Datasets:

abhi227070

/

imdb-dataset

like 0

I was expecting a very funny movie. Instead, I got a movie with a few funny jokes, and many that just didn't work. I didn't like the idea of bringing in Sherlock Holmes' and Moriarty's descendants. It was confusing. It would have been more funny if they just had someone new, instead of Moriarty resurrected. Some of the things were funny. Burt Kwouk was very funny, as always. McCloud on the horse was funny. The McGarrett from Hawaii 5-0 was not even McGarrett-like. Connie Booth obviously is very good with accents. She is from Indiana, but played English and a New Yorker pretty well. Unfortunately, she was not presented much into the script. I was expecting a more funny film. Instead, I got a rather confusing movie with a poor script. Rather ironic, since both Booth and Cleese were together on this one. Maybe they were about to break up in 77.

This is a story about Shin-ae, who moves to Milyang from Seoul with her young son Jun to start over after the accidental death of her husband. Her husband was born here, and she is opening up a piano school, but also has ambitions to own some land with the insurance money she received from the death. If that is what the film was about, it probably would have been like a Hollywood film, with her falling for some local guy and being happy with her son in their new home. But, this is not Hollywood. Her son gets kidnapped and murdered, ostensibly because it is known she has cash from the settlement. The grief process, attempts at moving on, attempts to clear her conscience of guilt, are all done admirably, and the lead actress is superb. The only caveat, and it has to be stated, is that this is a depressing film. You have to know that going in. You want Shin-ae to go through her grief and find some measure of happiness. Again, this is not Hollywood, it is Korea and in Korean cinema, especially drama, they pull no punches. Life is what happens to you. Great acting, but sometimes a tough film to watch, due to the goings on. If you stay, you'll be rewarded. Do that.

A good story, well-acted with unexpected character twists eg. vicious murderous gangster Bryan Brown teaching his son macrame. Although it succeeds as an action drama where you hope the good guy (Ledger) and his gilrfriend succeed, it also has some hilarious ironic black humour eg. the bank robbers who become radio competition "winners" and their reaction, the busker's revenge etc. Well worth watching.

This is a film about 17th Century Italian artists and one artist in particular, a woman Artemisia, an unheard of profession for females at that time, and she dared to paint the male nude detailing his unique musculature.<br /><br />The camera work is principally indoors for that is where the artists mainly worked. There are some great shots. Close-ups by candle light suggest the beautiful work of the classical painters and it is fascinating to watch the painters and their students supported by elaborate scaffolding brushing in details of religious frescoes. It is not surprising that the artistic elements of the film (costumes,faces, make-up) are quite superbly authentic because the Italian churches have preserved all these details in their frescoes for centuries. The beautiful Artemisia is urged by her father to study under the great Florentine artist, Tassi, who has become expert in the art of perspective and landscape painting (something very new) but the unsuspecting Artemisia is introduced to more than new techniques in painting. After posing for her, Tassi violently rapes her. Her father is outraged. Court proceedings follow.<br /><br />This romantic drama has a fairly simple story with an unsatisfactory ending. The outstanding feature of the film is its artistic presentation and attention to detail. Scenes such as women running across a field with the wind billowing their voluminous clothing add wonderful effects.<br /><br />Artemisia says she paints to please herself; her father paints to please others. As for this film, it will please most, I think.

This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.<br /><br />Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.

...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character "Cherry" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)

Hoot is a nice plain movie with a simple message. It seemed like that this film was for young children, but I know that adults will like this film. The storyline is pretty simple. A kid who moved to Florida must help a soccer jock and an outcast save burrowing owls from construction of a pancake house. The message in this film is big especially for animal activists and lovers. The message is about doing all you can to save endangered animals. The acting in this film is decent. All the three kids looked like they had good chemistry. The music is not too shabby. I liked Jimmy Buffet's songs in this film. Overall this is a good family film. I rate this film a 9/10.

I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my "must see" list for a while because people talked about it being "disturbing" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how "amazing" it is, or how "as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.<br /><br />That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some "where is he, let's find him" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.

Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale? This is the second adaptation of "Beowulf" I've been disappointed with in a year. But I have to say, the previous version ("Beowulf & Grendel", starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That one was only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!! <br /><br />What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in for no particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), or the bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspired acting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis look so horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow? <br /><br />And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strength throughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters he fought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when he slugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much too reliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly not the powerful Beowulf of the epic poem! <br /><br />I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of one offhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read "Beowulf", you'll be infinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for an adaptation!

If you're in the mood to laugh at a truly bad movie (bad in the way only Ken Russell at his worst can be), you must try this one. It succeeds in making you feel like you just landed in a .25 porn-booth, and you can just about smell the urine on the floor. Kathleen Turner struts around in a blond wig, getting her kicks from "pretending" to be a two-bit hooker (she really has a good solid job in the clothing industry and has been hurt so badly by men that this is the only way she can connect), and Tony Perkins plays a hysterical "priest" who is out to maybe murderer her (yet another movie that ends with Tony Perkins in drag). Annie Potts shows up and is not allowed to provide an ounce of her usual wit, which is reason enough to hate this movie. The kinky will love the sex scenes, so rent the UNrated version in the RED box so you can see Turner give a cop a taste of his billy club (I had to pause the VCR until we stopped laughing).

A woman as rich as she is insecure has a history of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, helped no doubt by a smooth-talking gigolo husband who openly cheats on her. Naturally nobody believes her when she claims to have been accosted by a giant man who stepped out of a giant satellite. Much to the delight of her husband, this could be the incident which finally puts her away for good. <br /><br />From the very opening scenes, with it's ludicrous news broadcast and ridiculous satellite encounter, you'll probably be convinced that the only redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad that it is funny. Although not too far off the mark, this is most definitely not true.<br /><br />Unlike most movies of this genre, this is not really a sci-fi or a horror film, but actually a serious drama which intelligently incorporates a sci-fi scenario into the plot. It's not a good or even mediocre drama, but it will exceed your expectations if you weren't expecting any legitimate drama at all. The acting is surprisingly good for such a low budget effort and, most importantly, it is well edited and excellently paced. It is never boring and manages to generate more than a little interest in seeing what will come next. Nevertheless, this is still a movie strictly for those who can't pass up the chance to see a 1950s film with a title like "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"!

And a perfect film to watch during the holiday season as the winter/Xmas atmosphere that Burton creates for Gotham City is way cool. It's weird that Warner decided to release this as a summer film. It doesn't fit.<br /><br />But what's even weirder, when you consider the content of this film, is that it was aimed at families. An upper-class family throws their mutant baby down the sewer, a socio phobic billionaire dresses up in leather as a flying rodent, a lonely secretary dresses up in leather as a feline and a freak runs for political office. And S&M and bondage are presented in a very perverted way. But Burton got away with it. His visual style in this film is at it's best.<br /><br />This and Batman: Dead End are the only true live-action incarnations of the comic-book character. True, the animated series was the closest to the source material, but compared with Batman Forever and the un-nameable one after that, Batman Returns is the best of the four.<br /><br />Darker and more violent than the first movie, the sense of Gothic pathos reaches a new high. I was quite keen on Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (don't even get me started on George Clooney!), he displayed the right balance of weirdo loner and cool crime fighter. Michelle Pfieffer is great as Catwoman (much sexier and more 'realisticly' cat-like), she wears that leather outfit better than Halle Berry. And Danny DeVito was so convincing as the Penguin that his scenes became disturbing to watch. And Christopher Walken is brilliant as the spooky Max Shreck (if you think you recognise Chip Shrek it's none other than a very young Leatherface/Butterfinger).<br /><br />Danny Elfman's score is also even better than it was first time round. His powerful and engaging themes are way better than the dross that followed in the later 2 Schumacher movies. This movie is the Batman phenomenon at its Zenith. Forget the following sequels and stick to the animated series after this. Let's hope that Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale can bring some integrity back to the live action Batman with their movie next year.<br /><br />This DVD was one of the first ever DVDs released by Warner (almost 7 years ago!!!) and as a result there are NO features and the case is a snapper. Pick it up cheap like I did and hope for an SE in the future.

With a movie called "Gayniggers from Outer Space" how could you go wrong? Just throw in some over the top stereotypes for the characters, use the Village People as the main suppliers for the soundtrack, and throw in tons of gay-gags. Plot is unimportant. Too bad, this film doesn't contain any of this and every joke misses the spot. The characters all look alike apart from the german gaynigger, one or two jokes work, the rest fails.<br /><br />The title made me laugh and I was prepared to laugh even more about the film. My expectation were to high apparently.

The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a "thriller" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.

A MUST SEE documentary.-----This movie had so many things to consider while watching it. It was a great documentary of a trial of a 15 year old black kid named Brenton Butler. He accused of killing a white tourist in Florida. It shows how the police took statements from the husband of the dead woman of the description of the man that killed his wife. The husband seemed to want to change some things to merge with what the police said the young man was wearing. The police little to investigate the crime. Brenton's lawyer Patrick McGuinness is meticulous in getting information to help his client. He tells the viewers what he thinks and the strategy he will use on the police to show their incomplete investigation and beatings against his young client to get him to confess. The camera goes with McGuinness to where Brenton was questioned. McGuinness also takes pictures of the room and how the audio is monitored. He questions a policeman on the stand and ask what the heard Brenton say to one of the investigators and he challenges their own words. McGuinness investigates with Ann Finnell each place the police should have gone and the things they should have done but did not. The movie shows the Butlers as a loving Christian family who have faith in their son's innocence and faith that God will set Brenton free. They visit him in jail and pray with him there to encourage him. There are scenes of group prayer for Brenton, the lawyers, the Judge and everyone involved in this case. I am a white and I was surprised to see how blacks in high police positions treat other blacks. It was very disappointing to see black and white police stick together when they think they got their man. Police have a hard job and I believe most of them are honorable not like the ones in this movie. I think this is a great movie for anyone involved in the Judicial system including Judges, police and lawyers and even potential jurors to watch this movie and learn from it.

A very credible and unsettling movie portraying the effects of war on the general public, Shame gives us a chilling understanding oh Ingmar Bergman's beliefs. The absence of color and sound (as in a soundtrack) helps to give the film a more realistic feeling. There is no soft or hard lighting or a variety of camera angles to give the story a charming or dramatic effect. Everything is very simply portrayed as it would be in reality. At times the storyline was confusing, but perhaps in order to give a sense of the characters' frame of mind – how they too do now know what is happening or why. The simplicity of the film made it somewhat boring, but I could understand how the director is trying not to glamorize the story and points. He depicted the harsh and unsettling events and effects of war. In the beginning the characters were introduced and shown as content with the lighter settings and very long, drawn-out shots. When all of a sudden the war struck upon them, they were much darker and quiet with less intimate shots. Bergman did a good job on allowing us to be consumed by the war ourselves and presenting an image of it the so adequately corresponded to war. Although the storyline itself was not too impressive, the content of the film was.

I've always enjoyed seeing Chuck Norris in film. Although the acting may not be superb, the fight scenes are fantastic. I also enjoyed seeing Judson Mills perform along side him. In my opinion, the Norris Brothers have proven themselves to be fine entertainers and this was yet another fine production! I hope you take the time to view this movie!

"The King is Alive" is a flawed and contrived mess of a movie which comes off like a self indulgent auteur's excuse to transport a bunch of actors to a Godforsaken Namibian desert where he can play major-Dogme-domo and film his selfishly conceived, silly, overwrought drama with utter disregard for the real forces of human nature, market appeal, common sense, and even good art. In other words this is one dumbassed flick and if you don't believe that, your penance is watching it. Only for filmheads, critics, dilettantes, and the like. (D)

This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.<br /><br />I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.

Low budget horror movie. If you don't raise your expectations too high, you'll probably enjoy this little flick. Beginning and end are pretty good, middle drags at times and seems to go nowhere for long periods as we watch the goings on of the insane that add atmosphere but do not advance the plot. Quite a bit of gore. I enjoyed Bill McGhee's performance which he made quite believable for such a low budget picture, he managed to carry the movie at times when nothing much seemed to be happening. Nurse Charlotte Beale, played by Jesse Lee, played her character well so be prepared to want to slap her toward the end! She makes some really stupid mistakes but then, that's what makes these low budget movies so good! I would have been out of that place and five states away long before she even considered that it might be a good idea to leave! If you enjoy this movie, try Committed from 1988 which is basically a rip off of this movie.

I am stunned at the negative comments that I have read and can only assume that the people making such comments were less than honest. This is the most moving and real portrayal of Joseph Smith that I have ever seen. It was well acted to the point that at times I forgot that I was watching a movie. It brought Joseph's life of hardship, good-natured optimism, enduring faith in people and God, and ultimate sacrifice to life such in a way that frankly left me speechless and silent in awe. If anyone, of ANY Christian religion can watch this movie without being touched in some positive way--I would have to say it is a reflection of the individual and NOT the movie. I give the movie a "10" and encourage honest souls to view it. At the very LEAST it is an extremely heart felt portrayal of man who gave everything he had for what he believed...In a world where values and beliefs are ridiculed, this movie stands as a enduring reminder of the kind of people we are supposed to be- no matter what religious beliefs we hold.- Ann Pruitt-

It has been about 50 years since a movie has been made about romance and mysticism. The only two movies I can think of is "Enchanted April" (1992) and "The Enchanted Cottage" (1945). Both movies used wonderful actors not stars. In both movies, all the actors gave their best romantic performances.<br /><br />"Enchanted April" is about four English women after WWI who are unhappy with their lives and find happiness in Italy while on vacation. It is amazing "Enchanted April" was made in 1992. It stands out as an enjoyable classic.

So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as "Shrek."

I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.

Blonde and Blonder has Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards in almost every scene and if you want more from a movie you're being utterly unreasonable. It feels like a late era Carry On, when the series was no longer blazing trails, but was still more funny than not, think Behind or England and you won't be too far off the mark. Pamela and Denise are bubbly, charming and clearly aware this isn't a masterpiece they're making, although you can give me it over lots of things I'm told to like. The supporting cast are energetic, even if some of them aren't particularly good; I can't see a couple of duff turns in a movie that's already practically forgotten making much difference to anything, so just smile. I really do think Blonde and Blonder is ace and I hope you hate me for it.

Broadway and film actor-turned-director John Cassavetes (from Rosemary's Baby)creates a masterpiece with this 1977 film. It stars Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes himself, Ben Gazzara, Joan Blondell, Paul Stewart, Zohra Lampert, Laura Johnson and there is a cameo by Peter Falk. The premise of the film: An aging stage and film actress (Gena Rowlands)re-evaluates her life after an obscessed fan dies in a car accident trying to get her autograph. The movie has a slow pace and a dark, moody, frightening quality. It has a 60's cinematic look and it even reminded me of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby without the supernatural horror. The fears here are the ones every successful actress has- she is getting old and she will become useless in her career. Furthermore, she feels she has lived a life that lacks any true spirituality, humanity and merit. She has lived only for her career- she has no children, doesn't do charitable deeds, etc. The gradual disintegration of her personality is the meat of this film. She is falling apart. She's in a crisis. Gena Rowlands really gets into the character's tormented psyche and acts the part quite well. She is a terrific actress and this 70's film is a refreshing contrast to the often violent films of the period and or the disaster movies or adventure thrillers. It's a movie with lots of deep-seated emotion but has a cold, cynical feeling, as if Cassavetes is criticizing the mainstream movies and actors of the 70's generation. Either that or this movie is a product of the 70's which was itself cynical in many aspects- Nixon's deception, Watergate, Vietnam, etc. Although the production values are not great, and this film is not well-known, it's a very haunting film with haunting moods. Kudos to the underrated and late director Cassavetes who died in the late 80's.

Simply one of the best movies ever. If you won't get it - sorry for you. I believe that someday people will include this one in their all-time top 10's. Not now, but in the far future.

I just caught this on Showtime...ewwwwwww, not even fun in a bad movie kind of way. One of the lamest monster flicks I've ever seen. Plus the TV reporter in the movie was that annoying Jerri from a past season of Survivor. The only amusing thing was that the "secret base" was the house from Fantasy Island (and a million other movies and TV shows; the place is located in the L.A. area). I fully expected Mr Roarke and Tattoo to come out and greet the visitors. If Tattoo had gotten eaten by the snake, I might have given this movie a 2, but oh well. Watching people stand there and scream for five minutes while the Komodo or the cobra loomed over them instead of making a run for it was pretty funny, especially because you could really tell that they were just screaming at an empty spot where the computer animators would later paint in the monster. I nearly fell out of my chair, though, when in a flashback scene they brought in either the cobra or the komodo - then normal size - in some indestructible solid steel container with some air holes drilled into it. Wouldn't a wire cage have sufficed? LOL! Guess they couldn't afford to rent a real komodo and cobra. I have to remember I rent Showtime for their series and not their movies.

My room-mate ordered this one off of the web a while back and I finally got around to watching it. It is gross. It is cheezy. It is pretty dumb... but it is also a lot of fun. I mean, this was the most fun we have had watching a movie like this since "City Of The Walking Dead" ages ago. It was like being at the old Drive-In Theater again! You could tell the guy who made this movie liked all the horrible dubbed zombie movies. This one has all the cliches and tricks from those films rolled into one, and it's neat because it is SUPPOSE to be like that. The cheeze factor is high, the gore flows and the laughs roll! The effects go from sloppy to good, with the one where the guy gets torn in half and the one where a guy gets his heart shoved through his chest both being excellent! The acting goes from terrible to actually pretty good. There is not much plot, just lots and lots of gore. This one is patterned after the zombie movies from Italy and Spain I think, because they linger on the gross scenes forever, like this movie. If you like Troma movies, cheezy B-grade stuff, then you can do no wrong watching this one. A nice way to waste a Friday night!

I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David "Makin' It" Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter" run by Leon! This guy rocks! A "genius" with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the "bad guys". But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! "Johnny's Obese Male Child?" Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE!

I have never seen anything as awful as this movie for quite some time. The movie was boring, long long and awful plot. The special effects sucks like hell - It's like watching a movie back in 1999. It's a total waste of an hour and a half of my time. Matthew Settle's performance was quite bad. I saw him in Band of Brothers playing Lt.Speirs, he wasn't THAT bad. In fact not bad at all. But in this film, his acting wasn't convincing enough, it was quite bad and there wasn't any chemistry between the rest of the crew either. Plus, his eyes seems empty like he's not feeling it. It surprised me, really, because he was good in Band of Brothers.<br /><br />Anyway, don't even bother to watch this movie. It's a big big BIG waste of time. Even if you had to kill an hour or two, get something else to do besides watching this movie. Trust me, you'll regret it!

I saw a version of this in a 4 DVD Mafia collection put out by Brentwood and I have to admit that it was a good film. The quality was a little worse for the wear, but it was a well acted and realistic drama involving low level New Jersey gangsters. Pesci once again though, steels the show!

Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were.

Boogie Nights is full of surprises, nothing quite prepares one for it its soul. Yes, it does have soul, whilst tackling the tackiest of subject matter, with both a wry smile and respect. Brillantly cast and wonderful character development, the performances somehow combine the best of stage acting with improvisation within a cinema verite style.<br /><br />The plot proved richer than I expected and the underlying themes are teased out quite profoundly as each "B grade" human being is brought, through crisis, into perspective.<br /><br />A sociologist's dream case study, the film resonates the raw truth of what we all know about self-esteem, parental love and lack of it, attention/love deficit and its manifestation in adulthood, the desperate need to belong. Something for everyone here.. almost camouflaged as issues of untouchables and their separate milieu but of course they are universal.<br /><br />The film works on a number of levels. The ironic loop is that the milieu portrayed exists only because of the voyeur, who happens to be watching the film...<br /><br />Boogie Nights is non judgmental of its subject matter and characters, a rarity. It deserves every accolade it has achieved and more.

This film revolves as much around Japanese culture as it does the lives of one modern Japanese family. Physical contact is frowned upon for those over 7 (especially in public) hence all that bowing instead of hugging even when you are close friends/ relatives. Ballroom dancing involves putting your arms around someone else and that in public too! Never the less Ballroom dancing is (on the quite) immensely popular. People who do Ballroom dancing in Japan are viewed a bit like nudists in the west... many more would like to than do but are inhibited by the culture. A delightful family film, which any amateur dancer would enjoy for the dance sequences alone. I understand that it was more popular than Titanic in Japan. I guess the Japanese are just like the rest of us - they like to be hugged too.

I have to admit that Purple Rain is one of my deepest guilty pleasures. Purple Rain not only broke boundaries, it set a decade, the costumes, the music, the behavior, and the dancing! To this day, my friends and I still jam to the Purple Rain soundtrack and pretend to be Prince and the Revolution.<br /><br />Now the movie itself, I just meant what I said in the title, because for the most part, this movie itself is made by the music. The acting? Please don't let me judge on that since this is one of my favorite guilty pleasures, because I know that it was not Oscar worthy by any means. But I think the duo that took this movie was Morris and Jarome, their speech about passwords was just beyond hilarious. I just want to rate this movie on the concert sequences because I felt that it was what made the movie.<br /><br />Prince is a musical genius and created beautiful music. While the movie and acting is pretty bad, this movie is still a fun one to watch at night and even dance too. This movie defined the 80's, so just have fun with it. Prince would want it that way, just to party on down! Oh, boy, that sounded lame.<br /><br />9/10

This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.<br /><br />I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.<br /><br />It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"

File this one in the `How do movies like this get made?' column. A seventies-drag indie version of `Macbeth,' adapted fairly faithfully (but pointlessly) in a conventionally unconventional black-comic style. The cast gives it a shot, with Christopher Walken phoning in the eccentricity as McDuff, and with Maura Tierney rising above the dull script as Pat McBeth. The other actors are wasted, as is the audience's time. Knee-jerk fans of this brand of quirk may like it, though. 4 out of 10.

The most agile fat guy in martial arts does it again. An early Sammo film that has him imitating his character's hero, Bruce Lee, Sammo is amazingly Lee like in his actions and fighting. The way he slips into Bruce's style and then back to his own, more familiar kung fu is a joy to watch and shows how accomplished and adaptable he is at his art. Throw in a bit of slapstick humour so beloved of this type of flick and this a movie that has it all - comedy (some unintentional, like the fake black guy), action and some incredible fight scenes.<br /><br />A great beer and buddies movie that is worth an hour and a half of anyone's time.

Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.

This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I really can't recall when I've seen a worse one. I thought this would be about an aircraft accident investigation. What it really was is a soap opera, and a bad one at that. They overplayed the 'conflict' card to the extreme. The first hour or so seems like a shouting match, with some implausible scenes thrown in.<br /><br />*Possible spoiler*<br /><br />The 40-or-so minute 'memorial' scene (with requisite black umbrellas and rain) to fictitious crash victims was lame, and I thought it would never end. <br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs, unless you revel in 'conflict'.<br /><br />

This movie had me smiling from beginning to end, partly at the humor, partly at Meg Ryan (this is the perfect character for her), and always because it's just one of the best feel-good movies I've seen. Hopefully the DVD will be out soon.

I've seen The Blob several times and is one of the better low budget alien invasion movies from the 1950's.<br /><br />A strange meteor lands just outside a small town and an elderly man goes to investigate this. A strange jelly like substance then attaches itself to one of his arms and a young couple who saw the meteor land arrive in time and take him to the local doctor's, where the old man then gets completely absorbed by the mass. The doctor and his nurse are the next victims and the mass is getting bigger. When these incidents are reported to the police, they don't believe the young couple and accuse them of making all this up. They finally believe them when the mass, now huge turns up in the town's cinema and everybody runs into the streets screaming. It then attaches itself on a diner with the young couple and some others inside. The Blob is stopped by spraying a load of fire extinguishers at it and it freezes, which is its weakness. It is then transported by plane to the frozen wastes of the Arctic and disposed of there. But it is only frozen, not dead...<br /><br />This movie has a typical setting for its period: teenagers and a small town. The Blob has a good rock and roll style theme song at the beginning and the movie is atmospheric throughout.<br /><br />The sequel, Beware! The Blob followed in 1972 and a remake came in 1988 but this is the best of The Blob movies.<br /><br />The cast is lead by Steve McQueen (The Great Escape)and is the movie that made him a star and Aneta Corsaut plays his girlfriend. I'm not familiar with any of the other stars.<br /><br />The Blob is a must see for all sci-fi fans. Fantastic.<br /><br />Rating: 4 stars out of 5.

Steve Carell plays Dan Burns, newspaper agony uncle and dedicated single father to three girls. At a large family homecoming Dan meets his perfect woman, only to find out that she is in a relationship with his brother.<br /><br />What's a man to do?<br /><br />I rather liked "Dan In Real Life", but I would imagine the success or otherwise of this flick is going to be down to whether you are willing to accept Steve Carell playing a part relatively straight and restrained, rather than going through the broad comedy moves that have made him so successful. If you cannot accept it, fear not, "Get Smart" will be along later in the year, but for the record I thought he was very good.<br /><br />"Dan In Real Life" starts off like your typical, incidentally amusing, family drama, but it gets funnier and funnier as it goes along and Carell's frustration with his situation grows. It's not massively original (but if you only saw movies with original ideas, cinematic pickings would be very scarce indeed, wouldn't they?), but "Dan In Real Life" is entertaining, and a good cast (who wouldn't fall in love at first sight with the luminous Juliette Binoche?) make the most of an insightful enough script that contains many a ponder on the meaning and passion of love.<br /><br />I hope that Steve Carell pushes himself and does something as interesting again.

Like a lot of stars of the big screen as their careers wound down, so many turned to television where probably they secured their reputations for posterity. Donna Reed is a case in point.<br /><br />I don't think Donna Reed ever thought that Donna Stone was anything challenging, not to a woman who had won an Oscar for playing a very different type in From Here to Eternity. She was certainly better prepared to play wife, mother, and homemaker Donna Stone after having played Mary Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life. <br /><br />Donna was always beautiful and wise and ever helpful with the problems of her kids and her husband. Carl Betz was not an idiot, he was a pediatrician who had his office attached to the house. Talk about the man being ever ready in a crisis.<br /><br />Though this was the Donna Reed Show because Donna's husband at the time, Tony Owen produced it. Yet it lasted as long as did because of the popularity of the two children, Shelley Fabares and Paul Petersen. Fabares had that best selling teen record Johnny Angel which she introduced on the show. She successfully made the transition to adult star, most known for her role in Coach as Craig T. Nelson's wife.<br /><br />But Petersen was a bubblegum teen idol back in the day. The Donna Reed Show dare I say got most of its viewers because of him. It's forgotten now, but Petersen also had a best selling record, My Dad. Didn't do half as well as Johnny Angel. <br /><br />Now Paul Petersen runs a support group for former child stars like himself. So many of them end so tragically, it's good work that he's doing. <br /><br />The Stone family was the quintessence of Middle America. They lived in a suburb near Chicago, they led wholesome lives. Mom and Dad were always there for the kids. Of course the problems they had usually were nothing more than breaking curfew. <br /><br />It's this series I believe was the model for the TV town of Pleasantville where Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon are sucked into. <br /><br />I have pleasant memories of The Donna Reed Show. Easy to take, but not too seriously.

Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan.<br /><br />Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer, living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in cafés and nervously observing young women he never approaches.<br /><br />The film's title is translated as "Distant", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between the two men.<br /><br />Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive.<br /><br />Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task.

I first heard of this one while searching the 'Net for reviews of another Italian giallo/horror effort, the contemporaneous THE PERFUME OF THE LADY IN BLACK (1974; whose R2 SE DVD from Raro Video, by the way, I recently acquired) – where it's referenced as being in a similar vein but also just as good. Having watched FOOTSTEPS for myself now, I can see where that reviewer was coming from – in that both films deal with the psychological meltdown of their female protagonist. Stylistically, however, this one owes far more to Art-house cinema than anything else – in particular, the work of Alain Resnais and Michelangelo Antonioni (and, specifically, LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD [1961] and THE PASSENGER [1975] respectively); accordingly, some have accused it of being "deadly boring" – an epithet often attached to such 'pretentious' (read: cerebral) fare! <br /><br />Anyway, the film involves the quest of a woman (Florinda Bolkan) to determine her movements in the preceding three days – of which she seems to have no recollection. Following a series of cryptic clues, she travels to the 'mythical' land of Garma (nearby locations, then, bear the equally fictitious names of Muda and Rheember) – where she encounters several people (including Lila Kedrova as an aristocratic regular of the resort) who ostensibly recall the heroine staying there during her 'blackout'! Most prominent, though, are a young man (Peter McEnery) and a little girl (Nicoletta Elmi, from Mario Bava's BARON BLOOD [1972]) – the former always seems to happen on the scene at propitious moments, while the latter apparently confuses Bolkan with another woman (sporting long red hair and a mean streak!).<br /><br />While essentially a mood piece, this is nonetheless a gripping puzzle: inevitably, vague events transpire at a deliberate pace – and where much of the film's power derives from the remarkable central performance (which can be seen as an extension of Bolkan's role in the fine Lucio Fulci giallo A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN [1971]). However, there's no denying the contribution of cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who provides any number of sweeping camera moves and an effective color scheme – adopting orange/red/blue filters to create atmosphere and coming up with a saturated look for the disorientating, bizarre finale) and Nicola Piovani's fitting melancholy score (the composer is best-known nowadays for his Oscar-winning work on Roberto Benigni's Holocaust-themed tragi-comedy LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL [1997]).<br /><br />With this in mind, it's worth discussing how FOOTSTEPS was presented in the version I watched: well, being apparently hard-to-get in its original form (I can't be sure whether it's uncut here or not, except to say that the film ran for 89 minutes while the IMDb – lists it at 96), this edition is culled from a fairly battered English-language VHS (the dubbing is surprisingly good, given the international cast) with burnt-in Swedish subtitles to boot (besides, the DivX copy froze for a few seconds at a crucial point in the story around the 82-minute mark)! Still, we do get a welcome bonus i.e. a 9-minute 'Highlights From The Soundtrack' in MP3 format.<br /><br />I realize I haven't yet mentioned the moon mission subplot, to which Klaus Kinski's presence is restricted: incidentally, around this same time, he had a similarly brief but pivotal role in another good arty thriller with sci-fi leanings (and also set in a distinctive location) – namely, LIFESPAN (1974). As I lay watching the film, I couldn't fathom what possible connection this had with the central plot…except that Bolkan mentioned a recurring dream about a movie she had once seen, though not through to the end, called "Footsteps On The Moon" (a somewhat misleading alternate title for the film itself) – amusingly, she at first recalls the picture as being called BLOOD ON THE MOON (which, of course, is a classic 1948 Western noir with Robert Mitchum and directed by Robert Wise!). That said, I took this 'diversion' in stride as merely one more outlandish touch to the film (given also Bolkan's former employment as a translator at a conference discussing Earth's future) – and certainly didn't expect the astronauts to turn up on Garma's beach at the very end to pursue the female lead, where the sand then turns ominously into the moon's surface…! <br /><br />The film's plot will probably make more sense on a second viewing – though, to be honest, this is best approached as a visual/aural experience and one shouldn't really expect it to deliver a narrative that's in any way clear-cut and easily rationalized! For the record, the only other Bazzoni effort I'd managed to catch prior to this one was the middling straight giallo THE FIFTH CORD (1971), starring Franco Nero (which I had recorded off late-night Italian TV); some time ago, I did get hold of his Spaghetti Western rendition of "Carmen" titled MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE (1968) – also with Nero and Kinski – as a DivX (after I'd already missed a matinée broadcast of it)…but the conversion had somehow proved faulty and, consequently, the disc wouldn't play properly!

THis is a bewildering, Absurdist Short. A miller, dressed in white, makes his way towards us from a windmill in a desolate landscape. Although the image is pared down, there is an obvious logic here. However, he is stopped by the sweep, all in black because of his work. They start pummelling each other for no particular reason - did the snooty miller insult the sooty sweep? Is this class war? <br /><br />Whatever, he pelts his adversary with bags of grain which fly all over the fight, making redundant everything he had done prior to the fight, making redundant the windmill, so that all becomes as pointless as the fight. The miller's grain whitens the sweep's blackness - later Westerns wouldn't be so subtle, heroes and villains being colour-coded. Is there a racial tint here? <br /><br />If this wasn't marvellous enough, the fighters are chased off the screen by a crowd of people who came from nowhere, an appropriately Kafkaesque ending to an odd story (or are they just the social conscience rising up against a fight that negates order and purpose?), and very unusual in the days of early silent cinema. This mix of comedy, surrealism, and the Absurd is an obvious forerunner for BUster Keaton, while the windmill reminds us of one of the great thrillers, Hitchcock's 'Foreign Correspondant'.

A friend and I went through a phase some (alot of) years ago of selecting the crappest horror films in the video shop for an evening's entertainment. For some reason, I ended up buying this one (probably v. v. cheap).<br /><br />The cheap synth soundtrack is a classic of its time and genre. There's also a few very amusing scenes. Among them is a scene where a man's being attacked and defends himself with a number of unlikely objects, it made me laugh at the time (doesn't seem quite so funny in retrospect but there you go).<br /><br />Apart from that it's total crap, mind you. But probably worth a watch if you like films like "Chopping Mall". Yes, I've seen that too.

This movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he "bear" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film.

Absolutely one of the best aviation movies of all times on so many levels. Hardware junkies will drool over the largest single massing of flyable Spitfires outside of a Battle of Britain reenactment. No less than eight flying Spits are on hand for very accurate ground and air sequences.<br /><br />Those that marvel over the lore of flying and get misty-eyed reciting High Flight will identify with the central characters' reverence for the freedom of being fast, free and high in their Dark Blue World. Be warned: romantics and even dog lovers are treated to a very emotional ride in this movie. The core message is one that is shared by many war vets, in that their finest hours, their period of life when they felt most alive, was in fact during the war when everything else is sad and gray.<br /><br />The plot concerns Czech pilots who escape from their country when the Nazis invade and join the RAF Free Czech Squadron. There are a few subplots, all of which are worth careful attention. This is just a plain old excellent movie that even the most ardent anti-hardware romantic will love (keep the Kleenex on hand). Beautiful photography, first-rate acting, accurate details of RAF life during the Battle Of Britain. Easily a candidate for any aviation enthusiast's personal DVD collection.

First of all I've got to give it to the people that got this thing together. 9/11 is such a sensitive issue that making a movie that dares to be controversial about it takes a great deal of guts. It's a shame, although not surprising, that the movie was banned in the US.<br /><br />That being said I think that the movie is superb with a couple of weak moments. The movie starts up with the Iranian segment which turns out to be somewhat reminiscent of Majid Majidi's work (the absolutely beautiful "heaven's children" and "the color of paradise"). Much like those 2 films the clip shows what happened through the innocent eyes of a class of Afgan refugees in Iran. Absolutely beautiful clip. Same goes for Sean Penn's clip which is superb as well. But just as some of the clips are beutiful others are absolutely brutal. Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu does the mexican clip and just like his gut-wrenching "Amores perros" he does it as brutal as he can. Most of the clip is a black screen with several sounds playing in the background. Those sounds are of the reporters and their shock as the second plane crashes, those who called home from the burning towers and left messages for their families, those who were angry....and he combines this with flashes of people jumping from the towers. A very hard clip to watch and one that you won't forget.<br /><br />Some clips could turn out to be very hard to watch for Americans as some of the clips could be interpreted as "you're not the only ones that are suffering". In particular the Egyptian and British clips that not only say that but turn the tables and say how much suffering the US has caused to other people.<br /><br />I will also make a special mention to the clips from Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, India and Japan (although this last one may seem terribly out of place it actually isn't).<br /><br />However, not all the clips are great and I make a special mention on the clip from Israel which, in my opinion, is extremely weak. While the idea was good (a reporter is at the scene of a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv but his story gets bumped because of what happened in New York is something that a lot of us who live in countries at war can relate to) the realization is terrible. The clip ends up as just some entertainment reporter trying to get some air-time at all costs, a guy saying he's a witness and hoping that he can go on TV, and soldiers and paramedics shouting just "because". The clip fails to capture any of the drama of such a situation.<br /><br />If you happen to have the chance to see it then you should, that is, unless you're a conservative in which case you'd better stay out as you might get offended. But if you're not then you might learn how many of us outside the US lived through 9/11.

An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')<br /><br />

This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.<br /><br />I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. The plot and message are horrible. There are too many mistakes in this movie that it's impossible to keep up. I don't even understand how this movie can get any nomination, let alone 2. Here's why: 1) Sam Lee portrays a angry/irrational detective which was caused by the disappointment from his dad. Pros: He's angry alright. Cons: When it comes to the explanation scene, he cannot convey the sadness/disappointment he has in his father. The crying scene was too fake and it seems like he is literally squeezing out tears from the corner of his eyes.<br /><br />2) To connect the movie to the title, there were barking or dog wimping sounds during the fight scenes and rape scene, which is totally irrelevant and confusing to the viewer. I understand that it's supposed to be a metaphor or what not... but it's just sooo dumb! 3) WHY THE HECK DID THE COPS NOT SHOOT THE KILLER? What the heck is wrong with this movie. When the killer started stabbing an officer, SHOOT him. He's already dead! What the heck? There were lots of opportunity that the killer could be killed, but I do not know why he wasn't! 4) During the scene where the girl had her foot hurt. In the scene, it was very clear that the LEFT foot of the girls was hurt, so how the heck in the next scene that she's lending all her weight on her left foot? And this is the actress nominated as the best new performer? WTF? 5) The sounds in the movie are off sync.<br /><br />6) I am guessing that this movie is trying to bring awareness of the brutality and violence among children in South East Asia, so why does the bad guy wins and then the cop was joining the fight? 7) This movie is just too violent without a purpose. Cops are beating CI to a pulp and then if they cooperate, they give them marijuana and coke? This is overall the worst movie. I truly feel that the person who wrote this movie is a sadist and sick person. I have never seen a more disgusting movie in my whole entire life. WORST MOVIE EVER!

Surely one the French films of the decade so far, a taut, atmospheric thriller making full use of the lead characters hearing impediment to use sound in a way rarely explored in cinema. Emannuelle Devos gives a truly stunning , multi-faceted performance, at times devious and manipulative, at other times open and vulnerable. Another reason why those who appreciate quality cinema should keep their eyes open for offerings from France.

This film hits the heart with a reality like no other I have seen. It shows what us what we, in a democratic society, take for granted, and just what we are lucky enough not to be experiencing. The acting in the film is superb, sometimes you have to remind yourself that the movie is a dramatization, and not real life. Mr. Rickman does wonders with his role (as he does with all roles) making the interrogator fully dimensional and human. The set is incredible. It gives the feeling of 'in the round" theater. Which does not add or take away from the emotion of the action. This movie seeks to open the eyes of the viewer, and I'd say they have made a success of that goal.

A horrible, horrible, horrible film. I saw the original when I was a kid and it gave me nightmares into my teens. When I found out a remake was on the way, I groaned. WHY OH WHY remake a good film? Well, we can thank Dark Castle for buggering yet another classic horror film. This time they've replaced a somewhat interesting story with gore, slower than slow pacing, and yawn-inspired characters. Someone previously said that s/he was surprised that Paris Hilton can act. Uh, were you watching the film? She plays a prissy little tramp. Sounds like typecasting to me. Half of the people in the audience actually CHEERED when she died! That tells you why people are seeing this film. If that's your only reason, then find a better one, because like a black hole this thing will suck out more of your life than you'll want. Had I been alone, I would have left 10 minutes into the boring exposition. This thing is like a moron's guide to crap film-making: In bred Southern git, stupid but attractive leads, knives a plenty, gore a plenty, stock menacing truck, I could go on. After watching this film, I began to really appreciate Jeepers Creepers, and I thought that film sucked. Save yourself and avoid this crapfest at every cost.

This is a comedy based on national stereotypes, no doubt. If you leave away pretending you know or you care what Communism was about and how real Russians or Brits are, if you accept and are not hurt by the conventions, you can have fun with this film. Nicole Kidman is at her best, sexy, moving and funny. Ben Chaplin succeeds to avoid being completely out-shadowed by Nicole, and the rest of the cast does good work as well. The final is moving, and logical - movie logics, of course. Worth watching, if you accept the rules of the game.

In general, I prefer horror movies that creep me out so much I'm afraid of everything for the next day or so, not the ones where people act stupid and get killed by an indestructible monster. This is one of those movies. The chupacabra of legend is a dog-faced lizard-skin greenish-gray monster that hops like a kangaroo, has fangs and claws, has a row of sharp spines sticking out from its back, and sucks the blood of livestock. As in many horror movies, good and bad, this movie takes liberty with the legend. It not only attacks humans, but it eats their intestines and has a bulletproof, nearly indestructible constitution. So tell me, how can a hypodermic needle penetrate its skin when bullets can't? And why, when the marines figure out that armor-piercing bullets can hurt it, do they split up so the chupacabra can pick them off one by one? John Rhys-Davies gives a performance that rises above the bad movie, and Chelan Simmons and Dylan Neal deserve credit for their performances, too. Otherwise, the rest of the acting was poor to bad, just like the rest of the movie. My rating is based on Rhys-Davies, Simmons and Neal.

We bought the DVD set of "Es war einmal das Leben" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Life" (English) for our bilingual kids because everyone loved the "Es war einmal der Mensch" (German) / "Once Upon a Time... Man" (English) series (us parents had seen it as kids) and it has exceeded even high expectations! The series is very well made, does not show its age, and our kids at various ages really like to watch it. At the same time, they learn things us parents didn't know until way, way later. The series covers everything to do with the human body from organs, all senses, blood, infection, antibodies, and much more in animated 20-25 min episodes. Topics some people may find "sensible", such as digestion and reproduction are covered in a tasteful, discreet and child-friendly manner (the reproduction episode starts coverage mainly where the baby starts growing), while still (as typical) informative and fun.<br /><br />Children are usually fascinated with how their bodies work and through the episodes gain an understanding of this in the context of their environment. The format of the episodes switches between the outside world (a family with 2 children) and the inside of the body. For example, in the episode covering infections, the boy cuts himself accidentally and the wound gets infected and the episode covers how the body reacts to this. Similarly, the episodes on the senses, e.g. hearing, seeing, link what happens inside the body to the context of the outside world and the episode on respiration and circulation of oxygen in the blood covers the complete lifecycle including (briefly) where the oxygen comes from (plants).<br /><br />This is one of the best ever children's programs - I would say it's a must see for every family with kids!

I have seen a lot of PPV's in the past but this is the most entertaining, intense PPV and the most complete DVD i have ever seen. The DVD extras are worth it because they it gives a different view of how the wrestlers act after the show (such as the chris benoit interview/edge interview), some glimpse into the Monday Night Wars era,the first match of Hogan winning tag title gold and some promotional talk. Additionally there is a good music video.<br /><br />1. Tag Team Table match: Bubby Ray and Spike Dudley vs. Eddie Guerro and Chris benoit 7/10 This was a pretty good intense match to start off the show. Not too many holds and just pure raw physicallity. Spike can hold his own in tables matches and Guerro and Benoit gave good pure wrestling skills on the mat. <br /><br />2. WWE Crusierweight championship: Jamie Noble w/ Nidia v. Billy Kidman 3/10 The crowd really didn't care about either wrestler and didn't get interested until Kidman did a shooting star press. Usually people expect a lot of high flying in a cruiser weight championship, but this had very little. In fact it was so bad that when Noble hit his finisher, no one even cared or knew (you can tell by the lack of camera's flashing). The ending was quick though. <br /><br />3. WWE European Championship: Jeff hardy v. William Regal 5/10 I've never really liked regal as a wrestler, he lacks intensity and style. Hardy was impressive but really didn't get a chance to show off his high flying act, although he still performed some good counters and added that needed fast pace to the match. It ended off quickly which was perfect for this match. <br /><br />4. John Cena v. Chris Jericho 6/10 It's funny looking back at Cena's very first PPV, how he used to act, how he used to dress, and how he used to look (watch his interview, it's pretty funny). This was a good intense match with Cena showing a nice variety of holds, suplexes, counters and some aerial. Jericho was sub-par but definitely helped Cena launch his career. Cena Wins.<br /><br />5. WWE Intercontenital championship: RVD v. Brock Lesnar 8/10 This was a very intense and good match. Both wrestlers styles really matched up well on the screen, with Brocks pure power and raw energy vs. RVDs skill full moves and quickness. RVD looked great in this match (better than his later matches with edge and cena)and the entire match was fast pace. The ending worked perfectly because it still preserved Brock's undefeated streak while giving RVD his just desserts in his home state.<br /><br />6. No disqualification match: Booker T v. Big Show 7/10 Another solid match that lacked a certain intensity as the RVD match but still a good follow up. Although it started off kinda slow (which it always is with big show) Booker T was impressive and did a sick move on the announcers table. The finisher was awesome, the ending was a great upset and big move up for Booker T.<br /><br />7. WWE Tag Team Championship: Hogan and Edge v. Christian and Lance storm 5/10 This was a mediocre match. Hogan comes out like usual to a huge pop but his variety of moves lacks that intensity and energy. Then again Christian doesn't exactly have the greatest athletic abilities himself. This ended up being a mediocre match at best but was still OK for PPV. <br /><br />8. Triple Threat Match for the Undisputed Championship: 10/10. Rock v. Undertaker v. Kurt Angle.<br /><br />Easily the match of the year. This is by far the best triple threat match i have ever seen. It had close falls, plenty of finishers, stolen finishers, raw energy, intensity and fast pace. No one could predict who would come out of this one. If your going to buy this DVD i would buy it strictly for this match. (ending? watch for yourself!)<br /><br />Overall this was a solid PPV with plenty of extra goodies to keep you watching again and again. Although this is hard to find (i had to pay a little more than usual for this DVD) it is definitely worth your money.

I can't believe others took such a serious view of all this. God, it was a lot of fun rooting for Hop-a-long Cassidy. It was a great tribute to the Western serials of years ago. It wasn't meant to be a great cinema experience, except it was. So what if there wasn't a big special effects bonanza. It was a fun, tongue in cheek, look at old Western's. Man, relax and enjoy.

There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.<br /><br />The script is really bad, confusing and cliché. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in "Outbreak", "Armageddon", the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.<br /><br />The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.<br /><br />The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.<br /><br />The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.<br /><br />This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno.

Academy Awarding actor Sidney Poitier of "Lilies of the Field" reprises his role as Lieutenant Virgil Tibbs from the 1967 Oscar winning Best Picture "In the Heat of the Night" for veteran director Gordon Douglas' tired, uninspired sequel "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," with nobody the equivalent of Rod Steiger with which to swap dialogue. Clearly, both "Bullitt" scenarist Alan R. Trustman and Robert D. Webb of "Cape Fear" were off their game when they penned this predictable police procedural potboiler. The dialogue is drab and none of the characters are interesting, not even the chief suspect. Absolutely nothing remotely exciting, suspenseful, or surprising occurs in this tame whodunit. Meanwhile, things have changed considerably since Virgil was last seen in "In the Heat of the Night." He worked as a homicide detective for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department. In "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," our hero works for the San Francisco Police Department. Moreover, he has a wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair of "Change of Habit"), and a family, a young rebellious son, Andy (George Spell of "The Naked Kiss"), and a younger doting daughter, Ginger (Wanda Spell of "Hickey and Boggs"). Tibbs drives a medium blue Mustang and his wife holds down the house and hovers over their two children since he doesn't have as much time to spend with them. Literally, there are no surprises in this pedestrian murder mystery. Indeed, the best thing about "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is Quincy Jones' terrific orchestral soundtrack with a memorable opening theme, more memorable than this forgettable crime thriller deserved.<br /><br />Everything begins sensationally enough with a struggling prostitute, Joy Sturges (Linda Towne of "The Adventurers"), being bludgeoned to death in the bedroom of her downtown apartment by an unseen assailant. Apartment handyman Mealie Williamson (Juano Hernandez of "Intruder in the Dust") enters Joy's apartment and finds her strewn on the carpet dead with a bloody forehead. He picks up the statue briefly and then puts it back on the floor and reports Joy's death to the superintendent of the apartment, Rice Weedon (Anthony Zerbe of "License to Kill"), and Weedon gives Mealie and fistful of dollars and sends him packing. Afterward, Weedon anonymously notifies the SFPD that popular minister Logan Sharpe (Martin Landau of "Nevada Smith") beaten Joy to death and was seem leaving Joy's apartment. Captain Marden (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") assigns Tibbs to handle the case; it seems that both Tibbs and Sharpe have known each other for 18 years. Naturally, Tibbs' wife Valerie cannot believe that the well-known, politically active evangelist could have committed such a crime. Just to give the movie context, it should be noted that when Tibbs and the police study the crime scene, they mention the word 'semen,' no doubt a controversial term to mention in an early 1970s movie.<br /><br />Tibbs questions Weedon whom he suspects is either a drug pusher or a pimp. Weedon explains that he has no records on Joy Sturges because she was subletting the apartment from another realty company. Tibbs visits the realty company and realtor Woody Garfield (Ed Anser of "JFK") flees and drives off, essentially doing an O.J. Simpson until he crashes his car after a lengthy but tame pursuit. When Tibbs proves that Woody didn't kill Joy, he allows him to leave, with his disgruntled wife, Marge (Norma Crane of "Penelope"), prepared to file for divorce after the revelation that he paid a hooker to stay in an apartment.<br /><br />Tibbs tracks down handyman Mealie and clears him of the crime, and then he goes after Weedon. Luckily, for Tibbs, our hero catches the evil Weedon in the middle of a narcotics transaction. One of Weedon's henchmen assaults Tibbs, but Tibbs dispenses with him briefly before he embarks on a long foot chase after Weedon. Eventually, he corners Weedon in an underground parking garage and they shoot it out. Guess who wins.<br /><br />The scenes in the Tibbs' household are more interesting than his investigation. Andy runs rampant, striking his sister, and smoking in the garden. Our hero wants him to clean up his room. When Andy refuses, Tibbs pops him three times on the jaw. These child rearing scenes could probably never be handled today as they were back in 1970. At the end of the movie, as if to solidify the family sequence, Tibbs is seen walking off with his wife and kids. There is on confrontation between Valerie and Virgil about the welfare of their children and how his long hours at work has affected them.<br /><br />Director Gordon Douglas directs in competent fashion. Surprisingly, for a film released in 1970, the filmmakers never play the race card. In one scene, when Tibbs searches a billiards parlor owned by an African-American, we see a mixed breed of races scowling at the hero when he finds Mealie and leaves with him in tow.<br /><br />Altogether, "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is a poor follow-up to "In the Heat of the Night." Mind you, Poitier delivers another fine performance with nuance, but everything looks prefabricated. All of the sets look fake and there isn't much physical violence: one underground parking lot shoot-out that doesn't last long and a fight. Beyond Jones' seminal jazz score, the only surprise—and it really doesn't qualify as a major surprise more like a convenient contrivance—is the ending. Donald Medford's "The Organization" followed "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" as the second, more action-packed sequel.

The material in this documentary is so powerful that it brought me to tears. Yes, tears I tell you. This popular struggle of a traditionally exploited population should inspire all of us to stand up for our rights, put forth the greater good of the community and stop making up cowardly excuses for not challenging the establishment. Chavez represents the weak and misfortunate in the same way Bush is the face of dirty corporations and capitalism ran amok. Indeed, Latin America is being reshaped and the marginalized majority is finally having a voice in over five centuries. Though, in the case of Mexico, the election was clearly stolen by Calderon. Chavez is not perfect, far from it. He's trying to change the constitution to allow him to rule indefinitely. That cannot be tolerated. Enough with the politics and back to the movie; The pace is breath taking at moments, and deeply philosophical at others. It portrays Chavez as a popular hero unafraid to challenge the US hegemony and domination of the world's resources. If you think the author is biased in favour of Chavez, nothing's stopping you from doing your homework. One crucial message of the film is questioning info sources, as was clearly demonstrated by the snippers casualties being shamefully blamed on Chavez's supporters. Venezuela puts American alleged democracy to shame. Hasta la revolucion siempre!

This film is great with some of the best songs preformed by Bon Jovi and kiss.The film is about a man named Chris(Mark Wahlberg)Who is the biggest fan of a band named Steel Dragon.And then when he gets the gig for lead singer his world changes upside down.With great acting by Jennifer Aniston this film is a must see for rock lovers!!<br /><br />4/5 stars

As a South African, it's an insult to think that someone was actually paid to produce this nonsense!<br /><br />Despite the fact that the director was one of the writers for the original Shaka Zulu mini, this "addition" to the series is appalling! The original series was based on historical facts about a man who was a great strategist, leader and warrior. A man who played a large role in shaping the history of local tribes in South Africa.<br /><br />The plot of this film, however, is nothing but hogwash, scraped from the bottom of the barrel by a writer that has failed to impress since the mid-nineties.<br /><br />While Omar Sharif and Henry Cele are good actors, what is David Hasselhoff doing here, rescuing drowning slaves with his red buoy and bleached smile?<br /><br />I kept expecting blond, busty women to appear out of nowhere and run across the screen in their tiny red bathing suits, for no apparent reason. Not that this would've been any more bizarre than the fantastical plot line that was probably dreamed up after 10 pints of beer at a fancy dress party, where someone's caveman costume inspired the writer to return to an African theme for his next "blockbuster".

Cheerleader Massacre was supposed to be the fourth installment of the Slumber Party Massacre series; if that's what they were doing (which it is considering ONE actress from the original returns in a small cameo role), they have failed miserably and made, by far, the worst installment of the 'quadrilogy'. Cheerleader Massacre seamlessly combines bad acting, a horrible plot, a dumb killer, dull and boring deaths, boring scenery, and hideous camera work to make it one of the worst films ever made. Did I already mention how bad it was? Don't get me wrong: this cheesy and retarded excuse for a horror film is nowhere near as bad as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is undeniably a horrible movie.<br /><br />Cheerleader Massacre is an exact polar opposite of the original Slumber Party Massacre. Stay away by all means! This movie is utter garbage!

This film is a fun little private eye detective story like they aren't made any more. It's all there: Tom Conway is the suave detective called The Falcon, Goldie Locke (what's in a name) is his wisecracking bumbling sidekick, Louisa Braganza is the damsel in distress, and of course there are the damsels maid, the professor with the secret formula, the bad guy that wants the formula, and the police inspector who's after The Falcon. There is a murder, and The Falcon gets implicated. The scenery is night clubs, expensive hotel rooms, a luxury train, the suburbs, and beautiful cars. Go watch this little gem when you see it pass by on afternoon TV!

For connoisseurs of bad movies, Galaxina is a true gem. With truly horrid dialog, acting, and directing, it's no choice for people seeking a proper movie. But as one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies of its genre, it's priceless for a good laugh. In particular, the scenes involving the Harley Davidson-worshiping motorcycle cult are especially good, and many other scenes present an opportunity for a cheap laugh.<br /><br />Sadly, the scenes with Dorothy Stratten really fail to deliver, but since she's playing an android, I suppose one can excuse her for wooden acting.<br /><br />Bad movie-lovers, don't pass this one up!

I don't believe it... Luc Besson is not only a genius now...he has always been one... this film is for everyone who likes real good deep films...just perfect!

As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.<br /><br />The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.)

The movie is not that bad, Ringo Lam sucks. I hate when Van Damme has love in his movies, van Damme is good only when he doesn't have love in his movies.

Rock Star: INXS was the best music TV series I have ever watched! It had some of the greatest rock n' roll songs ever written, performed by 15 very talented singers/performers. It also had (in my opinion) the most heart-felt, feel-good, surprise endings in all of reality TV. It actually made me shed tears of happiness for the winner!!! Over the 13 weeks of this televised competition, the viewing audience got to know and became familiar with all of the contestants. After 30-some episodes the remaining contestants seemed more like friends than just some more strangers competing against each other on a reality TV show. And the fact that INXS was, and still is, one of the greatest rock n' roll bands EVER just added to the emotional tension created by this wonderful reality series. If you don't have the series recorded, ROCK STAR: INXS the DVD is a great alternative.

This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.

Though often considered Peter Sellers' worst film, it is in fact an excellent send-up of medical corporate corruption and abuses of power. Often misunderstood, the film is actually a departure from the type of film Sellers was best known for; satirical farce. This film had excellent performances by Jo Ann Pflug and Pat Morita (of Happy Days and the Karate Kid movies), but was marked by its ribaldary, irreverence, and total madcap demolition of the medical industry of the day. It was ahead of its time (1972) in taking the outrageous path that the Monty Python crew would take into the cinema some time later. As such, it was unacceptable to the traditional Peter Sellers fan, who found the more pointed barbs in this humor to be something to which they were unaccustomed. Presently, Peter Sellers movies are in demand by fans, but this effort, Where Does It Hurt?, has by its nature become almost impossible to find.

Wonderfully put together..I wish there was a follow up to this documentary to follow up with the lives of some and celebrate the lives of others lost...there should be a part two..a real one. It was great..the film wasn't long enough..I would like to know why the creator of the film did not follow up!! this is so important to the community period..well if your are reading this please consider doing another documentary of this sort...I am really tired of hearing from naive writers how AIDS and Men go together when they don't; actually its the hetero's that we need to look into..this film didn't even bother to mention HIV or AIDS and I was so glad for that..I really appreciated the break downs and definitions too. Thank you s much for allowing this film to exist.

Everyone told me this movie was downright not good, and sick etc. so I finally rented it and I was amazed . I thought the torture was gonna be much much worse, but it did get shocking near the end but that was about it. I wouldn't call it a horror movie, maybe a mystery or something under the category of Silence of the Lambs and/or Kiss the Girls. It did get stupid at times, but the rest of the movie kept me on the edge of my seat. 7/10<br /><br />Rated R - for strong torture, violence, language, and sexuality

Joel Schumaker directs the script he co-wrote and has a group of Georgetown grads confronted with adult life situations. The story line is a scrambled mess, but some scenes are actually good. There is a lot of wasted talent and time here. The cast is more impressive than the movie. Featured are Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy and Mare Winningham. The most notable being McCarthy and Moore. Lowe is quite obnoxious. Coming of age is not so damn easy.

It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended!

I wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child. <br /><br />The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.<br /><br />I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best.

SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his "muscles" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe.

Maybe I'm a sap but this is the sweetest movies ever! I saw it for the first time when I was around 4 or 5, and I cried my eyes out. Between then and now (embarrassed at age 15) I have seen it over 25 times and have sobbed each and every one of them. Don't worry they're tears of happiness! And it's not all sap! There's a lot of humor and comedy in it too. Usually the whole talking animal thing can be a huge drag but in this movie it's not the case. My only word of advice: Even if you love this-Don't see the sequal...cornyness! I suggest everyone checks this out...you won't be sorry, no matter how old or young you are!

it's a very nice movie and i would definitely recommend it to everyone. but there are 2 minus points: - the level of the stories has a large spectrum. some of the scenes are very great and some are just boring. - a lot of stories are not self-contained (if you compare to f.e. coffee and cigarettes, where each story has a point, a message, a punchline or however you wanna call it) but well, most stories are really good, some are great and overall it's one of the best movies this year for sure!<br /><br />annoying, that i have to fill 10 lines at minimum, i haven't got more to say and i don't want to start analyzing the single sequences...<br /><br />well, i think that's it!

Shannon Lee,the daughter of Bruce Lee,delivers high kicking martial arts action in spades in this exhilarating Hong Kong movie and proves that like her late brother Brandon she is a real chip off the old block. There is high tech stuntwork to die for in this fast paced flick and the makers of the Bond movies should give it a look if they want to spice up the action quotient of the next 007 adventure as there is much innovative stuff here with some fresh and original second unit work to bolster up the already high action content of "AND NOW,YOU'RE DEAD". When you watch a movie as fast paced and entertaining as this you begin to wonder how cinema itself was able to survive before the martial arts genre was created.I genuinely believe that movies in general and action movies in particular were just marking time until the first kung fu movies made their debut. Bruce Lee was the father of modern action cinema and his legitimate surviving offspring Shannon does not let the family name down here.Although there are several pleasing performances in this movie (Michel Wong for one)it is Shannon Lee whom you will remember for a genuinely spectacular performance as Mandy the hitgirl supreme.Hell;you may well come away whistling her fights!

I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.<br /><br />Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way. <br /><br />Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.<br /><br />Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.

Milos Forman's original HAIR was the perfect movie that actually revealed how life was changing in those years, not only in the USA, but especially in this country. One of the plots in the film was to be used in other films to come after Hair, for example, in American Graffitti, etc. It was an original story with a touch of generational sadness in it. The characters in the film were like lonely "cells" in a "body" that was changing all over. Overall, a very good film, perhaps a little underrated though. Annie Golden's role was minor but she acted very well. It was the film that practically launched John Savage as an actor. One of the members of the Chicago played his role well even though it was a minor role.

This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing.

This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost.

VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as "old wine in a new bottle" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.<br /><br />VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.<br /><br />Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately: <br /><br />* When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.<br /><br />* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.<br /><br />* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.<br /><br />Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.<br /><br />Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).<br /><br />On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see!

I liked Antz, but loved "A Bug's Life". The animation that was put into this paid off. I will definitely be getting this on DVD. By the way, Disney should make a widescreen version of this movie on tape. (I heard talk of squishing all of the characters into the screen on the standard video format). Most will have to agree that the ending credits were the funniest! I only saw one of the two sets, but I can't wat to see the other one!

I can't comment on the accuracy of this production, historical or literary, but I can say that I enjoyed it. If there is a God, the sound track will be released, Ilona Sekacz' work is truly enduring. Twenty years on I am still moved by the haunting themes of this production and return to it frequently.<br /><br />The story surrounds the entry into society of Catherine Moreland. Somewhat awkward and possessed of an unhealthy interest in Gothic stories (early pulp fiction?), Catherine descends on Bath in the company of Mrs Allen where she meets Henry Tilney. She is invited to visit the Tilneys at Northanger Abbey, the seat of the formidable (and somewhat financially challenged) General Tilney, who has the unfortunate misconception that there is wealth afoot.<br /><br />Where mutual attraction mixes with family finance, dispute is inevitable. This coupled with Catherines vivid imagination, leads her to fear for her safety. Her eventual departure is marred by accusations and counter accusations of deception and connivance.<br /><br />But the attraction between Catherine and Henry stands these trials. He returns to provide a happy ending. This final scene is especially compelling, given the incidental music of Ilona Sekacz.<br /><br />It may well be a "bad" production from the purists viewpoint, gaudy costumes and shaky performances not withstanding, but for me it's 88 minutes of bliss.

Ok let's start with saying that when a dutch movie is bad, it's REALLY BAD. Rarely something with a little bit of quality comes along(Lek, Karakter) here in holland but not often. Costa! is about 4 girls going to Spain to go on vacation, party, get drunk, get laid (u know the drill). It's also about the world of Clubbers or Proppers. Pro's who're trying to lure the crowd into their club.<br /><br />I'm not sure how long it took to write the script, but i suspect somewhere between 15 minutes and 20 minutes because you're watching a bunch of random scenes for 90 minutes long. Nothing, and i mean nothing is believable in this movie. It's almost too riduculous for words what happens with the storyline. Suddenly the movie transforms into a sort of karate action thing. With a one-on-one fight with 'the bad guy in black' and cliche car chase scenes trough a watertank-car (can it be more cheesy). Also the words character-development and casting are unfamiliar to the makers.<br /><br />After having seen "Traffic" 3 days before this, i fell from sheer brilliance, from a piece of art to this. This is film-making at it's saddest. And don't start about low budget. Because even with a low budget you could write a better script. It almost seems that the film-makers were too busy partying themselves to make a decent movie.<br /><br />Anyway the chicks in the water at the end made it up a little bit, but for the rest of it, don't waste your money on such garbage.

Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment.

I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.<br /><br />What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.<br /><br />However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.<br /><br />And please forgive me for my bad English

H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds by director David Michael Latt is a slightly less-than-average flick which isn't too bad if one considers the budget he had to work with - only $1 million. For this budget, the production value wasn't too bad - the best part of it is the visual effects (I was thoroughly impressed with the CGI considering the budget) and sound design. The less-then-stellar parts of this film are the story which is VERY prolonged at best (but again I think this is because of the budget they had - they had to prolong certain scenes to create the feature length 97 minutes), the acting (again it's because the actors had no story to work with), very few exceptional camera shots, and the music. However, again, I can let the negative parts go for the most part only because this film was made for a meager budget and still had good production value. Still you should,d see it for the sake of seeing how a low budget version of War of the Worlds CAN be made even with flaws. 4 out of 10.

It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.<br /><br />Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.<br /><br />Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.<br /><br />The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another. <br /><br />This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.<br /><br />What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans. <br /><br />On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces. <br /><br />When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.<br /><br />It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.<br /><br />From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity.

I saw this series when it world premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. I liked the idea behind the film, where two men got together and told a director from each country to direct a movie about 911. These directors never met before until the project was complete, and they saw how it looked all together. WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All the pieces were very powerful, and some were controversial. If you are an American, then you may not like this as some of the pieces may be found anti-american. However, i know a few Americans who enjoyed these series. The piece that i found the best was the one from India. It was about how a muslim family, living in the States, had 2 sons, and one of them was missing. The Americans gave them the cold shoulder and automatically assumed that he was linked with the terrorist bombing. It captures the mom's despair and humiliation of these accusations so well, that it brought tears to my eyes. In the end we see that her son had died while trying to save the many victims from the crash of the towers. This was a true story, and that was what made it so real. There were a lot of emotional and powerful pieces, and the African piece was one of the best. It was humourous yet just as powerful as the others. A must see for everyone, and hopefully America will unban this, and let it play in their country.

There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.<br /><br />Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?