Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

My husband dragged me to this film as I had no interest in seeing some Anime cartoon. I was absolutely delighted by the simple story and amazing animation. In a digital world where effects are computer generated it was refreshing to see gorgeous, imaginative hand drawn animation. The world of Sosuke and Ponyo is a vivid fantasyland intermixed with minimal reality. I haven't seen animation like this since I was a child and it is wonderful to see it endure and succeed.<br /><br />The actors supplying the voices in the English version were fabulous. The length of the movie was PERFECT, especially for children who tend to get squirrelly in films. Overall a delightful experience worth the very expensive ticket prices we have nowadays.

As a psychiatrist specialized in trauma, I find this film a beautiful shown example of a severe psychic trauma, even a trauma. It not only explains the enormous difficulties those people have to cope wither, but that even love is sometimes not enough. But she tries!

2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.<br /><br />I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a 'robot human' or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called 'Android vs. the Aztec Mummy', but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says 'I might as well begin at the beginning....' what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say 'start at the beginning' so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.<br /><br />I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.

I think I read this someplace: Joe Johnston (director of the film and also one of the guys who founded Industrial Light and Magic for work on the first Star Wars film) and one of his producers or something were racking their brains for a title for the movie, 'Rocket Boys' (I guess) was lacking something.<br /><br />One day they were messing with a PC program that forms words from other words (ie: you type in a word or series of words and it mixes the letters up and forms other words) I think the technical term is an 'anagram'<br /><br />Anyway, they typed in 'Rocket Boys' and sure enough what comes back is 'October Sky'. They were shocked to say the least. The title summed up everything in the movie since the movie revolves around Sputnik. At first Homer Jr did not like the idea, but he warmed up to it after the 'movie poster paperback novel' came out and took off.

At Beaverview Cheerleading Camp, the goody-goody two shows Lucky Ducks cheerleading team must get in cahoots with the 'tough' bad girl cheerleading team of The Demons to beat the dastardly Falcon team who always seems to win at this camp I guess. This being a typical clichéd '80's teen (lame) sex comedy who do you think will win? But what the film lacks in originality it more than makes up for it sheer bloody awfulness. Oh and insanely bad dance numbers and the obligatory Japenese businessmen who want to buy the camp (on the condition that male cheerleader, Tommy Hamilton, stays with the camp of course). Simply awful, forgettable, and sadly has a surprising lack of nudity.<br /><br />Where I saw it: HBO Comedy <br /><br />My Grade: F (yup I did indeed give it to them)

The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.<br /><br />The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.<br /><br />The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever.

I'm a huge fan of legendary director Elia Kazan . His movies often deal with people trying to overcome their weaknesses. Be it obsessive love in 'Splendor In the Grass, poverty in 'A tree Grows in Brooklyn' or racism in 'Gentlemen's Agreement.' While looking for other movies made by Kazan, I stumbled across a movie that was based on a novel by Arthur Miller. The movie called 'Focus' stars William H.Macy (who happens to be one of my favorite actors) and Laura Dern. It deals with anti-Semitism in a very realistic way. <br /><br />Macy's character seems to go along with the bigots in his neighborhood and on his job, until it affects him personally. That's the key here... the reason he acted wasn't because he knew it was wrong and he wanted to take a stand, he acted because he was now considered an outsider, and he began to experience the same looks, the same remarks, and the same brutally that Mr. Finklestein (David Pamyers)experienced .<br /><br />The movie is very well written and well acted. Meat Loaf does a awesome job of playing a dirt bag! Both Macy and Dern's performances are outstanding! It's easier in life to go along with, instead of going against. Sometimes in order for people to take a stand things have to impact their lives, or the lives of their loved ones...Only then will some find their moral compass.

(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)<br /><br />A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.<br /><br />This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the 'conflicts' that arise?<br /><br />The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT*<br /><br />All of those things happen in this movie.<br /><br />At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.<br /><br />*THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS*<br /><br />I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.<br /><br />This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a 'typical day in the life of' movie. This is 'a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students.'<br /><br />There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, 'Paran Maum' is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, 'Paran Marum'. In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.<br /><br />2/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.

This movie was like any Jimmy Stewart film,witty,charming and very enjoyable.Kim Novak's performance as Gillian,the beautiful witch who longs to be human,is splendid,her subtle facial expressions,her every move and gesture all create Gillian's unique and somewhat haunting character,she left us hanging on her every word.I should not fail to mention Ernie Kovacs' and Elsa Lanchester's highly commendable performances as the scotch loving writer obsessed with the world of magic(Kovacs) and the latter as the lovable aunt who can't seem to stop using magic even when forbidden to.The romantic scenes between Stewart and Novak are beautifully done and the chemistry between them is great,but then again when is the chemistry between Jimmy Stewart and any leading lady bad!

Personally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.<br /><br />With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.<br /><br />Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.

terribly underrated with matt dillon and tom skerritt, good backdrop for solid story and some memorable lines, well acted and well cast, tommy lee jones and bruce dern make you hate them with passion

I enjoyed Oceans 11, I thought it was quite enjoyable, helped by the performances and the direction. However, I was disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it is not a complete dud, thanks to the stellar performances from Brad Pitt, Catherine Zeta-Jones, George Clooney and Matt Damon especially and the efficient direction from Steven Soderbergh. However, the film really does suffer from truly lethargic pacing, some of the film was so slow I almost fell asleep between one key twist. Second, the plot is very convoluted and there are many twists and turns that makes it hard to keep up. The camera work wasn't as innovative as it was in the first movie either. Whereas in the first movie, it was smooth and professional, it was jerky and awkward here, and the music wasn't particularly memorable. The screenplay also wasn't as witty or as fun, and the film felt anti-climatic. At the end of the day it all felt a bit too lazy, despite the expert playing and direction. So much potential, but really a missed opportunity. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results.

Every scene was put together perfectly.This movie had a wonderful cast and crew. I mean, how can you have a bad movie with Robert Downey Jr. in it,none have and ever will exist. He has the ability to brighten up any movie with his amazing talent.This movie was perfect! I saw this movie sitting all alone on a movie shelf in 'Blockbuster' and like it was calling out to me,I couldn't resist picking it up and bringing it home with me. You can call me a sappy romantic, but this movie just touched my heart, not to mention made me laugh with pleasure at the same time. Even though it made me cry,I admit, at the end, the whole movie just brightened up my outlook on life thereafter.I suggested to my horror, action, and pure humor movie buff of a brother,who absolutely adored this movie. This is a movie with a good sense of feeling.It could make you laugh out loud, touch your heart, make you fall in love,and enjoy your life.Every time you purposefully walk past this movie, just be aware that you are consciously making the choice to live and feel this inspiring movie.Who knows? What if it could really happen to you?, and keep your mind open to the mystical wonders of life.

Forget every spy movie you've ever seen - this is what life was like in the USSR, and still is in many places in Russia and the ex-Soviet countries. Vera dreams of life of leisure, as she imagines the West to be; her reality is very different, with a bitter mother, a violent father, and the ever-present alcohol. And her prospects for the future are not much better. She finds a man and they try to patch up a life together, but he is afflicted by the same environment, both socially and physically - the scenery in this movie is brilliant, sitting comfortably in the company of post-apocalyptic movies but obviously done with no special effects; they have just walked in and shot whatever happened to be in front of the camera.<br /><br />Forget your stereotyped, cold Russians of spy movies. This is the Real Deal: people are passionate, vibrant, and present in a way you'll never see in a drama from the West.

There have been numerous productions that tell of the development of the atomic bomb. The Robert Taylor film ABOVE AND BEYOND (flag waving interservice propaganda really; if you believe this one you think that the Army Air Corps, in the person of Paul W. Tibbits, ran the entire show!), the NBC produced ENOLA GAY (probably A LOT closer to the mark), and the BBC-TV series, OPPENHEIMER, with Sam Waterston in the title role.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY takes the same approach that the BBC series did but widens it; it avoids the 'Gee Whiz' technology of the Manhattan Project and focuses on human aspects; the personalities involved in the work. Instead of focusing on Oppie, it covers a wide swath of mythical but pretty typical people who were part of it.<br /><br />With reservations, Dwight Schultz did a good job as Oppie, presenting a dreamy, Ivory Tower academic who struggles to relate his contributions as a physicist to his inclinations to view the world in a wider social and moral context... only to have that struggle won by an overriding lust for personal power and glory. In THE DAY AFTER TRINITY it was made clear that Oppenheimer viewed himself as a 'superior being' by virtue of his vast, wide ranging intellectual prowess. In the end that was Robert Oppenheimer's downfall; he saw himself as a sort of 'Philosopher/King', a moral and intellectual superior who could (and rightfully SHOULD) 'wisely' prescribe what was best for the rest of the world re. nuclear weapons development and deployment. <br /><br />Unfortunately, wisdom doesn't dictate the actions of nations or direction of events on a global scale. Wisdom doesn't bestow temporal power. When it tries to exercise such nonexistent power (as Oppie found when he opposed the development of 'The Super', the hydrogen bomb), wisdom is ignored and banished by those who REALLY have the power.<br /><br />I found myself faulting Schultz character in one way; his Oppie exposes himself TOO closely and personally to the Manhattan Project, despite the doubts and fears that tore at his intellectual basis. The real Oppenheimer would have had to take a different approach; at the beginning he would have had to come to the firm resolution that the project would result in ultimate good. The ugliness it produced along the way would be an incidental price that must be paid to attain that ultimate good, and it must be ignored... at least until the end of the project when there was leisure to assess the gains and losses. Oppie clearly did that, and it resulted in his controversial postwar statements to the effect that science had now known sin, and that was a knowledge it could never lose. <br /><br />While the project went on, such considerations HAD to be pushed aside if he was to maintain his sanity.<br /><br />Because of this ambiguity, Schultz character comes off as a weak, frightened little boy who could NEVER have served as 'Coordinator of Rapid Rupture', as Oppenheimer unofficially dubbed his post.<br /><br />Paul Newman's take on Gen. Leslie R. Groves is fascinating, and a bravura performance, if possibly a LITTLE BIT over the top.<br /><br />Groves was a civil engineer by training, but first and foremost he was a SOLDIER, and a general to boot! He's accustomed to DEMANDING that things go HIS way... intensely driven, a foul mouthed, spoiled child who has tantrums at the drop of a hat, who reveres his country and isn't too proud to fall on his knees and pray. In other words, very much like REAL (ie, NON civil engineer) soldiers, aka George Patton! Grove's MISSION not only comes first, it is his ONLY consideration... feelings and egos be damned, except for his OWN, of course! <br /><br />Groves couldn't admit it, but he knew full well that he NEEDED Oppenheimer; military rank meant NOTHING in the world of theoretical physicists. Oppie was a necessary interface between the two worlds he had to straddle.<br /><br />Again... I have to fault the script on this, and for the same reason.<br /><br />In reality, Groves already OWNED Oppie; if he didn't, Oppie would never have been chosen for the post in the first place. History tells of MANY cases where other scientists, some as stellar as Oppenheimer, simply walked away from Groves recruitment efforts. At one point Groves was so desperate that he proposed DRAFTING the physicists he needed!<br /><br />Groves attempts in the film to maneuver and control Oppie were UNNECESSARY... they only exist here as a dramatic device which indeed helps make the atmosphere of the film quite ugly.<br /><br />Kusak's 'Michael Merriman' is a composite of several real characters, but they're from a different time frame. Several research accidents similar to the one depicted happened in POSTWAR weapons research. <br /><br />Merriman's radiation overdose creates another ugliness in the film, but one which is, IMHO, necessary, and pretty accurate. People with weak stomachs will have a hard time handling the hospital sequences; they're all TOO real.<br /><br />The main idea that comes across, but not strongly enough IMHO, is the big truth of the Los Alamos experience. The scientists who signed on were young, idealistic and naive as well as talented. Most were on their first excursion out of the shelter of the campus. To them the project was a patriotic adventure that allowed them to practice experimental physics on a large scale without the constraints of budgets or 'excessive' bureaucratic oversight. <br /><br />It was not only their brilliance, but their youthful exuberance that produced the atomic bomb. <br /><br />There's plenty here to make the thoughtful viewer intensely uncomfortable about this movie. Just the same, if you filter out the Hollywood BS (there isn't that much of it really), this is probably a pretty accurate view of the inside of Manhattan Project.

My husband and I watched this last night...It was wonderful....For once he was wrong in guessing ahead of time the suspenseful ending. It moved along very quickly and the acting was superb.. I adore Tom Wilkinson anyway. He has never made a bad movie as far as I'm concerned. The above description of his acting hits the nail on the head... The facial expressions are incredible. Even the picturesque scenery is awesome. We have just finished watched all of the Prime Suspect series and I am convinced that the British have a way of capturing the audience. There is no doubt that I would recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get a few hours of thorough entertainment.

What ever happened to one of the most innovative and brilliant storytellers of our time? Well, he made the kind of typical summer action fodder that could've been directed by anybody available out of film school...and in fact, they probably would've done a better job. They would've at least have put half of a thought into the dreadful script.<br /><br />Mark Wahlberg plays an astronaut who traveled through some sort of wormhole and landed in a planet ruled by apes. (gasp!) Except this time around, the apes squirm through groan-worthy dialogue, nonsensical plotting, and showy special effects that constantly reinforce in my mind that this money could've been put to about 10 independent films that would have been considered 'masterpiece' next to this tripe.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy the superb acting talent that is Tim Roth, his performance as evil ape leader Thade is nothing more than an intense composition of slouching and heavy breathing. Luckily for him, the makeup allows he as an actor to maintain some dignity and most of the crap-dialogue is hidden behind his groans and sniffles.<br /><br />And alas, the always dependable Hollywood tradition of taking the male and female leads and hooking them up at the end without any relationship development or cause. And the 'haha, we're so clever, aren't we?' way that Hollywood intermingles references from the original POTA into this one. Sigh...<br /><br />Instead of seeing this, spend the night in and call up some friends and rent 'Ed Wood', 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Batman', or even to a lesser extent 'Sleepy Hollow', and reminisce about the days when Tim Burton was a man of vision and originality...not shame and ridicule.

*BE WARNED OF POSSIBLE SPOILERS*<br /><br />A friend told me to check out this series, and I'm glad I took her words for it.<br /><br />I read the synopsis on the DVD cover and I was immediately intrigued. The main protagonist is Muslim? No way, this is a first! It's about an FBI agent who is under deep cover to penetrate a possible sleeper cell in LA; and get this - he is a practicing Muslim. I was a little skeptical at first, half-expecting some hero or the antagonist to spout maybe silly, gratuitous and mindless holier-than-thou fanatic drivels... let's face it, a lot of shows have been guilty of this.<br /><br />But then I watched the first three episodes, and I thought: Okay, this is good. It wasn't until episode four ('Scholar') when I was well and truly impressed. I would like to commend on the great writing and also, superb performances from the actors. I just love how complex every one of these characters - they're not straight out two-dimensional cardboard cutout good guys/bad guys. Michael Ealy gives a wonderful and believable performance as the Muslim FBI agent Darwyn Al-Sayeed, treading the fine line between being the good Muslim and being a man with flaws. Oded Fehr gives his character Farik an interesting depth - Farik is not the typical oily Middle Eastern stereotype, but simply someone who truly believes in his cause and doesn't see himself as a fanatic but a man willing to do whatever extreme measures to justify his beliefs. He's very charismatic and authoritative. But I would say that it was Alex Nesic's performance that clearly left an impression in me in 'Scholar'. His portrayal of his character's emotional struggle was amazing - torn between the softly spoken words of a Muslim scholar encouraging him to return to the non-aggressive way because it is the only acceptable way in God's eye and Farik's persuasion to believe otherwise.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to watch more shows like this, and not some ridiculously high-octane one man show series. It's clever and open-minded.

This was the beginning of it all! Granted, this is not Friends at its best, but this was the show's pilot, let's not forget and not a bad one at that. We're introduced to the gang and Central Perk, where our story begins. Even from this first episode we get a sign of the Ross-Rachel relationship that will come over the next ten years, when Ross says: 'I just want to be married again' and Rachel storms in with a wedding dress on... probably not intentional as at the time the writers were going for a Monica-Joey relationship but fits nicely now when looking back. Something else.. in this episode Rachel is introduced to Chandler as if the two have never met before but in later episodes, the so-called 'flashbacks' this is contradicted as the two have met on three previous occasions. Nevertheless, the point is this a fine start to a great show. This episode may not be the usual Friends as we are accustomed to them, with the cast still a bit inexperienced but over the next few episodes we see why the show came to be what it was! Keep watching, first season is a blast!!

I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf 'theme' that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS.

I have been a fan of Without A Trace from the premier episode. I really cannot express my disappointment in the episode last week. This is a REAL problem that far too many Afican-American families have dealt with and continue to deal with. The lack of media coverage crucial in the first 48 hours has been documented by a recent study. Law enforcement including local , state, and federal are also complicit. What was the purpose of advertising this subject matter and then copping out on the ending? Seemingly, television can deal with almost ANY subject matter EXCEPT RACE. This is shameful.Get it together or don't explore it next time.

Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.<br /><br />Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....<br /><br />The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!<br /><br />Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career.

Somebody needs to send this Uli Lommel guy back to MOVIE SCHOOL. Who ever told him HE knew HOW to make a movie? Can just ANYBODY make movies these days? In the past, it always REQUIRED TALENT before someone could make a movie. After watching this lame BTK movie and the others he's made, it seems blatantly obvious that the poor guy has about as much business making movies as I DO. Actually I think even I could make better movies than Uli LAME-ALL. This movie has absolutely NOTHING to do with the BTK Killer, other than the names of the victims and the killer. THAT'S IT. Where did this guy get the big idea that BTK killed people with rodents and all the other preposterous crap that's in the movie? This is a classic example of someone trying to lure people into watching their movie based on the term 'BTK' because of the fame it has achieved. Absolutely pitiful. The only serial killer movie I would consider WORSE is that lame 'DAHMER' movie. That kid smoked so many cigarettes it made me nauseous. Whoever made that one needs to be shot.

I read the book written by Bill Carter on which this movie is based many years ago. The book is certainly stronger than the movie. It provides more detail than a movie can possibly provide, the end result being that I thought the movie seemed a wee bit sketchy on a handful of items. All things considered, though, and given the limitations of the medium, the movie provides a wholly entertaining and informative account of the battle between Jay Leno and David Letterman in the early 90's to host 'The Tonight Show' after the retirement of Johnny Carson.<br /><br />The highlight is clearly the performances. I can think of no more difficult performance for an actor than to play a character who is still alive and well-known and on TV on a regular basis. John Michael Higgins nailed the part of Letterman perfectly. Watching him really was like watching Letterman. Daniel Roebuck tried valiantly to be Jay Leno, but somehow didn't pull it off as effectively. His whole 'look' seemed fake, and he just didn't seem natural in the role. In a less central role, Rich Little not surprisingly nailed the voice of Carson, although the look was a bit off. In the book, the most interesting of the central figures was probably Leno's agent, Helen Kushnick. In the movie, Kathy Bates was perfect in the role, although not quite as out of control as Carter's portrayal of the woman in writing.<br /><br />In the end, this is light and entertaining viewing. The subject matter isn't especially important in the overall scheme of things, but it's a fun behind the scenes look at a memorable time in the entertainment industry. 7/10

One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934.

not really sure what to make of this movie. very weird, very artsy. not the kind of movie you watch because it has a compelling plot or characters. more like the kind of movie that you can't stop watching because of the horrifically fascinating things happening on screen. although, the first time my wife watched this she couldn't make it all the way through... too disturbing for her. runs a bit long, but nonetheless a worthwhile viewing for those interested in very dark movies.

What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.<br /><br />The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.<br /><br />This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every cliché he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2/10

I've never seen a show with as much story, mystery, suspense, and hard-hitting excitement before. i barley watch TV anymore but i own every season of this show and it's amazing. every episode is extremely well-acted, written and plotted. towards the end of the show i felt that the stories were getting too far-fetched for being in a prison, but the actors pulled it off. Sopranoes sucks huge compared to OZ. in fact, any show that is on a cable network, HBO or not just cant hold a candle to OZ. i wish it would come back for one more season. if it did happen, they would probably kill off every character on the show, but hey, we all gotta go sometime. as far as the characters, i'd say O'Reily and Alverez were my favorites. both were hardley in a scene together, but their individual stories i thought were the strongest of anyones, except Beechers of course, but still... anyway, best show ever, best network ever, some of the best actors ever, PERIOD!

I know not why people considered it trashy or obnoxious; It's not like American Pie or something. I know not why people are offended by the Universal plugs; since it's part of the plot, the advertising is excusable.<br /><br />This is a funny movie with good dialogue, good subtle wit, a good story, a good moral (that thankfully doesn't get too sappy), GREAT acting, and a cheesy ending.<br /><br />(minor spoiler) The basic premise here is the classic story of a Shepherd boy (Muniz) who lies so much that no one believes him when the Wolf (Giamatti) comes along. So he gets his best friend Kaylee (Bynes) and they go and drive the Wolf crazy.<br /><br />Frankie Muniz can be annoying in other roles, but not as Jason Shepherd. He handles the suave confidence of his character perfectly well, and what appears to be a lack of expression at first glance is really a perfectly executed nonchalantness.<br /><br />Amanda Bynes. What more can I say? The girl's got the gift. She's funny, talented, versatile, and very, very attractive. (I'm only 6 months older than her. I need to get to California sometime soon.) In fact, the 'best-friend' part was originally a boy, but became a girl as soon as the makers saw Amanda's interest. Which works out pretty well, since the part would've been pretty dull without the blessing of Bynes's abilities.<br /><br />Paul Giamatti is a very talented man. While some would play Marty Wolf as evil and diabolical, Giamatti made him-not just a jerk, mind you, but a LIKEABLE jerk, a jerk that livens up the screen, rather than intentionally dimming it. And I doubt many other actors could pull off the psychological breakdown that Wolf undergoes as well.<br /><br />All in all, great movie. Loved seeing Jaleel White able to mock himself. Loved seeing all the little references & such built into the film. (one of the guests in the party scene is the director, Shawn Levy, another is Bynes's former co-star Kenan Thompson) Loved seeing Amanda in those outfits........ Get the DVD if you can. It's got all kinds of great extra stuff, and the lovely Ms. Bynes is your guide through the menus. :)

This movie makes you wish imdb would let you vote a zero. One of the two movies I've ever walked out of. It's very hard to think of a worse movie with such big name actors. Well...Armageddon almost takes it, but not quite.

This is a movie with an excellent concept for a story but that got sidetracked but a large number of clichéd sub-plots, hackneyed and unrealistic portrayed characterizations and performances, and some frankly implausible (and highly coincidental and, not to mention, convenient as plot points to move the story to its inexorable finish).<br /><br />The lack of anything that marked the lead as actually gay, other than some coincidental references to Crow Bar or that he's gay, was troubling. It wouldn't have hurt to actually show him do something, even if it was just meet a friend for drinks.<br /><br />It's worth checking out and has it's merits. There isn't much, even now a few years after the movie was released, in the way of movies that feature both a lead that is gay, or a significant gay plot line, and that is also about African-Americans. For that, it's worth checking out. I wouldn't look too hard for it and I wouldn't waste my time looking for it to own. This is a rental, and not a premium rental at that.

Sisters in law will be released theatrically on march 24th in Sweden. A good occasion for our Nordic friends to discover this original and thoughtful documentary. It was shown in Göteborg together with a retrospective dedicated to Kim Longinotto, 'director in focus' of the festival. She gave a master class, very much appreciated, telling about her method as documentary filmmaker and told the audience about the special circumstances which led her to shoot Sisters in law twice : the first version got lost for good, so a second shooting was organized and the film turned out to be different at the end. A pretty awful problem happened, in this case, to create the possibility of a very strong movie.

i'm not even sure what to say about this film. it's one of only a handful of movies ever made that i would consider romantic. to try to talk plot or performance or technical details about this film would be in the words of frank zappa 'like dancing about architecture'. it absolutely hits the nail right on the head in the way it captures those fleeting moments in life that move us and then run away from us never to be experienced again. this seems like the movie the character version of charlie kaufman in the movie Adaptation wanted to write. the ending is left open and ambiguous, no happy ending here, just mystery. no profound life lessons, just a couple of horny and intelligent kids exploring the ability to feel the most irrational and unrealistic of feelings...... romantic love.<br /><br />10 out of 10 watch it with your special lady and recommend it to a stranger................

The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying.

SPOILERS AHEAD<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies ever made - it's that simple. There is not one redeeming quality about this movie. The first 10 minutes are quite tricky - they actually lead you to believe that this film will be shocking and will have you on the edge of your seat. Instead, you will spend 83 minutes punching yourself while watching stolen and poorly made scenes run without any organization. The lake was ridiculous, looked like an aquarium, and had the same plant in different parts of the lake bed. Characters show their advanced teleportation powers, for example Alex Thomas who falls into the lake (drunk), and then ends up on his boat in an impossible position. Angie Harmon put up a pitiful performance as Kate, made worse by the space-time continuum rupturing dialog that appears to have been written at the last minute by a fifth grader. An example of this would be when she said, 'Flashlight!' in such a stupid manner that it shows the threshold of how much a human body can cringe before it snaps in half. Finally, the editing of this movie was by far the most bizarre and horrific that I have ever seen. It was like the cameramen were a bunch of chimps who had been given camcorders by scientists. An example of this would be when we suddenly get a closeup of the headlight on Alex's car. I would bet that there was little to no time spent editing this movie. The ending was absolutely pathetic. The writers were obviously trying to create some sort of mysterious plot line that made the viewer say, 'oh yeah!' Instead, we're left to view some dumb painting of a spider that somehow fits into the story line. Unfortunately, there is not one perspective in the millions out there that could save this movie from being a festering piece of crap.<br /><br />I give this a .5 out of 10, the .5 being from the fact that this movie was recorded on film instead of becoming a picture book.

James J. Corbett's autobiography 'The Roar of the Crowd' was the starting point of this lively and well-remembered fictionalized biography. The author was heavyweight champion of the world, succeeding John L. Sullivan, before the turn of the century. The events of the narrative depict Corbett as a brash but likable and intelligent young man whose conquest of the world of boxing and social prejudice in his time, when he was considered merely the son of Irish immigrants, a lowly bank teller and a nobody surprised everyone. It took him several hours of exciting and often amusing screen-time to prove his compeers were wrong. He is an bank teller when the film opens, but he somehow wangles an invitation to a sporting club for the well-to-do. He falls in love with a beautiful but snobbish girl, with whom he always seems to be quarreling, and he lives at home with a brawling clan of Corbetts who seem to fight with one another as often as with others. When he defeats the club's best and a professional fighter borough in to embarrass him, he finally decides to become famous by fighting. he sets out on the road with his friend, who acts as manager and trainer, and despite a few near setbacks, he wins all his bouts and attracts attention. Coming home to pursue his girl again, he contrives to annoy the Boston Strongboy, mighty John L. Sullivan, who enters bars and claims he can 'lick any man in the world'. Few believe he can win a bout against Sullivan, but Corbett, dubbed 'Gentleman Jim' for his gracious manners and patrician appearance surprises everyone by moving, dancing out of range, and negating the furious Sullivan's power. The film's finest scene perhaps comes when a beaten Sullivan comes to congratulate Corbett. The new champion rises to the moment, tells Sullivan a few years before it might have been different, and shows him nothing but admiration and respect. He gets his girl as a result of his two performances, but by the end of the film, as they visit his s parents, his manager is able to tell the world, 'The Corbetts are at it again'. The films is attractive and has a consistent style without being flashy. The script was written by veteran Horace McCoy and Vincent Lawrence from the Corbett novel. Sidney Hickox did the cinematography, with period set decorations by Clarence Steensen and art direction by Ted Smith. Heinz Roemheld did the music and Milo Anderson the gowns. The film was ably directed by action-film specialist Raoul Walsh. Flynn also liked working with Walsh but did not care for the other director he worked for most often, Michael Curtiz. Among the cast,were Ward Bond as John L. Sullivan, in one of his best performances lovely Alexis Smith a bit spotty but intelligent as the girl Corbett loves and a very able Errol Flynn as Corbett, a young man he seemed to relish playing--he later said it was his favorite role from the period...Jack Carson was his manager, Alan Hale his charismatic father, John Loder a rich foe, with William Frawley, Minor Watson, Madeleine LeBeau, Rhys Williams, Arthur Shields, Dorothy Vaughn and Mike Mazurki along for the enjoyable proceedings. It is hard to say enough about the logic and light-hearted fun this movie's makers have generated; it is one of the best-liked of all sports biography films, and by my standards one of the most enjoyable as well.

Just saw it yesterday in the Sao Paulo Intl Film Festival. Just before going I came here to see how it was rated, and at that time it was 7.4, a pretty nice rate...<br /><br />After 15 minutes I was dying to get out (never did this), but felt embarrassed to do so as the producer of the movie was in the screening.<br /><br />I did not like at all, the dialogs are shallow and lead nowhere, the characters are shallower than the dialogs, nothing lead anywhere, and the worst and worst: plenty of Siemens and Organics advertising on the movie. Despite the fact that I already paid to go to the movie and entertain myself, I still have to be bombarded by the main character chatting on the internet and Siemens mobile popping-up all the time on her lap-top; or another character having a bath or cutting her hair just to have Organics shampoo displayed enormously on the screen! All of this would be bearable if the plot, characters, romances, anything was good, but was bad, really bad! A 'don't know how to do' sex-in-the-city.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money.

This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film.

The most irritating thing about 'Dies d'agost' (August Days) is not simply that NOTHING HAPPENS in this film but that director Marc Recha has the nerve to pretend that this film is some sort of homage to leftist Catalan journalist Ramon Barnils. Unless mentioning Barnils' name a few times constitutes an 'homage,' this pretense is an utter fraud. You will learn virtually nothing about Barnils in this film nor about the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) nor about the special role of Catalunya in that war. You also will not learn about the collective punishment inflicted on the heroic Catalan people for years afterward by the victorious and vindictive Franco.<br /><br />The footage of the Catalan countryside is very beautiful, of course, but 'Dies d'agost' does not have an extensive and varied enough collection of such scenes to qualify as a travelogue. The large number of stills shown -- not very illuminating images of the forest floor, for example -- is the clearest indication of the paucity of ideas here. The aimless drift of brothers Marc and David during their camping trip does not produce compelling cinema. On the contrary, one's strongest impression is of a film made by and for spaced-out, middle-aged hippies. Don't waste your time. Read a good book about the Spanish Civil War instead. (I recommend Felix Morrow's scathingly anti-Stalinist 'Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain,' which contains a gripping account of the 1937 Barcelona Uprising.)<br /><br />Barry Freed

I had this movie given to me, and have to admit, I am glad that I did not pay money for it.<br /><br />The back of the box makes it seem like some kind of sex triangle, with 2 women trying to seduce her. But the reality in this movie is far from that.<br /><br />In reality, the main subject is the victim of a vicious and sadistic rape by the two other characters. There was absolutely nothing in this that I found interesting at all.<br /><br />Even movies like Silence Of The Lambs and Wild Things (which the box tries to compare this movie to) were riveting, because of the unexpected turns and suspense.<br /><br />But Jaded has none of this. It concentrates on the rapeists and the sick relationship with the boyfriend of one of them. And the persuit of a videotape that may prove the victims story is true.<br /><br />While it does show that same sex rape is possible, it is not a movie worth watching.<br /><br />If at all possible, pass this movie up at all costs.

From producer/writer/Golden Globe nominated director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good as It Gets) this is a really good satirical comedy film showing behind the scenes in the life of a news reporter/anchor/journalist or producer might be like. Basically Jane Craig (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Holly Hunter) falls for new reporter Tom Grunick (Oscar and Golden Globe nominated William Hurt), but correspondent Aaron Altman (Oscar nominated Albert Brooks) also has strong feelings for her. The network prepares for big changes, and sparks will fly with all members of the studio. Also starring Jack Nicholson as anchor Bill Rorich, Moonraker's Lois Chiles as Jennifer Mack, Mrs. Doubtfire's Robert Prosky as Ernie Merriman, School of Rock's Joan Cusack as Blair Litton, Peter Hackes as Paul Moore, Christian Clemenson as Bobby, Robert Katims as Martin Klein, Ed Wheeler as George Wein and Stephen Mendillo as Gerald Grunick. The comedy is subtle but strong, the romance has it's moments, and it is certainly a believable situation film. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen and Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay - Motion Picture. It was number 64 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good!

And you'd be right. Black Mama, White Mama, also known as 'Women in Chains,' is exactly the kind of trashy and crappy b-movie that the premise suggests. Pam Grier has been thrown into a prison on a small island with a lot of other women, and this place seriously makes the summer camp where Martha Stewart is locked up right now look like a maximum-security prison. It's not five minutes into the movie that one of the hottie guards utters the line 'Strip 'em and get 'em wet,' and then we are introduced to a prison life that resembles some college freshman's fantasy of what the inside of a sorority house is like. <br /><br />The prisoners soap and rub and wrestle with each other in the shower like it's a Girls Gone Wild shoot, then they all hang out together in their dorm, openly smoking pot and discussing in a big group what would be the best ways to escape. I've never been to prison myself, but I have a feeling that escape plans are the kind of thing that you want as few people as possible to know about, prisoners or guards or otherwise. The biggest difference between this prison life and some fantasy sorority life is that the women in this movie all wear orange cardigans (and no pants. Go figure) that say PRISON on the back. Must be those generic prison outfits for prisons that can't afford pricey accessories like their prison name or prisoner numbers for their uniforms.<br /><br />And as is to be expected, a prison that can't afford to put prisoner identification on the backs of the uniforms can obviously not expect to be able to find guards that are interested in guarding the prisoners as much as they are in having sex with the prisoners and each other.<br /><br />The conflict of the movie's title refers to the fact that Lee Daniels (Pam Grier) spends much of the time handcuffed to a blonde prisoner named Karen as they are on the run from the cops after escaping from the prison. I won't go into details about how they escape except to say that you might have seen something like it in The Fugitive had they been unable to afford to stage a train wreck, and it leads into the muddled story of the conflicting interests also chasing these two women for different reasons. Karen and Lee both have their own gangs of people each hoping to rescue their respective escaped prisoner, and the cops are after both of them all the while.<br /><br />(spoilers) So Karen is involved with a bunch of hippies that want to Revolutionize Life As They Know It. Meanwhile, Karen just wants to get off the island, something she's been trying to do for years, and isn't it just perfect that they each need to go to completely opposite sides of the island in order to fulfill their goals. So we get this odd couple pairing and, since they are an odd couple, it's not hard to predict that they will hate each other for the vast majority of the film but grow fond of each other by the end.<br /><br />In a movie with so many conflicting interests, especially when those conflicting interests not only propel the two main characters in opposite directions as they pursue their goals, it is not unreasonable to expect that there will be a climactic moment involving the rival gangs at some point in the movie. Not about to leave anyone unsatisfied, they throw in a stupid gang standoff at the end of the movie, where everyone shoots machine guns at each other, killing each other en masse while the two women paddle safely and calmly across the river in a little boat. Nice. <br /><br />Even better, at the end of the movie, after a huge massacre in which lots of people get shot and spurt bright red paint all over the place, the Captain of the police looks over the masses of dead criminals covered in awful, awful special effects, and we learn that he will be a Major before dinner. Not a bad way to end the movie, the criminals all kill each other off and the cops get all the credit, but here is the last line in the film – 'It's better to win, isn't it?' <br /><br />Is THAT why the Captain is going to get promoted to Major? Because he figured that out???

A fine young cast is wasted in this empty, mawkish, manipulative film that tries to be a combination of both a cute comedy and an insightful drama. The plot moves so slowly that the 90 minutes seems endless as characters do nothing but mope and emote. The dialogue is filled with stilted cliches and fortune-cookie attempts at pseudo-philosophy.<br /><br />Apparently aiming at being a moving and profound look at life and love, the film ends up being merely pretentious. The only real weight is the burden that the talented cast is forced to carry as best they can. But, never fear -- they are held up by the puppet strings of the contrived plot.

What can be said about THIS? Truly one of the most mind-numbing experiences of my life. Your brain will attempt to shut-down as part of a primal impulse of self-preservation. I was left shattered from the experience of watching this 'film' and I took a good two hours to fully recover. This movie now joins Revenge of the Boogeyman and Zombiez as part of the hellish trinity of horror films. I certainly do not mean this distinction in a good way. I mean this in a terrible way. A terrible way.<br /><br />This film has no redeeming features. Everything is appalling. Artless camera-work endlessly presents us with the ugliest setting imaginable, i.e. lots of corn, lots of mud. The story is beyond stupid. The script is…was there a script? The villain is severely unscary and wears yellow wellington boots. The kids are annoying. The lead man is charisma-free. And it has the audacity to go on for 100 minutes. Utterly without merit on any level, this is akin to torture. Normally such a statement would be an exaggeration meant for comical effect. Not in this case. I'll even say it again – this is torture.<br /><br />At the end I was in a state of paralysis. This was brief thankfully. But once I recovered I decided I had to watch the 'Making Of' featurette. I had to understand. Maybe there would be a reasonable explanation for this atrocity. Was it all an elaborate joke? I watched the first 2 minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette and discovered that the writer/director was, to put it mildly, somewhat misguided. I also discovered that because I had taken time out to watch the first two minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette of Dark Harvest 2 that I was an idiot. Not a pleasant voyage of self-discovery. Life sucks.<br /><br />Highly unrecommended.

The film is nothing else than an exposition of nudity. Has anyone noticed that all three main female characters appear naked? It looks like the only winning bet for Portuguese filmmakers is to include some (if not a lot) of nudity of the local stars, together with slang which otherwise, in the nowadays Portuguese society, is repulsed with horror. If you watch advertising for Portuguese films at Portuguese TVs, they all have included a 'hot' scene from the movie. I'm not saying, by any means, that Portuguese society is alienated; just that the movie industry does not seem capable of finding others ways of success. Going back to the movie... There is nothing left from the spirit of the book, which is a masterpiece. The film could have been a good one, had there been emphasized the real idea of the book (of actuality at any time) and not the strictly erotic part. It had almost all the ingredients... but the 'chef' was awful...

My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.<br /><br />If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.<br /><br />Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.

This is the ultimate of horror movies this year. 'House of Wax' is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen. This version really puts the Vincent Price version of the movie to shame. I only know a few of the young cast in the movie. The ever troublesome Paris Hilton; the pain in the you know what seems to be more seductive than ever. At least, she didn't try to copy her infamy. Well if she likes to do horror, she's better than 'Wheel of Fortune's' Vanna White. She beats Vanna HANDS DOWN! And the scene of where 'House of Wax' was made was no joke. The house was made of wax, and the victims were able to get out of there before the get waxed like their friends. Those two twins Bo and Vincent(the deformed twins) were maniacs from the get-go. The parents raised them well, except for Vincent. And I think they became equally warped. How come the the one in the other pick-up happen to be creepy, but not as bad as the other two. That's another story in the book. I guess he had to follow his heart, and not the other twins who turned Ambrose into a tourist 'trap' for unsuspecting victims. This movie is like 'The Phantom of the Opera' meets 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'. And this movie is one of the scariest one in 2005! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.

It has taken me about a year now after seeing this film to write about it. Lord knows I have wanted to, after witnessing it I knew I saw something I hadn't seen before but wasn't sure why. Now after reflecting for quite some time I know, it's these characters that even now I still can't stop thinking about.<br /><br />Distant briefly and slowly tells the story of a relative (Yusuf) who comes from the rurals to live briefly with a well off to do photographer (Mahmut) in the city in hopes to find employment. However it becomes clear that after Yusuf hypothesizes the idea of being a sailor and his employment prospects dim, that he's really searching for something else, some sort of purpose in his life.<br /><br />Through all this soul searching we are taken through seasonal surroundings that are filmed exquisitely. The context in which they happen makes the scenes more powerful in 2 particular ones when a girl Yusuf has been following suddenly meets up with her significant other, and the look of Yusuf's face as he looks into a basket of fish and the shot and light that reflects off his tortured face. That scene in itself has to be one of the most gorgeously filmed pieces I have witness in I don't know how long.<br /><br />In the end Mahmut has his own demons too, but ends up confronting his relative that he is not really trying to find a job and is forced to ask him to leave, in a scene that is very simple but has the feeling of true heartbreak.<br /><br />What the viewer is left with is lots of reflecting and pondering for these 2 people who everyone can see a piece of themselves in. You should not be put off by the pace of this film it is truly worth every single breathtaking second.<br /><br />Rating 10 out of 10.

I had tried to rent this on many occasions, but was always with the girlfriend, who, as a general rule, usually rejects heist flicks and ensemble comedies with the comment 'Uhm... looks good, but i'm not in the mood for that movie.' Thus entereth the 'Almighty Solo Movie Night'!<br /><br />Anyway, I found Welcome To Collinwood a rather enjoyable movie. While ultimately fairly forgettable, it does have moments of fun and a few laugh out loud moments. I was unfamiliar with the fact that it was a remake, and as a general rule watch movies trying to ignore that fact and watch them on their own merits anyway. George Clooney puts in a humorous and brief cameo as a wheeled safe cracker that, for the most part left me wondering two things... 1. wouldn't every comedy be better if Mr. Clooney put in a strange 5 minute cameo? and 2. How do they make fake tattoos that look old and faded, and how easily do they wash off? The cast, all fine actors in their own right, put in a great job, and you get the impression that they had a good time working together which is fairly important in a movie like this. Needless to say all does not go as planned in this movie, both plot-wise and humor-wise, but it made me check out the special features and consider watching the original, so I consider it a success! Rent this one for a good time, maybe grab a few friends and a pizza. you'll have a good time.<br /><br />***7/10***<br /><br />On a side note, the soundtrack is spectacular. It's great to hear the far under appreciated Paolo Conte used, and it left me humming snippets of the score long after the credits rolled.

I am going to go out on a limb, and actually defend 'Shades of Grey' as a good clip-show episode, which delved into the life and death struggle of Commander William Thomas Riker who was battling a terminally fatal disease.<br /><br />The scenes from the flashback sequences were implemented quite well with the mood Riker was in such as when he was reliving his romantic episodes such as '11001001,' 'Angel One,' and 'Up the Long Ladder.' Tragic moments were highlighted such as Tasha's death in 'Skin of Evil,' as well as elements of pulse-pounding danger in 'Heart of Glory,' 'Conspiracy,' and the aforementioned 'Skin of Evil.' Riker also exhibited courage under fire by telling some humorous jokes such as 'An ancestor of mine was bitten by a rattlesnake once...after 3 days of intense pain, the snake died.' This episode highlighted the psychological ordeal of Will Riker under extreme duress. And, YES, I am biased in my opinion in proclaiming 'Shades of Grey' as a solid episode, because at the time of its original airing, my face was covered in sweat, wondering whether or not Riker would pullout of it alive and live to see other great, galactic, outerspace adventures beyond the final frontier...<br /><br />Of course, in subsequent years, I seem to have formed a singular opinion of this particular episode...but, if an award should go for 'the best clip-show episode in the history of television,' then I believe that this episode should be highly regarded in that respect.

This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.

Best of the Best 4, is better than 3, but just barely. Basically, I say this because part 4 doesn't contradict parts 1/2 (like 3 does), (ie. their is no reference to Tommy Lee having siblings).<br /><br />Anyway, I liked the Russian plot line of the story, and especially Sven Ole-Thorsen's bit part as Boris. Aside from that though and a few fighting scenes, the movie is nothing special. The limited budget is also very noticeable (especially in the airplane blow-up scene).<br /><br />Also, part 4 does not really have a moral or say anything like part 3 did, there are a couple of more better known actors (Hudson, Thorsen) in part 4, but alas nothing like the beginning of the series (and even these characters have very small roles).<br /><br />Alas, it seems Best of the Best is the Rhee show, and to be truthful, he cannot carry a movie.<br /><br />Saw on tape, Rating:4

I watch this movie all the time. I've watched it with family ages 3 to 87, and everyone in between; They all loved it. It really shows the true scenes a dog has, and the love and loyalty you get from a pet. Just beautiful.<br /><br />It's great for thoes who love comedy movies, the tear-jerker movies, or even just pets.<br /><br />The music is wonderful, the animals spectacular, the scenes truly thought out, and the characters perfect. What I liked about the characters is the true and nicely mixed personalities: Shadow (The oldest, a Golden Retriever) He's the wise one, filled with the wisdom and mindset of any dog, Chance (the American Bulldog puppy) is basically a puppy with a witty side, the comical character; And Sassy (The Hymilayan cat) She's the real cat who shows what a real cat will do for their owner, the real girly one.

I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.<br /><br />Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.<br /><br />As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.<br /><br />I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.<br /><br />Very disappointing. And really corny.

It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.

I saw 'The Grudge' yesterday, and wow... I was really scared, a good thing. I love horror-movies, and I really liked this one. There were so many 'surprise'-scenes (what's the English word?) that made you jump in your seat. Though, too much screaming from the audience made it difficult not to laugh. I think the most scary scene was... on the bus, when the face flashes by on the window, or when Yoko's walking without her chin. The make-up is also VERY good. Sometimes you could really see it was there, but it was still adding a freaky look to the scene. The boy was very good indeed, so cute without make-up and so terribly scary with it on. The next time I hear a cracking noise I will probably feel pretty scared...

When we were in junior high school, some of us boys would occasionally set off stinkbombs. It was considered funny then. But the producers, directors and cast of 'Semana Santa' ('Angel of Death' in the DVD section of your local video rental) are adults and they are STILL setting them off.<br /><br />Like the previous reviewer who wondered if the cast were anxious to get off the set and home, I doubt more than one take was done for any of the scenes.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino, hot in 'Mighty Aphrodite' and other top-rated films, seems to have undersold herself to this project. Her acting is non-existent, confined mostly to wistful stares that are supposed to indicate how 'sensitive' she is to the plight of the film's various victims.<br /><br />But let me warn you--do not be the next victim! Step away from the DVD if you find it on the shelf. Tbere are not many good leg shots of Mira (the only high points I could find in the film) and the supporting cast is of inferior quality, delivering a mishmash of badly-done dialogue with embarrassing 'Spanish' accents worthy of the best high school theatrical production.

Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.<br /><br />The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. 'BOONES! Hi, Bones' Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky! <br /><br />The 'Special' Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.<br /><br />Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! 'Capt. Life is Not A Dream' Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.<br /><br />A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.<br /><br />Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.<br /><br />The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.<br /><br />The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....

...and normally i don't like surprises!! Watch this movie by chance in a motel in South Africa second week of a three month motorbiking holiday in ZA. Apart from being well shot and acted it helped me in understanding the countries problems tremendously. Just watched the ' Million Dollar Baby' and had to look up Hillary Swank since the name sounded somewhat familiar and her acting was superb. Didn't realise she was the solicitor in the 'Red Dust'. Well now i'm not to worried that she will disappear as so many other sidekicks of Clint before... Now i am being asked to write ten whole lines of comment which is rather ridiculous for i have written what i wanted to write. OK, here it goes: I think if you are from a western country, especially Europe, watching will help you to understand a little better why what is happening is happening down there! So this hopefully will fill ten lines.

I have to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.<br /><br />I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.

What is worth mentioning that is omitted in the other reviews I have read here, is the subtext of how the law shaped the lives and behaviour of gays in the era portrayed in the film. While Courtenay's character is evidently gay, he is not the only one: the often talked about Mr. Davenport-Scott is the other, and the reason that he is never seen, the reason alluded to that he has disappeared seems to be that he has been detained by the police for homosexual activity - a criminal offense in England at the time.<br /><br />We can read under the surface that this recent event has unsettled Norman, Courtenay's character: and we can also see in a passing remark by Oxenby, the Edward Fox character, the quick renunciation of any connection to such a person when the law is involved: the fear of association affects many of the characters, and is part of the portrait the film paints of a time and the people who inhabit it. The abandonment of Courtenay at the end by Sir has been anticipated all the way through, if this subtext is included: it also makes sense of both the otherwise inexplicable omission of his Dresser from the list of those he gives thanks to. The flamboyance combined with the fear of exposure produces the combination of yearning and fear that Courtenay has to 'step into the footlights', as he does when he makes the announcement about the imminent air raids, a scene that would otherwise be gratuitous, but that is both a symbolic and literal depiction of the man's inner torment.<br /><br />So while the drama is of the decline of Finney's Sir, a great deal of the tragedy of the film and play comes from the 'fatal flaw' of Courtenay's gayness, and makes this a film about him, as the title suggests.<br /><br />The art direction, pacing and cinematic style of this film seem to come from another time, more distant than the eighties and, in some ways, even than the second world war. The implicit portrait of a society still clinging to an older moral order, and the sympathy of the character racked and ruined by the cruelties of that order, of necessity trapped in the enclosed world of the theatre; and the knowledge we have of how much of it all would be swept away after the war makes this film all the more poignant, for all its flaws.

This is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.<br /><br />The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.<br /><br />The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.<br /><br />So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.<br /><br />8/10

Engaging, riveting tale of captured US army turncoat who has to prove his innocence to avoid the hangman. Paul Ryker dodges friendly fire in a seemingly doomed attempt to convince a military court that he was actually a US spy on a secret mission in Korea.<br /><br />In the vein of classic courtroom dramas, 'Sergeant Ryker' is an extremely well crafted mystery, ably guided by an outstanding cast, director Kulik's constant momentum, and effective plot twists and turns.<br /><br />This film was originally made as a television movie in 1964, and subsequently beefed up for this revision with the presence of many 'name' actors, and some action sequences. Dillman, reprising his role, is spot-on as the doubting defence attorney, whose attentions sometimes stray to the personal plight of Ryker's supportive, yet somewhat distant wife, played with aplomb by Vera Miles. Rounding out the frontline is Peter Graves for the prosecution, and Norman Fell and Murray Hamilton in key supporting roles.<br /><br />Marvin's interpretation of the Paul Ryker character is a balanced depiction of a simple but dedicated man whose normally laid back demeanour is challenged by the desperate circumstances in which he's placed. Marvin switches perfectly from resigned indifference, to passionate determination, giving a convincing, often intense performance that is the highlight of this otherwise small-scale drama. It's this performance that should elevate the film to a platform where it occupies a place on the best-ever lists of courtroom dramas.<br /><br />However, despite its apparent obscurity, 'Sergeant Ryker' still remains a taut and compelling examination, like a book that you just can't put down. Highly recommended.

As a Dane I'm proud of the handful of good Danish movies that have been produced in recent years. It's a terrible shame, however, that this surge in quality has led the majority of Danish movie critics to lose their sense of criticism. In fact, it has become so bad that I no longer trust any reviews of Danish movies, and as a result I have stopped watching them in theaters.<br /><br />I know it's wrong to hold this unfortunate development against any one movie, so let me stress that 'Villa Paranoia' would be a terrible film under any circumstances. The fact that it was hyped by the critics just added fuel to my bonfire of disillusionment with Danish film. Furthermore, waiting until it came out on DVD was very little help against the unshakable feeling of having wasted time and money. <br /><br />Erik Clausen is an accomplished director with a knack for social realism in Copenhagen settings. I particularly enjoyed 'De Frigjorte' (1993). As an actor he is usually funny, though he generally plays the same role in all of his movies, namely that of a working-class slob who's down on his luck, partly because he's a slob but mostly because of society, and who redeems himself by doing something good for his community. <br /><br />This is problem number one in 'Villa Paranoia'; Clausen casts himself as a chicken farmer, which is such a break from the norm that he never succeeds in making it credible. <br /><br />It is much worse, however, that the film has to make twists and turns and break all rules of how to tell a story to make the audience understand what is going on. For instance, the movie opens with a very sad attempt at visualizing the near-death experience of the main character with the use of low-budget effects and bad camera work. After that, the character tells her best friend that she suddenly felt the urge to throw herself off a bridge. This is symptomatic of the whole movie; there is little or no motivation for the actions of the characters, and Clausen resorts to the lowest form of communicating whatever motivation there is: Telling instead of showing. Thus, at one point, you have a character talking out loud to a purportedly catatonic person about the way he feels, because the script wouldn't allow him to act out his feelings; and later on, voice-over is abruptly introduced, quite possibly as an afterthought, to convey feelings that would otherwise remain unknown to the audience due to the director's ineptitude. Fortunately, at this point you're roughly an hour past caring about any of the characters, let alone the so-called story.<br /><br />The acting, which has frequently been a problem in Clausen's movies, can be summed up in one sad statement: Søren Westerberg Bentsen, whose only other claim to stardom was as a contestant on Big Brother, is no worse than several of the heralded actors in the cast.<br /><br />I give this a 2-out-of-10 rating.

Most would agree that the character of Wolverine is one of the most intriguing characters in comic book history. I'm no Marvel expert, but I did grow up with the adventures of the X-Men and definitely approved of Hugh Jackman's now widely known portrayal of the scruffy Logan. I enjoyed the first X-Men, found the sequel too heavy and messy and liked the third one as comic book entertainment. All through the three movies, I probably enjoyed Jackman more than anything else. I figured the idea of making an 'origins'-movie about Wolverine could very well end up being a better movie than all of the three X-Men movies. If we concentrate on one character, I figured there could be a movie that achieves what I found the second movie failed at - being a fairly complex and character driven comic book adventure.<br /><br />The reason that the Wolverine-movie fails is not because the competition is tougher after The Dark Knight. It's not even because of a plot development that is beyond obvious and rudimentary - even though that certainly isn't good - no, it's because the movie doesn't even seem to try. To begin with, this does not qualify as good entertainment. There is something about the action in this movie that comes off as so very, very automatic. With no greater special effects or elements of suspense, and when one event will make you predict the following five, it almost feels like an Uwe Boll movie, imitating an action/adventure movie concept that you've seen a dozen times before. Of course, nothing in this movie is as downright awful as a piece of Bolls**t but when everybody's talking clichés as if they are part of a chain of events that is so standard, you at least make the connection and that surely is bad enough.<br /><br />But there is an even bigger problem. Even a generic action movie is a generic action movie and, by the way, that makes you forgive a lot of plot holes and character stupidities. I think you find the most fundamental flaw in the very title. I mean, 'Origins'. Really? What to the people behind this movie think about that title? What do they mean?? You want to know the origins of Wolverine? He grew up with his brother. They ran away from home during dramatic circumstances. Then they went off to war. All of them! The Civil War, World War I and II and Vietnam too. Why did they do this? Still unknown. Eventually, the brother (Sabertooth, played by Liev Shrieber) became evil. 'How?' you ask. I don't know, it was somewhere between Omaha Beach and Hanoi. 'Yeah, but why?' you still ask. I just said I don't know!! The movie doesn't explain. He's evil alright! 'Yeah, but... you know, 'origins''... Yeah, well that's an origin! I mean, duh! Anyway, eventually they end up with a super secret team of mutant elite soldiers. Something with the government, ho-hum. Wolvie gets enough and leave his brother. For six years he's a happy lumberjack with a loved one, who ends up a little defenseless around the time Sabretooth suddenly appears again. 'Yeaaah... but... whyyyy?' - Oh shut up! - and Wolvie decides to be a guinneapig for a bunch of evil scientist who make him a flesh-covered metal war animal. He goes after all the bad guys and they come after him and after all the fighting he ends up with his memory wiped, cue X-Men the first movie.<br /><br />There. That's the origin. You can also find it on the back of the DVD cover. The actual movie won't tell you anything else. With no worthwhile scenes of action, no good heroes, villains or characters in general (lines from my couch audience: Fat suit! Token black guy! Oh, I give you 200 in cash if that girl survives this movie.., That is supposed to be Gambit...? mmhm, yeah well... uh-huh, right), not one line of memorable dialog and zero lines to cover a T-shirt with, added to that the common stupid things that ruin the plausibility in general that you might usually forgive...... well, that sounds pretty much like a waste of time, right? Fans will check this out, or have already. There's no stopping that. But if you liked the X-Men movies for no other reason than that they were well-made and entertaining - see them again and do yourself no favors by trying to look for origins where there are none.

Sure, for it's super imagery and awesome sound, it's a great home theater 'show off' disk, but this is also a touching drama as well as an informative documentary. The parallel stories that are intertwined throughout this film will keep all viewers interested. Young, old, boys and girls alike will find that deep down, we are all fans of the automobile, especially the high performance indy machines that are the result of generations blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity and perseverance. The Mark Knopfler and Ry Cooder sound track is perfectly matched to the visuals and the content. I don't want to give away the ending, but the final driving sequence to Quincy Jones' 'Days Like These' just might bring a tear to your eye. Enjoy it!

I had the opportunity to preview this film as a member of a test audience, and the only thing which kept me in my seat was the chance to fill out the post-screening survey. I felt the film's biggest problem was its lack of a main plot. Instead, it was composed of (too) many sub-plots competing for screen time. As a result, there is not a single character who is developed enough for the audience to form any sort of attachment. What the director and producer failed to do was show us why we should care what happens to the characters. In fact any one sub-plot and the characters associated with it could have been removed altogether without serious detriment to the film. (The time gained would have allowed for the much needed development of the remaining sub-plots and characters.) Simply put, The Hungry Bachelors Club's plate is overcrowded with side dishes and appetizers when an entre is desired.

If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.<br /><br />John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.

Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...

I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.<br /><br />Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.<br /><br />If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.

There is no denying it. Sci-fi on TV is difficult. There are so many problems that the genre brings with it. Like the need for a good budget, solid writing, decent acting. Perhaps the budget and the script writing is the departments where i feel most attempts have failed. So does 'Surface' succeed? Not completely, but more so than most.<br /><br />The way i see it, a good sci-fi show doesn't really need a lot of CGI to work, nor does it need a ton of money. What it needs is the capacity to create a larger-than-life feeling. The feeling that there is more than meets the eye, something to make me curious and willing to try and figure out how it's going to end. Adding the pieces of the puzzle and sometimes saying 'Aha!' is what makes or breaks a show like this one.<br /><br />'Surface' had a couple of flaws. First of all it's basic premise is not as exciting as it could have been, nor is the revealed story as exciting (or daring) as i hoped in the beginning. Also the TV-feeling is very present much of the time. All the way from the crappy CGI (that ranges from decent to awful) to the rather shifting quality in the acting department. Also it feels sometimes a bit too family-oriented in that it takes the edge of sometimes and becomes almost cutesy. But aside from these flaws it's an enjoyable show. Maybe not as spectacular as some of the other sci-fi shows out there. But it manages to keep me interested the whole season and it offers a couple of nice cliffhangers between shows as well. The ending for me is not that appealing. I don't like shows that end without ending so to speak, leaving the story unresolved. It's especially unfortunate in this case since the show seems to be canceled after the first season (it is as of yet undecided).<br /><br />HBO is to me the benchmark for quality television. Their series have the best actors, the best production values and above all the most solid writing. This is not HBO-quality, but it's good for what it is. Good enough to want another season without a doubt.

After a big tip of the hat to Spinal Tap, this movie is hilarious. Anyone who grew up watching MTV will love it and if you didn't, rent it anyway,the 'My Peanuts' and 'A Gangster's life' videos are worth the three bucks alone.

Who were they kidding with this? There was just too much in this film that was hard to digest. Right from when Arjun (Ajay Devgan) unknowingly wishes death on his father to when he arrives in London with his uncle(played by Om Puri) only to abandon him minutes later. The only problem with that theory is that anybody who has ever passed through London Heathrow knows that such a fête would be impossible to pull off and especially not by an Indian. But the film problems do not end there, there's the issue of the two main leads (Salman Khan and Ajay Devgan) passing as rock-stars on the verge of achieving their dreams. I mean yeah we saw success come to Susan Boyle (a woman in the UK achieving her dreams after age 50) but that was a rare case. It was really hard for me to suspend my disbelief because I felt that the casting of Salman and Ajay was just ill-conceived. They would never cast Madhuri Dixit and Sridevi to play the same roles so why should we be forced to watch Ajay Devgan and Salman Khan (men well into their 40s) prance around desperately trying to hang on to their 20s? Let's not even talk about the most self-conscious actress on screen today, Asin. This is her second film (that I have seen) and she is just hopeless as an actress, so conscious of her looks that she only concerns herself with looking good and voguing for the camera rather than giving in a good acting performance. It's just hard to believe that she turned down all those other movie roles to star in this fluff and then be so fluffy as an actress, nothing to write home about at all. And to top all of that, the film just boringly dragged on. There's nothing special about it at all, trust me you will predict every clichéd thing that is going to happen in it.

The Plainsman is an entertaining western, no doubt a classic, which is actual even today. Gary Cooper is Wild Bill Hickok, ideal for the role, together with John Wayne and James Stewart, they were the best actors that played western heroes in their generation. Jean Arthur is great as Calamity Jane, nobody that I know played it better than her. Even if might not be historically accurate, the film manages to capture the most important about Hickok and about the time it takes place. Sometimes you have to sacrifice History to make your point and that is what DeMille does here. The friendship of Hickok with Buffalo Bill, the selling of rifles to the Indians by a great manufacturer to compensate for the losses he would have because of the end of the civil war, Custer and Little Big Horn, the uneasy relationship between Buffalo Bill's wife, a religious woman, with Hickok a man who had killed plenty, also the unusual love affair between Hickok and Calamity all this makes 'The Plainsman' a non conventional and interesting film. Anthony Quinn has a very short appearance, that already shows what a great actor he was going to become. A lot of care was taken to show the original guns of that time.

This was a 'cute' movie at first, then then got too sappy and featured mediocre songs, at best.<br /><br />There is too much King James English spoken with is not only annoying in today's world but not always easy to interpret. Can you imagine young people of today trying to listen to this film? Forget it.<br /><br />Bing Crosby has some good lines in here and is likable as 'Hank Martin.' Rhonda Fleming ('Alisande La Carteloise') was, too, in addition to her good looks and beautiful, long red hair. <br /><br />It's a nice movie with a feel-good ending, and I can't knock that. Maybe this is worthy of a rental, for historical sake or if you're a big Crosby fan but, overall, it's not that much.

A quite usual trashy Italo-Western, stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic, some mediocre actors, dirty settings, lots of punch-fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with Django. - At least not in my German translated version, this German DVD-release is called 'Adios Companeros' and has Macho Callaghan fighting against Butch Cassidy and Ironhead because their gang killed his one (he's the only survivor). Then you have Butch Cassidy and Ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. And you have Ironhead fighting against everyone because he's just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. Yeah, that's it, no more cleverness in the storyline, hehe.<br /><br />A small role by Klaus Kinski as Reverend Cotton is remarkable (that's why I bought this DVD). In one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming 'I said love!' and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second - FANTASTICFANTASTICFANTASTIC!!!<br /><br />It's also remarkable that JOE d'AMATO aka Aristide Massaccesi did the cinematography - I love this master of incompetent exploitation-thrash, so it was an 'aahhh' for me.

Watching John Cassavetes debut film is a strange experience, even if you've seen improvisational films before.<br /><br />The first thing you notice is it's roughness. Right off, it's obvious some of the characters are screwing up their lines. But then you step back from the situation, as you sink deeper into these people's intimate exchanges and you ask yourself: 'Do I ever stumble over MY words?' The answer of course, is sure, we all do. It's unfortunate that most of the gaffes in this respect come early in the picture, because, by about twenty minutes, you've sunk so deep in you wouldn't know it if a bomb went off behind you.<br /><br />The next thing you notice...or maybe you notice it hours or days after the film ends, is that you never saw any substantial plot, yet the themes and the poetry of the dialog and characters never leave you. In fact, the treatment of the role race plays in the everyday lives of these characters is always there, but it's so ephemeral that even they aren't aware of how it's informing their opinions of themselves, their self-consciousness, their perceived status, or the fate of their relationships.<br /><br />The title is appropriate because you get a full spectrum of blacks, whites, and grays...and not just in the skin pigmentation of the characters. Leila Goldoni (truly remarkable here) is an afro-American/Caucasian, her two brothers are white and dark afro-American. The irony is that they exist in what is undoubtedly the 'hippest' most tolerant atmosphere of the time...beat-driven upper east-west Manhatten...and there are still conflicts within and around themselves.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever seen a movie with such a subtle delivery or technique. It's a lot like absorbing a really great piece of gallery art and then just nodding off in bliss as you think back to the images it evoked days later.<br /><br />Great mastering and extras on the Criterion disc. Arguably the first truly experimental independent film ever made.

A classic 80's movie that Disney for some reason stopped making. I watched this movie everyday when I was in like 6th grade. I found a copy myself after scouring video stores. Well worth it though. One of my all time favs

A slow, tedious, and one dimensional movie! Good casting with clichéd dialogue, boring story line, and soulless direction from Mr Marshal! The conventional and predictable story of the most famous form of prostitution from the Asian continent, lacks heart, new insights, and depth. The lead character looks out of place due to her tiny phisique and phony looking contact lenses. The lexicon employed by the geishas sounds forced and a bit too sophisticated for their limited exposure in the ways of education. The story goes on and on for hours trying to convince you this little, boring, flat chested Asian girl is the ultimate Geisha, they actually say in the movie 'She is destined to become a legend' i say hardy the case! The movie is just plain boring, it is beautiful to look at, it has a very few interesting moments as many as you may find by going out for cigarretes. Basically, if you don't believe the messenger you wont believe the message, and this girl didn't fill the shoe! Borin, boring, skip it!

My favorite memory of this show and the band was when I got together with a bunch of my friends which are NBB haters and had a big bonfire and we took a CD of their songs and the DVD of the movie and a bunch of pictures of the band members and threw them into the fire and danced a happy jig around the burning stuff while singing 'Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead'. That was the best thing about the show and this show is stupid with a capitol God this show sucks. I hate it so much. Get rid of the crappy car. You guys really suck! You really ruined the whole channel! No offence or anything but you guys need to get a life, I mean, really, who makes a stupid show with a stupid lead singer that can't even sing! You guys really sound horrible and need to get a life as hobos or something, except Roselina. She's really pretty. But still, you guys reak!

Excellent pirate entertainment! It has all the good ingredients to keep one's attention -- an absorbing tale of intrigue, a fiery lady pirate named Spitfire Stevens (Maureen O'Hara) who's attracted to the irresistible Mr. Hawke (Errol Flynn) who is out on a secret mission of his own. They make a fine romantic pair onscreen -- sigh!<br /><br />Anthony Quinn is the mean, bad pirate weaving his villainous web of divide and conquer. I noticed the very familiar face of Mildred Natwick playing a supporting role as Mrs. MacGregor, the protector of young Princess Patma (Alice Kelley).<br /><br />There is beautifully filmed scenery of shorelines, ships, and the bay. Lots of action too of sword fighting clashes, ship battles, daring leaps of Errol Flynn (Robin Hood on board ship!). From the flaming redhead herself I once heard in an interview of Maureen O'Hara that she boasted great command of the bullwhip and could also outdo Flynn in sword fighting in those days but there'd be no need to put it to the test here.<br /><br />Very enjoyable movie.

This has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is (I think) a story of a rebellious college basketball player, his tough-but-fair coach, his girlfriend, and a fellow student (played by Michael Margotta) who has continual nervous breakdowns. The story goes nowhere, there is zero character development, there is nobody to care about, and the performances, with the exception of Bruce Dern as the coach, are terrible. It is hard to believe how a talent like Jack Nicholson could direct such an awful movie. Make sure to avoid this turkey.

I love the mockumentary format that Chris Guest and crew have developed over the years. I actually like this and 'Waiting for Guffman' better than 'Spinal Tap', which was the first of the group (and made by Rob Reiner but starred Guest and several other of his mockumentary regulars). This humor is not for everyone. IT's rather subtle and not too physical, so some people may not relate. However, as a dog lover (and a dog show fan), I loved this movie. There are so many funny lines in it! My daughter and I quote them to each other often. I find it amazing that these people can ad lib so much funny material for each movie! What a fun bunch they must be. I highly recommend this to people who prefer their humor on the cerebral side.

I was interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.<br /><br />The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel 'Descent Into Hell' for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.<br /><br />What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break.

i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.<br /><br />i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. 'chucky' and 'silent hill' over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.<br /><br />it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend 'beyond belief' - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.

'Go Fish' garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.<br /><br />Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.<br /><br />Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from 'In and Out'. By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. <br /><br />Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.<br /><br />Pathetic.

I had a vague idea of who Bettie Page was, partly due to her appearance in the very wee days of Playboy (apparently, when she got her photo taken of her and her Santa hat, just that, she didn't know what the mag was). The movie, co-written and directed by American Psycho's Mary Harron, fleshes out the key parts of her life well enough. A southern belle of a church goer has some bad experiences and leaves them behind to seek better times in New York City, where she gets into modeling, and from there a lot more. Soon, she becomes the underground pin-up sensation, with bondage the obvious (and 'notorious' of the title) trait attributed to her. The actress Gretchen Moll portrays her, and gets down the spirit of this woman about as well as she could, which is really a lot of the success of the film. She's not a simplistic character, even if at times her ideas of morality are questionable ('well, Adam and Eve were naked, weren't they?' she comments a couple of times). Apparently, the filmmakers leave out the later years of Page's life and leave off with her in a kind of redemptive period, leaving behind the photo shoots for Jesus.<br /><br />In all, the Notrious Bettie Page is not much more than a kind of usual bio-pic presented by HBO films, albeit this time with the stamina for a feature-film release. The best scenes that Harron captures are Page in her 'questionable' positions, getting photos of her in over-the-top poses and starring in ridiculous films of whips and chains and leather uniforms. This adds a much needed comic relief to the film's otherwise usual nature. It's not that the story behind it is uninteresting, which involves the government's investigation into the 'smut' that came out of such photos and underground magazines. But there isn't much time given to explore more of what is merely hinted at, with Page and her complexities or her relationships or to sex and the fifties. It's all given a really neat black and white look and sometimes it seemed as if Harron was progressing some of the black and white photos to be tinted more as it went along. It's a watchable view if you're not too knowledgeable of Bette Page, and probably for fans too.

...but of course I was wrong.<br /><br />Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.<br /><br />Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).<br /><br />The main plot, as such, is astoundingly 'minor' and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.<br /><br />David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.<br /><br />Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original.

This was truly horrible. Bad acting, bad writing, bad effects, bad scripting, bad camera shots, bad filming, bad characters, bad music, bad editing, bad casting, bad storyline, bad ... well, you get the idea. It was just, just ... what's the word? Oh yeah ... BAD!

Camp Blood is an absolutely atrocious slasher film. We're mixing Friday The 13th with the Blair Witch Project and adding....a killer in a clown mask.<br /><br />The budget for this film must have been very low, some of the actors played multiple parts and the camera used produced a picture equal to the colourised version of the original Night Of The Living Dead, which if anybody has watched that version will back me up that it is poor.<br /><br />This film was just so bad. There is nothing in the film even worth watching. The very fact I watched this all the way through stunned me. Just take my advice and don't buy or rent this film. It is appalling.

'Ghost Son' is Lamberto Bava's best film and, at the same time, also his worst. I suppose that statement requires some slight clarification. It's his best because it's well directed, ambitious, accessible and very stylish, but his worst because it's a dull, unoriginal movie and undeniably a huge letdown to all the real fans of Bava's past efforts. Let's face it: many fans, myself certainly included, wouldn't have been interested in this film judging by the plot, the famous names attached to it and even the boring sounding title. The only motivation here was Lamberto Bava, who brought us large amounts of convoluted Gialli and fun splatter films in the past. 'Ghost Son' is a bit of his comeback film, alongside 'The Torturer', and although the latter definitely isn't a good film, it at least lives up to his fans' lines of expectations, with excessive amounts of sleaze, blood and sadism. 'Ghost Son' is a weak and intolerably soft horror film, even talking in terms of mainstream ghost stories. The emphasis lies too much on sentimentality, and this badly affects the already limited number of horrific & creepily atmospheric moments. The basic premise might feature one or two potentially good ideas, but the film is overall dull and far too clichéd. John Hannah and Laura Harring star as a happy couple, living on a remote ranch in South Africa and breeding horses for a living. The joy and happiness couldn't possibly improve, so naturally something tragic is bound to happen, and it does. Mark dies in a car accident, but the inconsolable Stacey remains at the ranch where she's in constant contact with Mark's spirit. She even gets pregnant with his child, but shortly after baby Martin's birth mysterious events begin to occur. It seems as if Mark's restless and selfish ghost 'possessed' the baby and uses him to encourage Stacy into committing suicide. With all the focus on the couple's relationship, many of the events and sub plots are underdeveloped and/or remains unexplained, like the whole background of the youthful maid Thandi. There's too little action and the only real fright-moments are too obviously borrowed from classic films such as 'The Exorcist' and 'Rosemary's Baby' (vomiting green goo, self moving furniture…). Purely talking in terms of horrific entertainment 'Ghost Son' is a painful misfire, but it has to be said, it's a beautiful and enchanting looking failure. The cinematography is extremely elegant and many camera angles are truly inventive and suggestive. The moody score sometimes even manages to create an ominous atmosphere even though there's nothing of any significance happening on screen. There are several beautiful images of the South African wildlife to admire but, if that interests you, I suppose you're better off watching National Geographic instead. Not much to recommend here. Fans of atmosphere-driven ghost stories have much better options to choose from and die-hard Bava fanatics are advised to (re-)watch 'Demons', 'Macabre' or 'Blade in the Dark'.

The Movie Freddy's dead the final nightmare is just as horrific and disturbing as every other Nightmare on Elm Street , yes it has Comedy essence about it , so has all the other films, but how can anyone possibly say that you wouldn't find Freddy Krueger scary , if you were to come across this man in your dreams you wouldn't find him even more scary with a comic essence about him because his comedy shows that he doesn't care at all about killing you that he finds it extremely funny, and Freddy also plays comic mind games with them, which in its own way is very disturbing , by using his comic ways i think that makes the horror movies Nightmare on elm street what they are today, The writers are extremely clever making Krueger comic and scary as oppose to Jason Vorhees , who doesn't say anything and hasn't got the wit to truly frighten his victims, This Movie is about as good as Freddy's wit gets and i would recommend it to anyone with a sense of humour and by the way ' Don't Fall Asleep!'.

The real shame of 'The Gathering' is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the 'Babylon 5' pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.

'In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first 'national' laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the 'Windy City' to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic.'<br /><br />The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.<br /><br />Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.<br /><br />Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), 'Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard.' If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?<br /><br />Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany. <br /><br />The Führer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Führer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.<br /><br />The OSS Society® 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101

- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? <br /><br />- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.<br /><br />- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.<br /><br />- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.

Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.<br /><br />An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, 'Kadosh' clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)<br /><br />There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural 'shifting objects in space', and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget 'Kadosh' is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.<br /><br />It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found 'Kadosh' way too Nadosh (Hebrew for 'trite').

I must say that I am fairly disappointed by this 'horror' movie. I did not get scared even once while watching it. It also is not very suspenseful either.... I was able to guess the ending half way through the movie... So.. what's left?<br /><br />'The Ring' is a trully scary movie... I wish other movies would stop copying from it (e.g. the trade-mark: long hair). Please give me some originality.<br /><br />Will not recommend this movie.

You would really need to remember the Monkees and have a clear understanding as to where and how they fitted into the second half of the 1960s in order to fully appreciate this movie.<br /><br />There is no plot as such. Basically, it's a crazy, mixed up pastiche of various, unrelated sequences. But, it IS interesting AND entertaining in its own peculiar way once you get onto its wavelength. In short, it was a classic, cleverly conceived and well crafted example of late '60s experimental cinema. It contains some good songs, some ultra-groovy cinematography and plenty of other worthwhile ideas in terms of film technique.<br /><br />I give it 7 out of 10 for several reasons. First, it took a lot of courage to make such an unorthodox movie in the commercial mainstream where both its stars and its producers were firmly ensconced at the time. If a feature movie flops at the box office, the consequences can be dire for all concerned. Secondly, it was, for the most part, a creative success. And, finally, as already mentioned, it is, unquestionably, a classic of the genre and, as such, it is now historically important.<br /><br />Unfortunately, 'Head' came too late in the Monkees career. But, there again, they would not have been allowed to make it earlier on because it was essentially a very pointed and cynical satire of their own image. <br /><br />Clearly, the members of the group knew, only too well, that the whole Monkees juggernaut had just about run its race when they started work on this project. In a way, it was to be their swan song and they were determined to let it all hang out. They were tired of being treated like mere pawns in the high powered corporate game in which they had been manipulated and exploited over the preceding few years. In short, they 'wanted out' and they were going to say a few things before they left.<br /><br />History, however, has vindicated the band. Let the critics be damned. The Monkees, left behind some of the best, most polished and successful pop records of the decade. Yes, they had plenty of help. But at the end of the day, THEY stood in front of the studio mikes, THEY fronted the movie and TV cameras and THEY did the concerts. They were fun and just a little bit crazy. But, unlike some of their contemporaries, they were never threatening. You could safely introduce a Monkey to your elderly aunt.<br /><br />'Head' probably borrows a bit too heavily from the Beatles 'Hard Day's Night' but it's still worth another look for those who were around at the time or for younger retrophiles who have the ability to appreciate its significance.<br /><br />Enjoy!

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.