. I sure loved that advertisement! Plus there's this one part in the movie where the audience at the racetrack is upset at something Stroker Ace (Burty R.) is doing, and it shows one guy in the audience bending over and sticking his finger up his butt to display his disappointment! I laughed so hard I almost passed away into the night! If you can find this movie, rent it! And then never watch another movie again, because I tell you right now: there's no point.

The only redeeming qualities this movie has are the fairly original death scenes. Other than that this movie is a big DUD. We have Kim Basinger, the beleaguered housewife slowly meandering thru the local mall for the first 30 min. of the movie, which added nothing. Then the movie picks up a bit as she has a confrontation with 4 punks who took up 2 parking spaces on this busy xmas eve. They begin to chase her after offing the local security guard who tried to help her. From there this movie gets worse, way worse. I know its only a movie and you've gotta go with the flow but she's got about a 5 min. headstart and she can't hide or find someone to help her. Instead she drives to a half built subdivision beside a forest. In typical fashion she does everything she can to allow her followers to easily track her. But now she turns into one tough mofu. You get the point. Do not under any circumstances buy or rent this movie no matter how much you like this type. It's so illogical you'll be questioning every scene. It is embarrassing for Basinger and Craig Sheffer and the rest of the cast, as well as the consumers.

Before I start, I should point out that I know the editor of this film. We've never met, but we belong to the same fanzine(those things which came before message boards), and we have talked on the phone, so I do have a bias here. Anyway...<br /><br />Somehow, it's ironic how while the "Rat Pack" culture of the late 50's and early to mid-60's made a comeback in the mid-90's, this movie, from the son of one of the original Rat Pack, and which was made in a similar fashion, was a flop. Not only that, it was a critical flop; I believe Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was the only one who did not savage this(he gave it a mixed review, as I recall). And while I don't think this is the greatest film in the world, and I am not a fan of the Rat Pack, or "cocktail," culture, I do think this is worth seeing.<br /><br />For one thing, this looks stylish, and moves right along. For another, the core performances are all good. Richard Dreyfus is surprisingly restrained here as the head gangster coming back from a sanitarium, and has a droll edge to him. Jeff Goldblum goes back to the quietly ironic performances he gave in his pre-blockbuster days, like THE BIG CHILL. And while Ellen Barkin is only required to vamp in this movie, she does it entertainingly. Admittedly, it's not a great film; the dialogue is mostly made up of puns, and a lot of them don't work(like the whole "Zen of Ben" speech). And Gabriel Byrne and Kyle MacLachlan are awful here. Still, I was entertained, and if you like gangster films, you might be too.

I found this movie to be educational, entertaining and very moving. I was impressed when I learned of just how much Justice Arbour had contributed in during her time in Kosovo.<br /><br />Wendy Crewson is highly under rated and it is good to see her again in a Canadian production. Other easily recognizable stars are Leslie Hope (24) and John Corbett (Sex in the City.)<br /><br />While the story line of this movie may not be completely factual it did leave me with the desire to learn more about the word of Arbour. A great movie for inspiring young women.<br /><br />I say the movie is a "must see."

"Pickup On South Street" is a high speed drama about a small time criminal who suddenly finds himself embroiled in the activities of a group of communists. The action is presented in a very direct and dynamic style and the momentum is kept up by means of some brilliant editing. The use of a wide variety of different camera angles and effective close-ups also contribute to the overall impression of constant motion and vitality. Samuel Fuller's style of directing and the cinematography by Joseph MacDonald are excellent and there are many scenes which through their composition and lighting produce a strong sense of mood and atmosphere.<br /><br />Ace pickpocket and repeat offender Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) gets into deep water when he steals a wallet from a young woman named Candy (Jean Peters) on the New York subway. She was being used by her ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley) to make a delivery to one of his contacts in a communist organisation and unknown to her, she was carrying US Government secrets recorded on microfilm. Two FBI agents had been following Candy and witnessed the theft. One of the agents continues to tail her back to Joey's apartment and the other, Zara (Willis Bouchey), visits Police Captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye). Zara explains that the FBI has been following Candy for some months as part of their pursuit of the ringleader of a communist group.<br /><br />In order to identify the pickpocket, Tiger calls in a "stoolie" called Moe (Thelma Ritter) who after being given a precise description of the "cannon's" method of working makes a list of eight possible suspects. Once Tiger sees Skip's name on the list he's immediately convinced that he's the man that they need to track down and he sends two detectives to arrest him. When Skip is brought into Tiger's office, Zara tells him about the microfilm and Tiger offers to drop any charges if he'll co-operate with the investigation. Skip is flippant and arrogant. He clearly doesn't trust Tiger and denies all knowledge of the theft on the subway.<br /><br />Joey orders Candy to find out who stole the microfilm and then retrieve it. Candy pays Moe for Skip's address and when Skip returns from being questioned by Tiger, he finds Candy searching his home and knocks her unconscious before stealing her money. When she recovers, Skip demands payment of $25,000 for the microfilm. She tells Joey about Skip's demand and Joey's boss gives him a gun and orders him to recover the microfilm by the following evening.<br /><br />Skip and Candy are attracted to each other and it's because of their uneasy, developing relationship that a means evolves by which they are able to shake off the attentions of the police. It soon becomes apparent, however, that resolving matters with the communist gang will only be achieved by more direct action.<br /><br />The depictions of Skip, Candy and Moe as characters that inhabit a seedy world in which they are forced to face considerable risks on a daily basis are powerful and compelling.<br /><br />Moe's work as a police informer is dependent on her knowledge of the people in her community but also those people know what she does and any one of them could seek their revenge at any time. She appears to be cunning and streetwise but also has her vulnerable side as she describes herself as "an old clock running down" and saves money to be able to have a decent burial in an exclusive cemetery in Long Island. Her belief that "every buck has a meaning of its own" leads her to sell any information regardless of danger, friendships or principles and yet there is one occasion where she refuses and this proves fatal. Thelma Ritter's performance certainly merited the Oscar nomination she earned for her role.<br /><br />Skip is a violent criminal with no concern for his victims and having already been convicted three times in the past, lives under the constant threat of being jailed for life if convicted again. Despite this, he still continues with his criminal activities and strangely, is merely philosophical when Moe betrays his whereabouts and then later, he even ensures that Moe receives the type of burial she valued so highly. Candy is an ex-hooker and someone whose activities constantly put her in peril but behind her hardened exterior a warmer side gradually becomes more evident. Widmark and Peters are both perfect for their roles and like Ritter portray the different facets of their personalities with great style and conviction.

This movie is sort of a Carrie meets Heavy Metal. It's about a highschool guy who gets picked on alot and he totally gets revenge with the help of a Heavy Metal ghost. it is such a classic. The soundtrack is A++++. You've got living legends of Metal in it. And Marc Price was great in this film. This is a must have for metal fans.