Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

Riget II is a good sequel, but not quite as good as the first one. This series don't seem to be quite as serious as the first one. There are much more comedy in this, good one, though.<br /><br />We're back at the Danish Rigshospitalet, the Danish national hospital. Mrs. Drusse is just about to leave the hospital as her work is done, but fate want's it otherwise. She is soon chasing ghosts and Helmer is doing everyone mad and it's soon to get much worse as black powers are unleashed in the Kingdom.<br /><br />This story involves a lot more comedy that the previous. By all means lot of fun, but it makes you take the series a little less serious. The story has kept a lot of elements from the last series and added some new ones. It's well written, but some of the new elements are just kind of silly, but they save it by making it more like a comedy. Good story, but not as good, original and thrilling as the first series.<br /><br />The actors are the same with some addition to the regular cast. They are all very good. It's an odd story and setting. Some parts are a total freak show and the characters change during the show so to keep it serious and keep it real is not an easy job. Yet, these actors handle this whole situation perfectly.<br /><br />Much of the good qualities from the first series are kept intact. The cinematography is one of those qualities. The hand-held camera that made Trier world famous gives suspense and reality to the series. It gives the camera a unique ability to move and follow the characters and Trier makes use of these abilities. Good, movement, great lightning and good composition and editing makes this enjoyable to watch.<br /><br />Be prepare to see better effect in this sequel that in the first. Also be prepared to see some more. I didn't think that green thing looked all too good. Thought it was unoriginal and didn't fit. Never the less, the effects like the ghosts are really good. The non-digital effects looks good too. Little Brother looks just really odd, but you accept it. All over I'd say effects are from OK to good.<br /><br />The music is also quite good. Moody and nice. Some of it are really touching. It fits really nice. As the first one there are rather little music in the action scenes and it works very well.<br /><br />All together this makes a good sequel. If you'd seen Riget you can see this one without being disappointed. It has many of the same qualities as the first series. However, I would recommend seeing the first series before seeing this. These two makes up a series you don't wanna miss.

Armageddon PPV<br /><br />The last PPV of 2006<br /><br />Smackdown brand.<br /><br />Match Results Ahead********<br /><br />We are starting the show with The Inferno match. Kane v. MVP. This was an okay match. Nothing about wrestling here. This was about the visuals. Overall, this was not bad. There were a few close spots here with Kane getting too close to the fire, but in the end, Kane won with ramming MVP into the fire back first.<br /><br />Nice opener. Let's continue.<br /><br />Teddy Long announces a new match for the tag team titles: London and Kendrick will defend against: Regal and Taylor, The Hardyz, and MNM IN A LADDER MATCH!!!! Let's get moving!<br /><br />Match two: Fatal four way ladder match. This was total carnage. Judging by three out of the four teams here, you would expect chaos. The spots were amazing. A total spot-fest. One point Jeff went for Poetry in Motion and London moved and Jeff hit the ladder! Shortly afterword, Jeff is set on the top rope with two ladders nearby as MNM were going to kill Jeff, Matt makes the save and Jeff hits the "see-saw" shot to Joey Mercury! Mercury is hurt. His eye is shut quickly and is busted open hard way. Mercury is taken out of the match and Nitro is still there. He is going to fight alone for the titles! Regal and Taylor then grab London and suplex him face-first into the ladder! Jeff climbs the ladder and Nitro in a killer spot, dropkicks through the ladder to nail Jeff! Awesome! In the end, London and Kendrick retain the tag team titles. What a match!!!<br /><br />This was insane. I can't figure out why WWE did not announce this till now. The Buyrate would increase huge. I'm sure the replay value will be good though.<br /><br />Mercury has suffered a shattered nose and lacerations to the eye. He is at the hospital now. Get well kid.<br /><br />No way anything else here will top that.<br /><br />Next up: The Miz v. Boogeyman.(Ugh) This was a nothing match. Will the Boogeyman ever wrestle? The Miz sucks too. After a insane crowd, this kills them dead. DUD.<br /><br />Chris Benoit v. Chavo. This was a strong match. I enjoyed it. Chavo hit a killer superplex at one point! Benoit hit EIGHT German suplexes too! Benoit wins with the sharpshooter. Good stuff.<br /><br />Helms v. Yang-Cruiserweight title championship match. This was a good match. Unfortunately, the stupid fans did not care for this. WHY? Helms and Yang are very talented and wrestled well. I agree with JBL. He ranted to the crowd. JBL is 100% correct. Learn to appreciate this or get out. <br /><br />Mr. Kennedy v. The Undertaker-Last Ride match. Not too much here. This was a slug fest, with a few exceptions. Kennedy at one point tossed Taker off the top of the stage to the floor. The spot was fine. Reaction was disappointing. The end spot was Taker tomb-stoned Kennedy on the hearse and won the match. Unreal. Kennedy needed this win. They both worker hard. Still, Kennedy needed this win. Undertaker should have lost. Creative screwed up again.<br /><br />A stupid diva thing is next. I like women. Not this. At least Torrie was not here. That's refreshing. Judging from the crowd, Layla should have won. The WWE wanted Ashley. Consider this your bathroom break. Next.<br /><br />Main Event: Cena & Batista v. Finlay & Booker T. This was also a nothing match. The focus was Cena v. Finlay and Batista v. Booker. Batista and Booker can't work well together. Finlay tries to make Cena look good. The finish was botched. Finlay hit Batista's knee with a chair shot and Batista no-sold the shot and finished the match. Lame. Not main event caliber at all.<br /><br />Overall, Armageddon would have scored less, but the ladder match WAS the main event here. That was enough money's worth right there. A few others were solid. <br /><br />The Last Word: A good PPV with the ladder match being the savior. Smackdown is not a bad show just is not compelling enough. Smackdown needs to stop letting Cena tag along. Let Smackdown stand on their own two legs. This show proves that Smackdown can.

I'll be honest-- the pimped out purple plane with Snoop Dogg at the helm is an amusing visual gag. It would have been a decent concept for a 30 second commercial, or maybe a 3 minute music video. But the producers have committed the age-old concept comedy sin of stretching 30 seconds of material into an hour and a half of film, and the results are predictably lame. The remainder of the 89 minutes are filled with the typical gamut of racist and sexist humor and fart jokes, offensive and-- worst of all-- painfully unfunny. The threadbare plot screams under the weight of its contrivances. Best to be avoided unless you are drunk or stoned.

I watched this film in shire joy.<br /><br />This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.<br /><br />All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.<br /><br />The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).<br /><br />Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.<br /><br />And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.<br /><br />If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all.

Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry.

Saw this movie at a Saturday matinée with a friend. Theater was about 70% full.<br /><br />Although there are quite a few funny lines, it is more of a drama/suspense with humor sprinkled on top. Robin Williams gives a decent performance as does Laura Linney. Being a Daily Show fan, Lewis Black is pretty good in this. Christopher Walken gives a good performance also. <br /><br />The movie starts out slow and remains that way for about the first thirty minutes, then the suspense part kicks in and starts keeping you a little on edge throughout the rest of the movie. Suspense in a supposed comedy movie? I know that I, as well as everybody else in the place, was struggling a bit with this. A character would crack a joke during suspense sequence and you would hear just one or two laughs in the theater. <br /><br />In all fairness, after the movie was over there was smattering of applause. So, definitely, some people enjoyed this movie.<br /><br />I gave this movie a four out of ten, because I believe the comedy aspect doesn't work very well in a suspense/drama movie and the actors performances, while not bad, were just decent. <br /><br />Again, this movie isn't what was advertised.

I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of "Grand Champion" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was.

Cult-director Lucio Fulci is probably most famous for his gory Zombie flicks from the 1980s that earned him his rightful reputation as the "Godfather Of Gore". Fulci's absolute greatest film, however, dates back to 1972 and, while it is definitely gritty and violent, it is not nearly as gory as many of his other films. "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" aka. "Don't Torture A Duckling" of 1972 is not only by far Fulci's greatest film, this tantalizing and utterly brilliant Giallo is one of the absolute highlights of the genre. The stunning atmosphere and tantalizing suspense, the great Sizilian setting, the intriguing story the brilliant performances or the intense moments of sheer shock - I don't know what to praise most about this ingenious Giallo! "Don't Torture A Duckling" truly delivers cinematic perfection in every aspect, which makes it an absolute masterpiece of Italian Horror cinema.<br /><br />Contrary to other Gialli, it is not seductive beauty queens who are slain one by one, but little boys who fall victims to a killer on the loose. Bodies of little boys are found in rural Sicily. While the police are desperately searching for the killer, the little town is basically full of strange people, and the townsfolk are screaming for a culprit...<br /><br />The film is stunningly suspenseful and uncompromising from the very beginning, with a gritty, dark, and constantly tense atmosphere that has yet to find an equal. The acting performances are among the best in Italian Horror cinema. Tomas Milian (one of my personal all-time favorite actors) is excellent in the lead, as journalist Andrea Martinelli who is investigating the crimes. Sexy Barbara Bouchet delivers both eye-candy and a brilliant performance. Equally outstanding performances come from Irene Papas and Florinda Bolkan, who is utterly brilliant in her role. The great score by Riz Ortolani brilliantly intensifies the suspense and atmosphere, and the film is ingeniously shot in fascinating Sicilian landscapes. Although not as gory as many other Fulci films, this film is definitely gritty and uncompromising in its violence, with a few shockingly brutal scenes.<br /><br />"Don't Torture A Duckling" has everything brilliant Horror requires. This is not quite as easy to get hold of as most other Fulci flicks, but I assure that searching it will pay off. Any Horror fan MUST see this personal favorite of mine, and I highly recommend any true lover of film in general not to miss this. A Masterpiece!

Featuring a fascinating performance by Will Smith and a story that tugs at your heartstrings harder than a rock guitarist mid-solo, "Seven Pounds" races past the director's previous collaboration with the actor (The Pursuit of Happiness), a flick which I also loved. Remember Gabriele Muccino's name because some of his movies may skip by unnoticed if the actor attached to the project isn't quite so high-profile. <br /><br />Too bad I figured out Will Smith's scheme early on, I put two and two together when he calls in his own suicide in the first scene and the scene when Rosario Dawson's character is introduced as having an incurable heart-disease.<br /><br />However, I still think the writer/director made the right choice putting the bookends (bookends are the first and the last scene) in that way, it's the source of urgency and tension in the movie, finding out gradually how exactly a man can be driven to that ultimate sacrifice, and it was heartbreaking to see the relationship between Smith's and Dawson's character flourish and develop, knowing in the back of the mind always what was in store for these unlucky two.<br /><br />One of my friends with whom I saw the movie thought Smith's character could have a divine gift, and I understand why: his performance is almost angelic when in the presence of his seven elected ones, yet at other times he could be harsh and scary, and when he's alone the full weight of his situation got too much for him and he breaks down completely. It's quite a versatile performance.<br /><br />Lastly I can't forget to mention the crash scene re-enactment, which was really quite stunningly done in terms of cinematography paired with music. Put this on your list.

The title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this "thing" has absolutely nothing to do with "Freaks" or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right… The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. "Freak" is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferable…and that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!

This is an excellent film. The aerial scenes were well-done. It was also the right balance of war and love. The film gives meaning to the phrase, "Never in the history of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few."

This is not a good movie. It is a tried remake of the English movie 'The Hitch'. But it insults the original one. This is hardly a movie you expect from a veteran director like 'David Dhawan' who is credited to directing good movies like "Raja Babu", "Coolie No.1", "Hero No. 1"...<br /><br />The main theme for this movie is taken from "The Hitch" with some changes so as to appeal to the Indian audience but somehow the story and the screenplay is not convincing enough. Plus the acting from the lead roles i.e. Salman Khan and Govinda is pitiful. It seems that they need the slightest provocation to remove their shirts to reveal their bare chest. I do not consider this fascinating and least of all comic. What was the director thinking ? Added to this the viewers have to bear the case of Govinda's Over-acting. It was simply unbearable. I ADVISE THE VIEWERS TO WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. My rating of 2 for this movie could be considered to be a very generous one.<br /><br />Instead I would advise the viewers to watch the English movie "Hitch" which is a lot better.

Very stark, very drab, no real drama. Why not just make a documentary? This isn't exactly The Passion of Joan of Arc. The only reason for seeing Chronicles is to hear the performances. I love Bach's music and even I found it hard to sit through this misery of a film. The great Gustav Leonhardt plays (in two senses of the word) Bach. We don't get much of a sense of him as an actor, since he's given so little to do dramatically. Mostly, he gets to walk purposefully or angrily out of various rooms. Bach's life, of course, was not an Errol Flynn movie. It was indeed fairly drab and more than a little hard. This probably means that the life isn't a terrific candidate for a film. The music, of course, is another story. I recommend The Stations of Bach. Far more information, for one thing, and some insight into the music, which is, after all, why Bach interests us in the first place.

Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)<br /><br />Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:<br /><br />(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.<br /><br />(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.<br /><br />(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.<br /><br />(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.<br /><br />(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.

If you only see one Ernest movie in your life, make it this one! This is by far the best in the series, with its nonstop laughs and clever humor that is suitable for all ages. The other "Ernest" flicks were good too, but most people tend to get tired of him quickly (not ME, however.).<br /><br />In this movie, Ernest P. Whorrel is assigned jury duty for a murder case. The murderer, Nash, just happens to look EXACTLY like our bumbling hero Ernest. Mr. Nash finds this a good opportunity to escape from jail by knocking him out switching identities with him, and so we get to see how Ernest reacts in the slammer.<br /><br />A great flick! If you haven't already seen it, watch it!

This relic of a short film starts with a teen going through the process of attempting to get a driver's license. It quickly becomes sidetracked with just about every imaginable topic relating to cars.<br /><br />Such things as dune buggies, drag racing, custom paint jobs and car shows are discussed. It often attempts to be humorous but instead the film is dull, drawn out and even sexist at times. None of the people in the film are actually heard. Instead, everything is done in narration and voiceovers. Sorry, but I can't stand that.<br /><br />There is nothing educational or interesting about "Dad, Can I Borrow The Car?". It's just another piece of mindless filler to take up time on their "Wonderful World Of Disney" TV show. 1/10

Ok, maybe Posse can't compare to other popular cowboy/western movies. But that's because it didn't have the FUNDING those movies had. Obviously, whenever you want to produce a story such as this one, focusing on African American historical involvement (and NO, servants and 'mammies' are not historical involvement), Hollywood isn't going to be too supportive. And believe me they weren't. The producers and actors sacrificed a lot of 'out of pocket' expenses to make "Posse", just so that the story could be told. I think that alone is commendable. Posse may not be Oscar material (and they don't like Black media too much either), but it is a start. It is entertaining, and it introduces us to the black cowboy, a character most of us are unfamiliar with.

Other than cop rock and that show where the kid dies from eating a spoiled hamburger he found under the bed, this has consistently been the worst and dumbest show to survive prime time. If not for Jason Lee's unjustifiable success in film, this show would have never made it out of conception if pitched with a relatively unknown as the lead. <br /><br />The concept is TERRIBLE. Moron redneck hick spends his lottery winnings to redeem himself with the white trash of his past. Is it funny? periodically but not consistently. Is it stupid? Each and every single episode. <br /><br />I've seen a lot of great shows come then go before their time yet this blunder has survived longer than I ever could have imagined. The dialog is incredibly unfunny as are the episode themes. Every episode for someone with an IQ over 100 is an absolute struggle. And the icing on the cake? Jason Lee's annoying voice narrating each episode. If it weren't for the state's Southern culture and rednecks of the south, this show wouldn't have an audience.<br /><br />If you're a moron and need a show completely lacking humor yet overflowing with bad taste, bad dialog and dimwit characters failing at life...well then you're probably an actor on this show.

All Dogs go to Heaven was a quirky, funny movie; With good name talent who's voices lended an adult familiarity to a cartoon basicly for kids. It was just interesting enough to be likeable by adults aside from something good for the kids to watch.<br /><br />Unfortunately ADGTH2 is a valueless sequel trying to make a bit of cash rideing on the coattails of the first. Charlie Sheen is a passable replacement for Burt Reynolds in this second movie and Sheena Easton's voice in a few of the movies lovely but forgettable songs makes her a worthwhile pick as a co-star for this. Add Dom DeLuise from the first movie and you'd think this would be a decent mix to make this sequel at least relatively decent compared to the first one.<br /><br />Unfortunately even with the addition of other good voice actors such as Bebe Neuwirth in the horrible role of Anabelle, this movie cannot be saved from the atrocious production values and animation skills (or lack thereof) present all over this movie. Horrible editing, syncronization of the voices, and flat out spaces where characters mouths should be moving to dialouge but are not combine to make this movie look like a college interns animation project instead of the decent sequel it could have been.<br /><br />All in all i'd say unless you were a very big fan of the first movie i'd give this a very large PASS.

The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...<br /><br />Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.<br /><br />Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.<br /><br />Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.<br /><br />The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done.

This is not the stuff of soap-operas but the sort of conundrums that real people face in real life. A testament to the ensemble and director for the powerful story-telling of fallible characters trying to cope but not quite succeeding.

This move actually had me jumping out of my chair in anticipation of what the actors were going to do! The acting was the best, Farrah should have gotten a Oscar for this she was fabulous. James Russo was so good I hated him he was the villain and played it wonderful. There aren't many movies that have riveted me as this one. The cast was great Alfie looking shocked with those big eyes Farrah looking like a victim and you re-lived her horror as she went through it. Farrah made you feel like you were there and feeling the same anger she felt you wanted her to hurt him, yet you also knew it was the wrong thing to do. The movie had you on a roller coaster ride and you went up and down with each scene.

A coach who used to be good, but has had to move to a new area to get away from what he once did; a team of no hopers; the star player who has a row with the coach; the assistant coach with an alcohol problem, the little guy who gets kicked around scoring the winning basket; the whole town against the coach (all except for the leading lady). It's the old story - right out of the British comic books, where a team of speccy geeks and fatties take on the Brazilians at soccer and win.<br /><br />This film, admittedly well put together, is full of these clichés. The only part I didn't predict was when at the town meeting, the star player suddenly decided to side with the coach. No reason was ever given. It seemed like a very strange thing to do seeing that everything was going his way hitherto. Maybe he just felt sorry for the poor guy.<br /><br />Gene Hackman plays a locker room Popey Doyle. I am sure that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre found nothing particularly challenging about his role. The same can be said about Barbara Hershey.<br /><br />All in all, a film full of clichés that might have been done a lot better than it was.

Imagine you're a high-school boy, in the back of a dark, uncrowded theater with your girlfriend. How bad would a movie have to be, in order that you would feel compelled to leave the theater and head home before it ended? This movie is that bad. Really. Movies often become so bad that they're good; this movie is beyond that stage of bad-ness. It is painfully bad. Horribly, terribly, crime-against-humanity bad.

WAR, INC. (2008) **1/2 John Cusack, Marisa Tomei, Hilary Duff, Joan Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Dan Aykroyd, Sergej Trifunovic, Lyubomir Neikov, Ned Bellamy, (Voice of: Montel Williams)<br /><br />A hit-and-miss-21st Century "STRANGELOVE"<br /><br />John Cusack – who co-wrote the script with Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser – stars as a jaded hit-man named Brand Hauser who is burnt out but decides to follow thru on one final assignment by icing a Middle-Eastern oil minister named Omar Sharif (yes, not THAT Omar Sharif but you get the tone here from this misfire for a laugh) commandeered by the ex-Vice President of The USA (Aykroyd, Cusack's old "Grosse Pointe Blank" co-hort, doing a mean Dick Cheney manqué turn here), enlisting Brand to do the deed under the guise of a Trade Show Producer in mythical Turaqistan (read: Iraq/Afghanistan) for the American private corporation Tamerlane (read: Halliburton). <br /><br />While being briefed Brand is faced with a moment of clarity when he comes across intrepid journalist Natalie Hegalhuzen (Tomei) and eventually falls in love with her. <br /><br />Meanwhile Tamerlane is sponsoring the unlikely union of Eastern European teen sensation Yonica Babyyeah (a surprisingly decent Duff aping her own celebrity with tongue- through-cheek) and the idiot son of the country's leader.<br /><br />What follows is a bold attempt for a 21st Century black comedy a la "DR. STRANGELOVE" but for all intense and purposes there are sadly more misses than hits in this broad try for laughs amidst political message (an unjust war being outsourced by American capitalism, check!) <br /><br />While Cusack riffs on his Martin Blank from the aforementioned "Pointe" he does add some nice touches of his man in black (he does shots of Tabasco sauce to take the edge off), the rest of the cast plays catch up (except sister Joan who is a riot as the high-strung aide- de-camp for Hauser and has one of the film's funniest laugh-out lines: "My mass communications skills are finally paying off") for the most part. <br /><br />Cusack visited the Iraq War earlier this year in the 180 degree different "Grace Is Gone" and here he allows his political views wear on his sleeve ; while admirable overall the film's pace and rhythms are off largely no-thanks to first time filmmaker Joshua Seftel making his directorial debut here (and it is noticeable) except for maybe the well-choreographed fight Hauser is involved with Babyyeah's idiotic fiancé's entourage.<br /><br />A nice attempt yet a misguided failure ; maybe next time Cusack won't try so hard and let the idiocy of war speak for itself instead of doing the heavy lifting by himself.

The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...<br /><br />

I watched the Canadian videotape of this movie as "The Witching" which somehow made its way to New York State. Audio was quite bad, I had to raise it to about 7/8 just to hear it and the soundtrack often was overwhelming the dialog. Orson Welles was a mumbler, worse than usual, and some of his dialog and of others was run through an echo chamber. A ghostly figure who keeps reappearing had her voice distorted. Some closed captions would really have helped!<br /><br />A group of witches or satanists (the end credits say the group was not meant to represent any real group!) have a ritual in which they get naked and cause a miscarriage by stabbing a doll. The woman who had the miscarriage and her husband move to a town named "Lilith," where he's been offered a job at a toy factory. Despite one of the AKAs of this movie apparently being "The Toy Factory," we never see it, and it's only occasionally referred to at all.<br /><br />On the way to Lilith, her husband gets impatient with some of her questions about what his new boss Mr. Cato wanted to know about their religious persuasion. He drives aggressively, and causes another car to go off the road and blow up. After the police arrive, she takes a doll that fell out of the car, the second of many handmade dolls in the movie.<br /><br />It turns out Mr. Cato and all the townspeople are witches, and that they are the ones who caused her miscarriage, though she doesn't realize it. They want her because she has an innate talent for necromancy, of which she was not really aware.<br /><br />Some images in the movie have some impact, but on the whole the movie is not very involving. The movie does seem a bit of a mess, and this is no doubt largely due to its re- editing and the addition of new footage. The original version, according to the end credits, was called Necromancy - A Life for a Life. The magic of DVD could let us see both versions on one disc, but re-releasing this movie probably isn't a priority.

This was a very funny movie, not Oscar-worthy, but definately the best dollar I've ever spent at Blockbuster! Rupert Penry Jones is a shining star, and very well might be the new Jude Law! So, if you're in the mood for a British Teen Flick- RENT IT!!

In 2004, I liked it. Then it became very stupid. It suggests that kids are brainless. It insults children. Cartoon Network used to be great. One of the shows I liked was Hamtaro. It did manage to be interesting and imaginative in its approach to children programming. The show (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends) is like putting 20 spoons of sugar in your Sprite. It seems as if today's television producers are only interested in making money, rather than engaging the imaginations of children and making money! Lately, my children are tuning in to the old shows (60's) to find something interesting to watch. Perhaps, in the absence of originality, for television to look to its past and recycle children's programing from days gone by.

Written and directed by Steve Gordon. Running time: 97 minutes. Classified PG.<br /><br />It was the quintessential comedy of the decade. It won Sir John Gielgud the Academy Award. It was even featured in VH1's "I Love the 80's." And it looks just as good today as it did upon it's initial release. Arthur is the acclaimed comedy classic about a drunken millionaire (played with enthusiasm and wit by Dudley Moore in an Oscar-nominated performance) who must choose between the woman he loves and the life he's grown accustomed to. While the basic plot is one big cliche, there's nothing trite about this congenial combination of clever dialogue and hilarious farce. Arthur Bach is essentially nothing more than a pretentious jerk, but you can't help but like him. Especially when he delivers lines such as, "Don't you wish you were me? I know I do!" He's also a delineation from the archetypical movie hero: unlike most wealthy characters we see on the silver screen, he's not ashamed of being filthy rich. In one scene, a man asks him, "What does it feel like to have all that money?," to which he responds, "It feels great." Moore lends such charisma and charm to a character that would otherwise be loathed by his audience. And Gielgud is simply perfect as the arrogant servant, addressing his master with extreme condescension in spite of the fact that his salary depends on him. Arthur is one of those movies that doesn't try to be brilliant or particularly exceptional: it just comes naturally. The screenplay -- which also earned a nod from the Academy -- is saturated with authentic laugh-out-loud dialogue. This is the kind of movie that, when together with a bunch of poker buddies, you quote endlessly to one another. It also looks at its characters with sincere empathy. There have been a number of comedies that attempt to dip into drama by including the death or illness of a principal star (including both Grumpy Old Men's), but few can carry it off because we just don't care. When this movie makes the dubious decision to knock off the butler, it actually works, because we genuinely like these people. Why should you see Arthur? The answer is simple: because it's an all-around, non-guilty pleasure. At a period in which films are becoming more and more serious, Arthur reminds us what it feels like to go to the movies and just have a good time.<br /><br />**** - Classic

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

This film illustrates the worst part of surviving war, the memories. For many soldiers, men and women alike, returning home can be the beginning of real problems. I am reminded of my father and his brothers returning from WWII. For one of my uncles the war was never over. He survived the D-Day invasion, something akin to the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. For him the memories not only lingered but tortured him. He became an alcoholic as did several of my cousins, his sons. Jump ahead 60 years and place the soldiers in a different war, in a different country, the result is the same. When I saw this at the KC FilmFest, I was reminded that there are somethings about war that never change. The idealistic young men and women are not spared the emotional torment of what happened in Iraq, and especially if you are against the war you will come away with more compassion for the soldiers there trying to do what they believe or have been told is right.<br /><br />The tag line from the Vietnam war film Platoon says it all. "The First Casualty of War is Innocence."

OK, the very idea is ludicrous.<br /><br />1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel<br /><br />The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break.

Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!<br /><br />Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.<br /><br />

My overall feeling about this film is that it was a slow, drawn-out, structureless wander through some of the worlds genuinely unfortunate situations with a bit of redemption and an obvious message. The film is composed mostly of fairly uninteresting video footage of the countries he visits with bad reenactments, all slow-mo'ed down to a snails pace and overlaid with depressing music. Certainly some of the materials and interviews contain some compelling stories, but unlike what the description on the back suggests, it wasn't so much the victim's story that's being told as it is the director's, Mr. Ripper, and he doesn't tell it well. This film could have included longer, better interviews with the people themselves, letting them tell their stories. Instead Mr. Ripper indulgently draws the story towards himself making it some kind of personal journey, and unfortunately it doesn't end up being much of one. I never really got a sense of any growth as he explores the subject, and he never indicates what about the subject pulled him in in the first place. He just drags us from one place to the next, brushes lightly on the situation and characters, hangs around showing too much uneventful slow-motion footage of people just walking around the streets, then moves on to his next destination. He does this over, and over, and over again without any real development. I felt like this film could have been cut down to 45 minutes but it's drawn out to close to 2 crushingly slow hours. We feel morally obliged to care about the topic, but the director's self-indulgent, meandering, uninspired delivery of his journey makes you grow numb after a while.

Starting where the last AVP left off, an Alien "chestburster" emerges from a dead Predator on a Predator spaceship, and causes the Predator space ship to crash into modern day Gunnison Colorado, where it breeds several more Aliens which start to cause havoc. The Predator race sends down a lone highly experienced and armed Predator to "clean up the mess". Our human characters are caught in the middle of the intergalactic battle.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. This movie moves along way too fast. The opening credits have only just rolled and already the Predator ship crashes into the Earth after the Alien grows to full hight, a hunter and son character are introduced but before we even get to learn their names they are both killed, then we see the Predator home-world and the lead Predator flies off to fight the Alien infestation, and all this happens within the first five minutes. This unnatural pace does not let up for the entire movie; the National Guard comes into town but within two minutes are all killed without even getting a good look at a single ones face, the manager of a pizza store gets one scene of character development only to be killed off the very next time we see him once again without even learning his name, random hobos, a coffee shop waitress and chef are killed again without learning their names. One moment our main characters are at home, the next running around town, the next in a gun store , the next in an APC, and this random set jumping over and over just doesn't ever let up leaving the audience no time to settle in leaving them grasping for straws.<br /><br />Another problem is the settings and time frame. The movie is set in modern day Gunnison Colorado. Every other Alien and Predator movie was shot in enthralling settings, such as industrial space ships, guerrilla war zone rainforest's, alien planets, and underground labyrinths. Now comes along AVP-R, set in a small modern day American town, with set "highlights" including a sporting goods store, parking lots, Pizza Shops, and little girl's bedrooms. I mean, were they actually trying to make the movie look as dull, drab and uninteresting as possible?! It's hard to perceive these monsters as frightening creatures when they are standing next to a shelf full of Reeboks, or hiding in the bushes outside little girls bedrooms.<br /><br />Continuity is a big issue with this film. The Alien series was set in the future, no human had even heard of an Alien before the first film, and the Aliens not only had never been to Earth, but if they ever did reach Earth, humanity would be destroyed. This movie ruins that entire concept by being set in modern day, with Average Joes seeing the Aliens all over the place, and by the end of the movie, humanity is not destroyed, not even suffering what could be considered minor losses. It pisses all over that entire concept of the other movies. Attempts to maintain continuity are made with massive Deus Ex Machina's. The Predator just happens to carry around a bottle of unlimited magic blue liquid that's just to melt away any bodies with just a single drop, the army at the end of the movie just happens to go to overly drastic measures and drop a nuclear warhead that just conveniently erases all evidence of the Aliens existence despite the fact there were many survivors of the incident who are witnesses, and many more bad attempts are made at filling up impossible to cover plot holes.<br /><br />Also, for a "Verses" movie, it has unrelenting bias in favor of the Predators. For the majority of the film, a lone Predator manages to kill dozens if not tens of dozens of Aliens, all at mêlée range while barely gaining a single scratch, while the Aliens just get slaughtered left right and center like clay pigeons, merely waiting their turn to be killed by the Predator without putting forth any effort to defend their selves. This movie should not be called "Alien vs. Predator", as much as it should be "Predator massacres Aliens". I mean, how can you have two species battle it out with suspense and tension, when one is portrayed as being vastly superior to the other? <br /><br />The characters in this film are amongst the biggest flaws. Not only do they pale in comparison to the characters from the previous Alien and Predator movies, but even as a stand alone movie they are bland, dreary, and even at times cringe worthy. The characters in this movie consist of I kid you not, horny couples wanting to get laid, pizza delivery boys, blonde bimbos, high school bullies, children, and a blatant copy and paste job ripping off Ripley and Newt; the worst and most cliché possible ideas for characters. Not only that, but all of the aforementioned characters are acted by teenagers. While the casting of teenagers is an obvious attempt to pull in younger audiences, its only effect is to make the movie look and feel like a typical teenybopper slasher-porn movie, with actors who are too young to have learned how to give a convincing performance, with them mostly having completely blank facial expressions delivering monotone dialog. Not only this, but these characters do some of the most cinematically retarded things ever, such as using Predator guns, commenting the powers out when it has been for hours, following dumb plans to get out of town rather than just walking out of town somewhat quickly, and just so many other idiocies that the movie actually had the audience in my theater sighing out of frustration.<br /><br />In the end this movie is just a horrible B movie, something deserving of the direct to DVD category. The fact this movie was a theatrical release astonishes me, as every part of the movie just ranks of amateur work.

Some news reporters and their military escorts try to tell the truth about a epidemic of zombies, despite the 'government controlling the media'. The makings of the film don't understand that the George Romero zombie films only worked because he kept his politics subtly in the background of most of his films ("Land of the Dead" withstanding). This satire is about as subtle as a brick to the face or a bullet to the head is more apropos for this scenario. What's subversive or subtle about seeing a military guy masturbating to death and destruction? Anything nuanced about the various commercials that are inter-cut with the film? Nope. Furthermore the acting is uniformly horrible, the characters thoroughly unlikable, and the plot inane. Add this all up and you have the worst, most incompetent zombie film since, "C.H.U.D. 2" reared it's hideous head.<br /><br />My Grade: D

VIVA LA BAM This "Jackass" spin off focuses on the (obviously scripted) adventures of Bam Margera and his pals (Johnny Knoxville, Brandon Dicamillo, etc). This show, while it has its fair share of gross-out comedy and crazy stunts, focuses mainly on Bam's torturing of his parents.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say this, Bam, but... you're in no way as cool as you think you are. This ego tripped show is not only painfully unfunny (and yes, I liked Jackass), but also narcissistic beyond belief. The overly stylized intro ends with Bam coolly explaining that he's going to do "whatever the f***" he wants to. How about you do something that is actually funny? I liked "Jackass" for what it was worth. The camera-work was horrible - any idiot could have made a better show with a camcorder in their parents' garage - but at least the show moved at a steady pace and never felt boring between the crazy, dangerous or simply disgusting stunts the pals performed.<br /><br />Not so with "Viva la Bam". We follow our hero around as he plays pranks on his friends and tortures his relatives, but never does it feel like anything else than really lame and scripted comedy. The stunts and pranks are mildly entertaining, but presented in such a tedious and dull fashion that they can barely make you smile.<br /><br />"Viva la Bam" is a poor spin-off of that does little good but feed Margera's already too big ego. I don't recommend this lame and unimaginative show to anyone.

This was longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again)

The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as "The world's funniest human" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore.

The late Director John Frankenheimer directed his first feature film, The Young Stranger, after starting out directing live television dramas in New York City. This film came on the heels of the success of Rebel Without A Cause in 1955. James MacArthur made his feature film debut as a troubled teen with a movie producer father, played by James Daly, who doesn't establish enough of a relationship with his son. Kim Hunter plays the mother, who tries to bridge the gap between her husband and her son. The film uses the popular juvenile delinquent angle of the time to tell its story. MacArthur gets in trouble at a movie theater with an overzealous theater manager played by Whit Bissell. MacArthur, in turn, has to deal with a police sergeant, James Gregory, bent on teaching him a lesson. The material could easily have turned exploitative, laughable, and sensational, like any number of others of the period did. However, under the sure-handed direction of Frankenheimer, the film is a sensitive portrayal of teenage and parental dynamics. The dialog is realistic and most of the scenes hold up surprisingly well. Some of the scenes with Bissell, as the theater manager, and Gregory, as the police sergeant, are a bit heavy-handed and dated. The performances are uniformly good though, which is necessary for a film of this nature and about this topic to succeed. This is an impressive feature film debut both for MacArthur and Frankenheimer. *** of 4 stars.

Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.<br /><br />This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.<br /><br />What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.<br /><br />The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).<br /><br />The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed.

OMG, it is seriously the best show in the world. It rocks harder then Jackass and CKY and is so funny and entertaining. I love the show. All 5 seasons are awesome but for a quick summary: Season 1:- Great if you wanna plan a scavenger hunt, watch the house be pulled apart and enjoy seeing Phil bing starved.<br /><br />Season 2:- Great if you wanna see them buy Castle Bam, watch a slayer concert, see the wonder that is Mardi Gras and the fun of getting to it, see a demo derby and actually see a the making and opening of a Tree Top Casino.<br /><br />Season 3:- Great if you wanna see probably the first Driveway Skatepark, a civil war, Johnny Knoxville, a pirate ship and Don Vito actually winning one of Bam's reindeer games.<br /><br />Season 4:- Great if you wanna see them in Europe, them getting Jobs, the building of a State and a bayou and The Dudesons Season 5:- Great if ya want to see them in Brazil, Ape's Birthday, Mike Vallely, The Metal Mulisha, Bams Lambo disappearing, Bams Hummer being destroyed, a playboy party in bams swimming pool and the very Last ever Viva La Bam :(

This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...<br /><br />Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.<br /><br />If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.

"Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.<br /><br />One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.<br /><br />The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.<br /><br />Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.<br /><br />The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.

I cried my heart out, watching this movie. I have never suffered from any eating disorder, but I think this must be a very true picture.<br /><br />Alison Lohman is excellent! She expresses these feelings amazingly well. My teenage years came back to me so vividly. Anyone who has gone through difficult times as a child or teenager will be able to relate to this movie. I recommend you all to see it!<br /><br />The music is great too - I've now discovered Diana Lorden.<br /><br />I'm also looking forward to seeing Alison Lohman in White Oléander, because I am positive she is perfectly suited for the role as Agnes.

This is the kind of movie the US doesn't make. It's why people rent foreign films. It's a great story about how one person, even if he is retarded can make a person find reason in an empty life. Everybody can learn from Georges. It also shows how people that are mentally challenged suffer in their life and shows them in a very realistic way (I think). As its classic in foreign films this movie has a bittersweet ending, but that only makes it a better movie.

This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. "Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what "Saving Private Ryan" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a "season to turn off half-way through the broadcast." The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.

I may not be the one to review this movie because after 45 minutes of pure boredom and stupidity I turned the channel. The original series only lasted 2 years which can be said about the careers for Adam West and Burt Ward. Put these two "actors" in a stupid movie and the result is twice as bad.

With the sun shining brilliantly on a quiet Sunday that is just about to fully wake up, love can be felt in the soft breeze that sweeps past my feet and can be seen in the smiles of the people I walk alongside. It is the perfect day to stop off for croissants and a café-o-lait before heading off to the city of lights and love. Of course, a flight to Paris is not reasonably in this humble film critic's budget so I had to opt for the next best thing, Paris, JE T'AIME, a collection of 18 short films by a variety of international directors. Each piece is named after a different Parisian neighborhood and is a reflection on love. Careful not to over glorify the most powerful and persuasive of all human emotions, Paris, JE T'AIME explores love at the many stages of its own game. The results are spontaneously romantic and surprisingly consistent. And truly, what better way to express the fleeting nature of love and how a moment can change your life than with a collection of filmed moments. <br /><br />The beautifully poetic quote above is taken from Tom Tykwer's Faubourg Saint Denis. True to form, Tykwer (RUN, LOLA, RUN) uses time-lapse photography and repetition to demonstrate the entire cycle of love, from inception to dissolution. Originally shot in 2004 and paired down for this anthology, Faubourg stars Natalie Portman as Francine, an American actress in Paris for a part in a film, and Melchior Beslon as Thomas, a blind man she falls in love with. Here, the blind leads the blind through the most unstable of terrain, where two people consume each other to a point where their lives nearly lose their own existences. As love seems to go from dazzling to dizzying, Tykwer reminds us of the tricks it can play on our minds and the illusions it can create when we stray towards doubt.<br /><br />Perhaps the most giddily romantic offering comes from Sylvain Chomet's Tour Eiffel. Choosing the city's most identifiable attraction for its title, Chomet (LES TRIPLETTES DE BELLEVILLE) gives us a little boy who tells the story of how his parents met and fell in love. His father, a mime (Paul Putner), finds himself falling into one surreal scenario after another and eventually lands himself in jail. This is where he meets the woman who will become the love of his life (Yolande Moreau). Miming has become something of a dying art, if it isn't already dead. Yet by nature, it is dreamy and untroubled. Miming points its silent finger at the ridiculousness of human behaviour and what but love can make people act more absurd? We might find someone special in the least likely of circumstances if we could just take ourselves a little less seriously.<br /><br />Paris, JE T'AIME keeps the flow lively by not always focusing on love between lovers. Three memorable shorts focus on the love between a parent and a child. Walter Salles (MOTORCYCLE DIARIES) has Catalina Sandino Moreno singing lovingly to her child before she leaves him to sing the same song with a distant longing to the child she watches over for her living. Nobuhiro Suwa (UN COUPLE PARFAIT) has Juliette Binoche trying desperately to overcome the emptiness she feels after losing her son. Binoche says very little yet, not surprisingly given her immense talent, her struggle is evident in her face as she learns that love sometimes means letting go. And Alfonso Cuaron (CHILDREN OF MEN) weighs in with one continuous shot of a father (Nick Nolte) and his grown daughter (Sara Martins) walking together for what must be the first time in a long while. We see them only from across the street and we only get close to them as the distance between the two characters narrows to a place of comfort and accepting.<br /><br />The last short to screen is Alexander Payne's 14ieme Arrondissement. As usual, Payne (SIDEWAYS) takes an ordinary person and shows us what makes them extraordinary. Carol (Margo Martindale) is another American in Paris. She is there alone and for less time than she would have liked as she has dogs waiting for her at home. She is a plain person with an uneventful life who finds herself in a city that is rich and lush. In beautifully delivered Americanized French, she muses about the sights and how being there makes her feel. This woman spends so much time trying to be happy despite life's numerous disappointments and as she sits in a city made for lovers, she realizes that she is in fact happy and loves herself more than she knew. She falls in love, if only for perhaps a moment, with life and love itself.<br /><br />The characters that appear but fleetingly in Paris, JE T'AIME find themselves at the romantic center of the universe. The moments they share with each other, be it helping someone up after a hard fall or reaching out your hand to another person without touching them or without their knowledge, are the moments that give love its flare and flourish. Outside the city of lovers, it can be easy to miss moments such as these but we must remind ourselves of their significance. It takes but a moment for love to shine through a cloudy sky. You just have to keep your heart open to see it. And if one city can be so abundant with love, one has to believe it can find its way one day to your door.

This is not a bad film. It is not wildly funny, but it is interesting and<br /><br />entertaining. It has a few funny moments. Cher gives a good<br /><br />performance in a role that is very opposite her real-life self. Her<br /><br />performance alone is worth the watch. If this movie had come out<br /><br />today it would not have been nominated, but by '80s standards it<br /><br />was excellent.

This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...<br /><br />Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.

I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!<br /><br />There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.<br /><br />I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by "Reefer Madness." That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach "Christian" principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.<br /><br />It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century!

I'm sorry but this is just awful. I have told people about this film and some of the bad acting that is in it and they almost don't believe me. There is nothing wrong with the idea, modern day Japanese troops get pulled back in time to the days of Busido warriors and with their modern weapons are a match for almost everything. When the troops first realise something strange is happening does every single person in the back of the transport need to say "Hey my watch has stopped"? Imagine lines like that being repeated 15+ times before they say anything else and you have the movie's lack of greatness in a nutshell.

The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause.

New York, 1953. One hot night, four famous iconic figures will come together. The professor (Albert Einstein) has come to NY to give a speech, which he has, the senator (Joesph MacCarthy) on his back. Later that night his gets a surprise visitor; a famous actress (Marilyn Monroe). Who actually wants to discuss the theories of Relativity. Soon her ball-playing husband (Joe DiMaggio) turns up at the hotel room, begging to work things out for their crumbling relationship. Flashbacks of childhood, important events, perceived consequences of their actions creep in to show how these individuals cope with despair and a hidden fear waiting to break out.<br /><br />Now that's one-of-a-kind! Adapted off a stage-play by Terry Johnson (who would also script the screenplay for the film), "Insignificance" is an odd, quirky, seductive and downright curious fictional pop-culture gimmick in the hands of director Nicolas Roeg. This inspired and cerebral experimental effort might be rooted in its stage-play origins, because it does feel theatrical and most of the action occurs in a hotel backdrop and one main suite. The cramp look only enhanced the moody and smoky atmosphere of New York to great effect. However these limitations can't contain the fruitful and daring ideas that Roeg manages to randomly storm up visually and through the meaningful material. The way he reflects on the characters' (who are suggestively famous figures, without the need of naming of them) philosophical journeys and interpretations of their notions is stimulating in a spiritual sense, with the memories gelling into the present and visions showing their fears of realisations, which depending on what you're seeing is either beautiful, or hauntingly implemented. There's plenty of food for thought and hints within the verbosely innovative (if sometimes awkward) script, with the main focus concerning the present situation, but the flashbacks gives us the personal make-up (sex, power, enlightenment and glory) of what makes them who they are and how much of a burden it can be in there already demanding lives. Sure the story might not lead to anything by the end, and it can feel disjointed, but the dreamy vibe and intelligent arrangement irons out those folds and makes sure it never turns giddy. Peter Hannan's sensually fluid photography and Stanley Myers' titillatingly oozing blues soundtrack fit in snugly with Roeg's stylistically subdue and established style of directing. He makes it look like he's working with something big and large-scale, but otherwise that's not the case and a small little universe is created. The vintage costumes and locations of the period all come off fittingly enough. What made the film for me had to be the impressive acting it boasted from the main four. Theresa Russell's perky, drop dead gorgeous appeal of the sexy pin-up actress is a growing portrayal that definitely held the film together along with an genuinely excellent and endearing performance by Michael Emil as the professor. Tony Curtis marvellously plays it up as witch-hunting senator and Gary Busey is suitably good in the stoically gravel manner as the ballplayer. Showing up in minor, but amusing support roles happen to be Will Sampson and Patrick Kilpatrick.<br /><br />A memorably striking, fresh and tour de force meditation piece of metaphysics linked together by four different extremes. Some might find it pretentiously estrange and too talky, but this one had me wrapped up in its own little unique world to worry too much about its shortcomings.

Years ago, I found a "bargain bin" copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the "poverty row" studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.<br /><br />The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some "red herrings" (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the "screaming lady" and provides little new in each film.<br /><br />Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able.

The cover case and the premise that write there is so promising. As slasher maniac I expect much from this. But, what the heck is going on. The movie is awful. The direction, the plot, the suspense and the act of the casts is so amateurish. I even thought that they are using a home video camera to shot it. Lucky that it still manage to deliver some good moments to me that make me have to like it. Thanks for the bad package of so-called "Camp Blood".<br /><br />1/10

Need I say more? The reason the GOOD Australian version of Kath and Kim was, as mentioned, good, was because of it's hilariously funny originality. The reason this new American-ised version is so terrible is because a lot of it is taken straight from the original. Not to mention the unfaithfulness to the characters. Kath is meant to be a dag. Kim is meant to be fat. Kel (or Phil as they have dubbed him) is meant to be pathetic. Brett (or Craig) is meant to be a loser, not a person who acts like he's on heroin and finishes every sentence with 'dude'. Thank God Szubanski didn't sell her rights to Sharon, she'd probably end up being a tall thin blonde who Kim likes.<br /><br />Kath and Kim are MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. They are not meant to look 2 years apart. And they are not meant to giggle like school girls. This show is a disgrace to even share the same title as the Australian version. America: get your own television shows.

I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed. <br /><br />All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.<br /><br />2/10

I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.

What can one say about any Wilder film other than they are the most human and real stories about people and what drives them, bugs them,haunts them. Billy created pictures like paintings that stand forever reflecting the human condition. He paints the good and the bad in all of us. He also paints with love. I can't imagine anyone having a list of greatest films without a Wilder film on it. They will last because they are true. I first saw this movie on TV in the 60s when I was a kid and I had to leave the room because I felt tears welling up in me and was embarrassed. Now I'm an old man and I still feel the tears welling but don't leave the room. I knew these people and loved them and grew up around them. Billy preserved them in this film and not in a 'greatest generation' way but in a most realistic way that preserved the power of the human spirit.

Absolutely fantastic. <br /><br />Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.<br /><br />P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad.

Well this was the WWF's last pay per view event of the millennium and it ended the year and millennium right. The huge story line of Stephanie and HHH started right here at this event when Steph turned on her dad. Vince McMahon had a great match with HHH and this event is very good I give it a 9

I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. "You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded," he said with a smug smile, "but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon." The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.<br /><br />There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.<br /><br />The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.<br /><br />About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.<br /><br />I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.<br /><br />I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting.

It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the "creation" section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth", images he's been out for his whole career.<br /><br />One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.<br /><br />I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular "art-films" ever made.

I like Arnold, and I love the subject matter, but this was a very disappointing movie. When I first saw the previews, they were dark and ominous, and Arnold's name wasn't even mentioned. But I recognized him, which led me to believe that he was making a movie that had more of a serious, suspenseful mood. That it wasn't just another Schwarzenegger action vehicle (though I admit, most of his are pretty good!). He had, thus far, avoided movies with any real religious theme. And I was excited. I was wrong. This is just another action, explosion, gun fire movie. And it's a pretty bad one.

... It even beats the nasty "raw". Almost twenty years old is this show and still I laughed VERY MUCH when I was watching it last night. It shows Eddie Murphy dressed in tight red clothes(Old School)and he jokes with everything from celebertis to his family. He was only 22-years old then and this is a must-see!<br /><br />8/10

This "film" attempts to follow the genre of low budget, hand-held camera flicks that have proved to be very effective and successful.<br /><br />This one, fails, and HOW.<br /><br />It's amazing how many so called "awards" this piece of garbage has got plastered on the cover..... it makes you wonder what these critics were on when they actually submitted this....<br /><br />Words fail to describe just how absolutely appalling this movie really is. Seriously, it's THAT BAD.<br /><br />I watched it in 20 minutes flat, on almost continual fast forward.<br /><br />From rubbish lighting to dreadful directing, grainy visuals to muffled sound, and of course not forgetting the ABYSMAL acting, this was one completely and utterly pathetic piece of so-called film making.<br /><br />It seriously, has NO redeeming qualities - whatsoever. Save your cash and watch a decent low budget horror flick, there are plenty out there - Dead End, The Blair Witch, REC, to name but a few.<br /><br />AVOID this rubbish at all costs. DO NOT waste your money or time on this piece of trash pretending to be an actual film.<br /><br />Take heed of all the other comments! You've been warned!

I can't understand why they decided to release this film to introduce the American audience to the dynamo that is Jet Li. Fist of Legend would have been a much better choice. Anyway, Black Mask isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't great either. The final fight sequence is well staged by Yuen Woo Ping who went on to coordinate The Matrix. But the English release suffers from rough editing and dubbing. (I'm begging the Hollywood studios to release these films uncut with subtitles.)Jet Li shows his characteristic charisma in the title role and Francoise Yip has a cool but brief role as the female 701.<br /><br />Black Mask has a strange goth style that adds some interest but it is overloaded with gun battles and explosions. More focus on Li's fantastic physical skills were in order. Black Mask is a decent film but do yourself a favor and pick up Fist of Legend if you want to see a tremendous film that really shows Li's skills.

"Death Promise" is a lost 70's exploitation gem and deserves to be seen. Technically somewhat of a mess and boasting a stock of amateur New Yawk types, this film never bores. I highly recommend tracking this down. It's a hoot and a half.

Julie Waters is outstanding and Adrian Pasdar a revelation in a very warm, very real, and extraordinarily entertaining look at the complications gender dysphoria and transvestism cause in a young executive's life. At the heart of this movie is the very real truth that you must accept yourself before you can hope for others to accept you.

The film is exceptional in it's gay iconography and extends this beyond the asthetics to the music and cast. Throughout the whole film exists a childlike wonder as seen through the eyes of the main character. Her lighthearted take on the world around us is comical and beautiful. In a way it's a slacker movie for girls. Watch this is you fancy a relaxing entertaining mid-night movie. Buy this if you like diferent takes on the world of media and love combined (?).

This was basically an attempt to do the same thing with "Batman" that was done with "Gilligan's Island" in "Surviving Gilligan's Island." For those of you who missed it (and shame!) "Surviving Gilligan's Island" (full title: "Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History") was a special from a few years back, where Bob Denver ("Gilligan"), Dawn Wells ("Mary Ann") and Russell Johnson ("The Professor") related the story of the show's creation, cancellation, rediscovery & rebirth. Along the way, stories were dramatized with actors portraying the original cast and crew. It was very well done. It was funny, well cast and came across as a genuine document of the show.<br /><br />"Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt" is in a similar style. The re-telling of the history of the show, the re-enactments, the general feel are all the same. What's missing is the straightforward approach that "Surviving" took.<br /><br />In "Return", Adam West and Burt Ward both receive invitations to a car show to which they were not meant to be invited. After being allowed to stay, Adam and Burt witness the theft of the centerpiece of the show: the legendary Batmobile! Adam and Burt decide to chase after it themselves, leading them through clues that cause them to think about the history of the show. This eventually leads to the revelation of who stole the Batmobile and why.<br /><br />Choosing to use this conceit (actually having a plot) is the biggest letdown of this show. Unlike "Surviving", "Return" forces the viewer to follow a less interesting storyline (the theft of the Batmobile) instead of focusing all its attention on what the audience would most be interested in (the history of the show.) It is the historical sections that work the best. The casting (as in "Surviving") is excellent. Jack Brewer ("Adam West") and Jason Marsden ("Burt Ward") capture the feel of the actors without looking *too* much like them. Brett Rickaby ("Frank Gorshin") bears a stronger resemblance to his subject, but captures none of the late Gorshin's charm, only his characterizations. Other actors' portrayals are short and functional, with none standing out as especially good or bad. Many of the stories have been told before, but they mostly play out amusingly, with only the occasional clunky presentation. Another wonderful bit from the historical sections was the use of audition footage of Lyle Waggoner's tryout for the part of Batman. The only place where the flashbacks fail is when they insert obviously made up plot points to advance the main story. This downgrades the accuracy of the flashbacks needlessly.<br /><br />The "main plot" (if that is what we must call it) is, of course, ludicrous. This is not really a fault in and of itself, but it's just not carried off well enough to cover up the shortfall. Strong performances and good writing can make up for a silly plot (especially in these kinds of things) but we really get neither, here. The performances by West and Ward seem somewhat flat (even for them); the dialog too carefully written for it to feel natural. Again, I think the comparison to "Surviving Gilligan's Island" can be seen in that the dialog is mostly just there to set up a flashback. In "Surviving", that's all it intends to be. In "Return" it tries to do double duty and, unfortunately, often fails. Gorshin and Newmar do well (although I agree with others that Gorshin had not aged well and that Newmar had - and what's Waggoner taking to look that good?) but aren't given enough to do. Again, I think they all would have been better served by a more straightforward presentation than the one chosen here.<br /><br />Another odd point about "Return". This special is about the "Batman" TV series and its history, yet all the clips shown are from the theatrical movie. Even the Waggoner footage is technically movie footage. If you know you're "Bat-history", then you know that the movie was originally planned to be made first, only to be delayed in favor of the TV show when CBS needed to fill time fast. So when Waggoner and West were testing for the role, it was for the movie, not the TV show. Why "Return" only uses movie footage is unclear. It most probably has to do with rights issues, but it is a distinct distraction to those in the know: seeing Julie Newmar in the present, but only footage of Lee Meriwether as Catwoman in the past.<br /><br />Overall, I liked the show, mainly for the flashbacks. I would have preferred the style used in "Surviving Gilligan's Island", but I can understand why they'd want a more story-oriented piece given the subject matter. Besides, I like these people. It's nice to see them out and about, still having fun with one of the great pieces of entertainment history. I just wish they had done it a little better and when more of the original cast was still alive to be there.

this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together. <br /><br />watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.<br /><br />and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!!

I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.

I saw this movie in 1969 when it was first released at the Cameo Theater on South Beach, now the famous Crowbar Night-club. It was the last year of the wild 60s and this movie really hit home. It's got everything; the generation gap, the sexual revolution, the quest for success, and the conflict between following one's family "traditions" to those of seeking ones own way through life.<br /><br />It was a fast paced, highly enjoyable movie. Vegas was at it's hippiest peak, Sin City in all it's glory. Beautiful women, famous cameos, laughs, conflict, romance, and even a happy ending. A very enjoyable time over all. <br /><br />The poster from this film rests on my bedroom wall. I look at it and I go back in time; a time of my youth and my times with my dad, a great time in my life.

This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.<br /><br />The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.<br /><br />It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.<br /><br />It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.

That someone could have conceived this nonsense and then got it produced is incredible. That it actually aired on television and advertisers actually PAID TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT is mind boggling. This stomach-wrenching excuse for kid's programming is almost too vile to comment on. I've burned -- yes burned -- any Barney tapes that people have given my son. To find this awful programming in my library was an unpleasant surprise. And where, tell me where, do they get those smarmy kid actors? Have their parents no sense? Those kids will be on drugs before they're teenagers. Geez. The final insult is that I have to add this extra line to the review to get it on IMDb.

Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010 <br /><br />A Shot in the Dark<br /><br />It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail. <br /><br />Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a whole…I feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony. <br /><br />This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target. <br /><br />How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.<br /><br />With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointless—and it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs. <br /><br />Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls<br /><br />Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language)

Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?

This film makes "American Pie" a sophisticated movie! No further comment needed. Humor is cheap, dialogues are stupid and the cast is awkward. Every cliché is used several times without any original twist. And far the worst, the movie turns out to be more catholic than the Pope. It's so sad.

This was my first, and probably the last Angelopoulos movie. I was eager to get into it, as it featured Mastroianni, one of my favorite actors and was a film By Theo, of whom I've heard a lot. The opening was promising, a long shot over a jeep of soldiers across the Albanian-Greek border. OK! but that was all. Nothing left. The movie had big holes and I don't know which to mention first. The main plot of the story is revealed to the journalist by the old woman. during a long walk. It's like a 15 minutes monologue, killing the action and viewers patience, nothing happening on screen for 15 or even 20 minutes, apart this old lady telling a story. All that is presumed to be shown through action, was simply told to the camera by the old lady. In a moment, the equippe of TV was heading to the bar. They turn the corner and immediately the winter begins! Probably, shot in different days, continuity leaked. A lot of problems with the story-telling, it went from absurd to irrational never sticking to a style, making the viewer asking questions that never got answers. Poor Mastroianni, given a role which lacked integrity or charm. On the other hand, as many Greeks or Albanians or Balcan people would agree with, the movies showed lot of historic, ethnic, or politically incorrectness, just for the sake of making a movie about "humanity" as a red in another review. A lot more to say, but no time to lose on a poor movie, which was not movie at all, but lunacies of a person impressed on film and paid with state money.

Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!<br /><br />All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?<br /><br />And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!<br /><br />Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.<br /><br />Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.

What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some "hero" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible.

When one watches the animated Superman shorts of the 1940s, the similarity of the plots can become a bit boring - the adversary is most often a mad scientist in a hidden headquarter, threatening Metropolis with some evil invention - death rays, mechanical monsters, electric earthquake, magnetic telescope, what have you.<br /><br />This one is refreshingly different. The bad ones drive around in a car, shooting and bombing, but the center of action is the gold train (on which Lois Lane travels, as the only press reporter, it seems). Train movies have their own typical ingredients, from the 1903 Great Train Robbery on, and quite some are featured here: decoupling cars in motion, running on the roofs, taking the steam locomotive from the tender in the back, fighting with the engineer, a switch turned to deroute the train on a side track, the fall (of people or the whole train) from a high bridge... it's all in the few minutes of this lovely piece.<br /><br />But it wouldn't be a Superman film if he didn't do some incredible feats (involving balancing and high-precision placement) to ultimately win the day. If you're a fan of train movies, don't miss this. It's in the public domain and can be legally downloaded from archive.org.

I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.<br /><br />There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.<br /><br />I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.

Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".<br /><br />The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.<br /><br />This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.<br /><br />Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.<br /><br />As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.

It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre.

Friday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.<br /><br />Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.<br /><br />The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.<br /><br />Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over it.

Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).<br /><br />Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.<br /><br />Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.<br /><br />For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.

I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.<br /><br />Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.<br /><br />The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.<br /><br />A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other "Children of the Corn" aren't really all that scary.<br /><br />Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video

This little film had long been on my "keeper" list. Do people realize how stressed out, menopausal, emotionally abused women (as well as the mentally retarded) were REALLY treated by the medical profession at the turn of the century??!! All of the pious uptight Christian attitudes of that time were deadly to exploring TRUE emotional feelings that would allow us to embrace suffering souls, let alone explore what it means to embrace our humanity. Can you really imagine (by today's standards) that Walt Whitman's books were banned because he acknowledged women as having feelings and emotional responses as great as a mans? Think about that! The sensitivity of this movie still gets me and I give credit to the director for capturing this through his eyes.

Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.

this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best "super hero" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting

When THE PUFFY CHAIR beckons, beware of its soft, colorful upholstery.<br /><br />The movie starts out quite well. Josh (Mark Duplass) and Emily (Kathryn Aselton) are a boyfriend-girlfriend couple having a bit of a tough time with their relationship. An argument occurs one night and in order to make up, Josh asks Emily to come along on a roadtrip to his father's house where Josh plans to deliver a purplish LazyBoy recliner for his dad's birthday. Emily accepts and along the way they pick up Josh's flighty brother Rhett (Rhett Wilkins), an Amish-looking fellow more in touch with other peoples' lives than his own.<br /><br />The roadtrip quickly devolves into more squabbling between Josh and Emily, as well as a bitter feeling for The Puffy Chair (it is initially very grubby and falling apart until Josh "convinces" the original owner to refurbish it). Rhett quickly ascertains that the cause of all of Emily and Josh's problems is the LazyBoy and sets it to the torch one night ...<br /><br />And that's the last we hear of the chair, even though there are many minutes left in the film.<br /><br />The big issue is that the title of the film is The Puffy Chair, when it isn't the chair at all that takes center-stage. It is Josh and Emily's doomed relationship and how the roadtrip seals their feelings for one another. Once the chair is destroyed, there's never another mention of it, even though they arrive at Josh's parents place on his father's birthday without a gift. Josh never mentions the chair, nor does his father. There's no connection between it and the lives of these people. So why call the movie The Puffy Chair and why isn't there a tie-in with it at the end? Bad script.<br /><br />The other annoying thing is that Mark Duplass' brother, Jay Duplass, is not only the director but also the cameraman (and not a very good). Nearly every scene has a rapid zoom-in on the characters that goes grainy and out of focus before the camera's autofocus catches up and rights itself. Initially this took on a quaint and artistic feel, but rapidly became unbearable.<br /><br />The acting in the film is accessible and entertaining. All of the actors/actresses did fine jobs. But the poor production quality, stilted ending, and lack of coherency to the title caused this flick too many problems.

First an explanation on what makes a great movie for me. Excitement about not knowing what is coming next will make me enjoy a movie the first time I watch it (case en point: Twister). There are also other things that go into a great first viewing such as good humor (John Candy in Uncle Buck and The Great Outdoors), good plot with good resolution (Madeline and Matilda), imaginative storytelling (all Star Wars episodes-George Lucas is THE MAN), and good music (again all Star Wars episodes, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music). What makes me watch a movie at least six times in the theatre and buy a DVD or VHS tape? Characters. With that said, I present Cindy Lou Who and The Grinch. Excellent performance Taylor Momsen and Jim Carrey. The rest of the cast was very good, particularly Jeffery Tambor, Bill Irwin, Molly Shannon, Christine Baranski, and Josh Ryan Evans. But, every single scene with Cindy and The Grinch-together is excellent and very funny and/or heartwarming. Cindy Lou is my favorite character in this movie and the most compelling reason why the movie is better than the cartoon. The Grinch has a strong plot, good conflicts, and a very good theme (I can't get started because I don't want to spoil it). Jim Carrey was very funny as The Grinch-particularly when he interacted with Cindy. And the music! Wow! Excellent music by James Horner. I loved his selection of instruments and the compositions. Very good job Jim Carrey-I didn't know you could sing. Taylor Momsen! Whoa! Your voice is reason enough to see the movie at least once. On your solo - Where Are You Christmas - is your voice really as high as it sounds? Sounds like an F#? That is an obscene range for a 7-year old (obscene meant in the best possible way). Great job. This is the best performance by a child I have ever heard in a movie(Taylor beat out the Von Trapp Children-no small feat!). And now to the actors. Jim Carrey was great, funny, and, surprisingly very sensitive (this really showed through in his scenes with Taylor Momsen). Taylor Momsen's unspoken expressions(one of the secrets to a good acting performance) are very strong-she really becomes Cindy Lou Who. And when she does dialogue she is even stronger.<br /><br />******************************danger:spoiler alert********************* ***********************************************************************<br /><br />Examples: expression when she first sees The Grinch. This is a classic quote ("You're the the the" and then filled in with the Grinch line "da da da THE GRINCH-after which she topples into the sorter and then is rescued by The Grinch). The "Thanks for saving me" quote and subsequent response by The Grinch was also very good.<br /><br />My favorite part of the movie is when Cindy invites The Grinch to be Holiday Cheermeister. This scene is two excellent actors at their best interacting and expressing with each other. Little Taylor Momsen completely holds her own with Jim Carrey in this spot. I sincerely hope we see Taylor Momsen in many more films to come. All in all everything was great about this movie (except maybe the feet and noses).

Arnold once again in the 80's demonstrated that he was the king of action and one liners in this futuristic film about a violent game show that no contestant survives. But as the tag line says Arnold has yet to play! The movie begins in the year 2019 in which the world economy has collapsed with food and other important materials in short supply and a totalitarian state has arisen, controlling every aspect of life through TV and a police state. It's most popular game show is The Running Man, in which criminals are forced to survive against "Stalkers" that live to kill them.<br /><br />The movie opens with Ben Richards (Arnold) leading a helicopter mission to observe a food riot in progress. He is ordered by his superiors to fire on them, refusing to gets him knocked out and thrown in prison, in the meantime they slaughtered the people without his help. The government blames Richards for the massacre earning him the name "Butcher of Bakersfield". Eighteen months later Richards along with two friends William Laughlin (Koto) and Harold Weiss (McIntyre) breakout of a detention zone they worked in. They make their way to the underground, led by Mic (Mick Fleetwood). Mic quickly identifies Richards as the "Butcher of Bakersfield" and refuses to help him, but his friend's convince him otherwise. They want him to join the resistance, but he'd rather go live with his brother and get a job. Soon he finds that his brother has been taken away for reeducation and a woman name Amber Mendez (Alonso) has taken his apartment. Knowing who he is she won't help him, but he convinces her, but is busted at the airport by the cops after she ratted him out.<br /><br />Meantime, The Running man is having trouble finding good new blood for the there stalkers to kill. Damon Killian (Dawson) the shows host and one of the most powerful men in the country sees Richards escape footage and is able to get him for the show after his capture. Richards refuses to play, Killian threatens to use his friends instead of him, so he signs the contract. You'll love that part. But soon he finds they will join him as well and makes sure Killian knows he'll be back. The Runners begin to make there way through the Zones and fight characters that are memorable, Sub-Zero, Buzz Saw and many others. Eventually Richards is joined by Amber who suspected he was set up but was caught and thrown into the game too. Together they find the underground and make there way back to Killian and give him a farewell send off.<br /><br />The running man is another one of Arnold's great movies from the 80's. The movie was apparently somewhat based on Stephen King's book of the same name. Some have said that the book is better. I'm sure it's not and I don't care anyway I loved the movie. As in all of Arnold's films the acting is what you would expect with classic one liners from Arnold and even Ventura gets a couple in. But without a doubt Richard Dawson is the standout in this film. Being a real game show host he easily spoofed himself and was able to create a character that was truly cold blooded. The whole movie itself somewhat rips on game shows and big brother watching you. Keep an eye out for them poking fun and some old shows, "hate boat" among others. Also the cast was great besides Arnold, Koto, and Alonzo don't forget Professor Toru Tanaka, Jim Brown, Ventura and Sven-Ole! With all the reality TV nonsense that goes on it almost fits in better now, but I'm sure the Hollywood liberals would make it into a movie about the "Evil Bush". The new DVD had mostly poor extras meet the stalkers being the only redeemable one. Some how the ACLU managed to get some of there communism into the DVD and is laughable garbage that should not be anywhere near an Arnold movie of all things. Blasphemy! Overall for any Arnold fan especially we who grew up in the 80's on him ,you can't miss this. Its one of the first ones I saw back in the 80's and it's still great to this day. The futuristic world and humor are great. Overall 10 out 10 stars, definitely one of his best.

He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.

My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.<br /><br />Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight.