Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

This movie is really bad. Most of it looks like it was filmed either in a park or a basement. There's a giant spider but all we see of it is one leg. There are some worms that live in a cave that are just cheap sock puppets with cardboard teeth. And the plot is a bunch of post-apocalyptic mumbo jumbo that makes no sense at all. The whole thing is just laughable.

The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others. <br /><br />Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times. <br /><br />What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.<br /><br />I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's 'Son of Paleface', and I caught it again in 1958's 'The Big Country' by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.<br /><br />Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson.

'Mr. and Mrs. Smith' is one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. But if 'Lifeboat' (wich unfortunately also belongs to this category) is an underrated masterpiece, not all the movies signed by the master of suspense in that time (the early 40's) are really worth seeing. And to tell the truth, not discovering this film isn't really a lost.<br /><br />'Mr. and Mrs. Smith' is an average and conventional screwball comedy, where it's rather hard to find the Hitchcock's touch. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of his shadow (wich isn't much) in the cruelty that Carole Lombard is sometime capable of (but it's well hidden in an impersonal package), in a vertigo scene where two of the characters are trapped on top of a trade fair attraction, and maybe in the character of the mother. And that's about it ! Even for the Hitchcock fan, there is little to connect with.<br /><br />And for the screwball comedies amateur, there isn't very much more: none of the situation are exaggerated enough for being really funny, and we're far from the masterpieces of Hawks for instance. And if one or two scene are quite amusing, there're not even the funniest in Hitchcock's filmography, who created comical situations in almost all his movies (even 'Psycho' could be considered full of very dark humor). So, there is really little to save in this movie, that can without annoying anyone (or maybe only both hardcore fans of Hitchcock and screwball comedy, who are in love with Carole Lombard), stays one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie.

A great slasher movie -- too bad it was the producers and not part of the script. Basic plot summary - man with redhead fetish goes invites such women to his flat only to go into some kind of freakish coma and proceeds in offing them to various degrees of success. Only the cutting crew behind the scenes must have thought the movie was as ad as I did and chopped the heck out of the movie. Nothing flows, you get lost on which redhead he is with at the time (didn't he off that one earlier??), and most of the time it looks like the camera man passed out and resumed filming when he awoke. Not that I can blame him I passed out 2-3 times and had to rewind and resume to try to regain what little plot that does exist. Warning when you see the ending DO NOT try to connect it with anything that happens before -- you will just get an aneurysm. Not worth the time, effort, or God forbid money. Only reason to get a 2 instead of a 1 - the slim chance that the hacking occurred between film release and the horrible version that I watched.

My grandmother bought me this film when I was 5 (I've always love scary movies) and even then I enjoyed it. The atmosphere is awesome and the story original and entertaining. I especially love the scenes where the RV is under attack in the desert. The rocks are actually convincing for such a low-budget flick. The acting is above average for these kinds of films and the music is eerie. This is definitely an uder-rated gem. I recommend it to anyone who likes these strange films from the late seventies, early eighties such as 'Alice, Sweet Alice', 'Poor Pretty Eddie', 'Nightmare', 'Hospital Massacre', and 'Return of the Aliens, the Deadly Spawn'. Definitely a classic!!

People criticise Disney's animated features of the 1950s for being overly glossy, set in landscapes that are much too pristine. That criticism is just. And yet it can't be the whole story, because the two least glossy - 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Peter Pan' - are also the weakest. 'Cinderella', on the other hand, set in a world in which the very dirt sparkles, is clearly the best.<br /><br />It DOES look good. The backgrounds are subtle and consistent; the colours are pure without being too bright. The animation varies a bit. I'll swear that some of the humans are rotoscoped - but then, the rotoscoped humans (including Cinderella herself) aren't full-blooded characters in the script, so this approach works well enough. It's really the animals that make the movie. I think the studio had never quite used animals in this way before, as totems rather than sidekicks. The mice, for instance, are the creatures who draw us into the story; but they are really representatives or allies of the more colourless Cinderella. The cat, Lucifer, is a kind of witch's familiar to the Wicked Stepmother. (The cat is brilliantly conceived and animated - one of the best feline creations of all time. The supervising animator was Ward Kimball and he modelled it on his own cat. I wonder how he put up with the animal.) This approach allows the animals to steal the show without drawing our attention from the main story. Their actions are of maximum interest only in the light of the main story.<br /><br />Among the supporting cast the notable humans are the King and the Grand Duke. The King is a one note character - he wants grandchildren and appears to have no other desires at all - but the note is struck in a pleasing fashion. The Grand Duke is a put-upon character who deserves to be lifted out of his sphere as much as Cinderella does. (Although he, of course, is richer.)<br /><br />'Cinderella' is Disney's return to features after an eight-year hiatus, and neither with it nor with any subsequent movie would he recapture the raw brilliance of his early years. Moreover he made things hard for himself by picking 'Cinderella'. She's a passive heroine and there's not much anyone can do about that. (Maybe I'm wrong on this score - I haven't seen the recent 'Ever After'.) Nonetheless it is remarkable how successful Disney was in bringing this unpromising story to life, without cutting across the grain of its spirit.

Yeah I watched this mini series with My Mom and dad as a kid. It was one of the few mini series that my 9 year old mind actually could follow. I recall it was very well done, and didn't necessarily have the feel of the typical crap mini series. It was more or less an original concept that really grabbed your attention. I would recommend this miniseries to anyone who is a fan of history and plot twists. Although most twists in this movie are either spelled out or predictable, it is still worth the time. I haven't checked to see if you can get it through netflix yet however. I would imagine not. They should play it on the history channel or something.

David Mamet's film debut has been hailed by many as a real thinking-man's movie, a movie that makes you question everybody and everything. I saw it for the first time recently and couldn't understand what was supposed to be so great about it.<br /><br />The movie is about a female psychologist named Margaret who is also a best-selling author. Margaret has become disillusioned by her profession and her inability to really help anyone. She tries to rectify this by helping settle her patient's gambling debt to a shark named Mike (played by Joe Mantegna, who is the only reason to watch this film). She discovers that Mike is actually a professional confidence man when she nearly falls victim to a scam he pulls immediately after meeting her. Intrigued, she returns to see him and asks him to show her how con artists operate (she plans on using this as the subject of a new psychology book). She then falls for him and accompanies him on a long con that he and his associates have set up.<br /><br />I don't feel like going into details, but at the end of the film it is revealed that the events of the whole movie were an elaborate con by Mike and his cronies to swindle Margaret out of $80,000.<br /><br />First of all, the big twist towards the end was VERY predictable. Any scene where the con men were operating was made very obvious by the stagey acting and weird line reads. Not only that, but the audience (and the main character) knows that they're dealing with con men, so is it really such a big surprise when we find out that Margaret has herself been conned? Besides, Margaret is supposedly an intelligent psychologist who is an expert at reading people, yet she allows herself to be duped far too easily -- and keep in mind, she knows full well that Mike is a con artist.<br /><br />Secondly, we are led to believe that Margaret was conned from the very beginning, yet in order for the con to ultimately work, she had to do several things that the con men couldn't possibly have predicted that she would do. First, she had to decide to help settle her patient's debt, allowing her to meet the con men in the first place. If she hadn't done this, the entire con would have failed. I just have to say that it's pretty unreasonable to assume that a psychologist is going to take it upon herself to settle a patient's gambling debt. Not only that, but what are the odds that the con men would be at the right spot on the very night she decided to show up? Did they simply show up at that bar every night, hoping she would come and see them? Another thing that had to happen that couldn't have been predicted is that Margaret had to return to see Mike again and ask him to teach her the tricks of his trade. What are the odds of this happening? And yet the whole con is based on this premise.<br /><br />Another problem I had is with the ending. Margaret finds out she's been conned and decides to get revenge on Mike. At first, Mamet leads us to believe that she's going to con the con, but that falls through, so the ultimate ending is her gunning Mike down in an airport baggage area. Somehow that just felt like a clumsy and inept way to end a movie about con artists plying their trade. Not only that, but she didn't even take back the money he stole from her.<br /><br />Ultimately, the movie leaves you feeling empty and unfulfilled. And if you, like me, predicted ahead of time that Margaret was going to be conned, you will find this revelation just as unsatisfying.

I've seen the Thin Man series -- Powell and Loy are definitely great, but there is something awfully sweet about Powell and Arthur's chemistry in this flick. Jean Arthur SHINES when she looks at Powell. There is an unmistakable undercurrent buzzing between them. This film may not have the wit of the Thin Man series, but undeniably makes up for it in charm. While I watched it, I thought for sure Powell was carrying on an off-screen affair with Arthur. My friends thought the same. This is one film where I wish I could step back in time (to schmooze and lock lips with Powell!) There seems to be no end to his lovable playful smirks! Powell's character, Lawrence Bradford, is probably the closest thing to the 'perfect man.' Okay, this is sounding way too gushy, but I can't help myself.

This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.<br /><br />Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker.

Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....<br /><br />Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.<br /><br />Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes. <br /><br />Disposable at best. 4/10

This was a modern TV classic! The story goes like this, Bob has a girlfriend named Alicia. Bob and Alicia are in love and want to get married. Bob has a bud named Owen who he works with. Owen is jealous of Alicia. He likes hanging around with Bob. Now Owen hangs around with Bob AND Alicia. Bob and Owen have a secretary named Heather. Heather is very accident prone. She is also, if you haven't guessed it, is kind of lonely. She too hangs around with Bob and Alicia, and Owen. Sometimes Alicia wishes Bob didn't have any friends.<br /><br />By the end of the first season, it looked like Owen finally found himself a real longlasting girlfriend. Bob and Alicia went driving on the night before their wedding, making out in a tiny car and then getting stuck. Way out in the middle of nowhere! What happened next? What about poor Heather? Did anyone get married?? Sorry, series ended.<br /><br />Not even a plea from TV Guide made FOX think twice about putting it back on the air. It was a great show with a great cast. I loved Heather too. She looked cool in those glasses and was hilarious. I miss this show a lot. This is like reading a good book with the ending missing......sad.

Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.<br /><br />The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.<br /><br />** out of ****.

Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.<br /><br />The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.<br /><br />But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.<br /><br />I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.

Probably not the same version as most of the other reviewers because there`s no real hard core sex . What do people mean by hard core sex ? The sort of explicit hard core sex seen in films starring Traci Lords and ' Big ' John Holmes ? Well anyway this is really poor film , I doubt if I`ve ever seen so many big name actors wasted in a film . The script is really poor and plotless , the directing and cinematography is awful and the editing is non existant . It truly is an absolutely awful film. You could watch this ten times and still not understand what the hell it`s about . The only memorable scene is the one where people are buried up to their necks and a giant lawnmower comes along and decapitates them . Yes you read that right , a film set in Roman times has a scene with a head chopping giant lawnmower !<br /><br />Trivia point. Many years ago a pirate copy of THE THING ( 1982 version ) was doing the rental rounds on my Island and it been copied onto a rental tape of CALIGULA meaning the pirate version of THE THING starts with the first few seconds of CALIGULA of the man and woman walking through the forest then the title sequence of THE THING starts . This led people who`d seen the pirate tape to believe the forest scene was the opening of John Carpenter`s 1982 film and were very confused as to what it meant. Well that`s what you get for renting pirate videos . But having seen the whole of CALIGULA I don`t know what it meant either

In the seedy streets somewhere in New York City, a lonely punk named Tromeo ( Will Keenan) has little friends but all they ever do is get tattoos, piercing and just party all the time. He does fall for a beautiful rich girl named Juliet ( Jane Jenson) whom is also troubled as her father is being quite an abusive son of a you know what, but as our title characters meet and fall for each other things start becoming quite magical for them. Unfortunately their fathers are at each other as Juliet's dad wants to take over Tromeo's dad's movie studio, but could love really conquer them all and stop this feud? <br /><br />Hilarious and gross horror comedy drama satire from the wacky and disgusting people at Troma is a wonderful modern day take on William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. This was released in theaters in 1997 and got some good reviews for this is a dark humored satire of the legendary story that started it all, it's got some good laughs, piercing, graphic violence and gore such as a head being smashed on a fire hydrant. For me this is the third best Troma movie next to the immortal 'Toxic Avenger' and 'Troma's War' being second, yes the acting can be a little bad like some Troma flicks but the stuff above makes it up for that and this is a must see movie if you like horror comedies, Peter Jackson, and Troma or if you wanna see a comical version of a beloved story, BTW also look for a couple of amusing appearances by The Toxic Avenger and SGT. Kabukiman NYPD.<br /><br />Also recommended: 'The Toxic Avenger', 'Meet The Feebles', 'Ichi The Killer', ' Re-Animator', 'Terror Firmer', 'Class of Nuke'Em High', 'Romeo and Juliet ( 1968 and 1996)', ' Pieces', ' Troma's War', ' Citizen Toxie: The Toxic Avenger 4', 'Basket Case', ' Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky', ' Demons', 'New Nightmare', ' Freddy Vs. Jason', ' Cabin Fever', 'Nightmare on Elm Street', ' Battle Royale', ' Pink Flamingos', ' Perfect Blue', ' Rabid Grannies', 'Surf Nazis Must Die', ' Hostel', ' Evil Dead II', 'Serial Mom', ' Dead Alive ( a.k.a. Braindead)', ' Street Trash'.

The Gymnast (2006) was written and directed by Ned Farr. Dreya Weber portrays Jane Hawkins, a former world-class gymnast who was seriously injured and now earns her living as a certified massage therapist.<br /><br />The promotional material leads you to believe that the plot hinges around Jane's accidental reunion with a former teammate. Although this meeting takes place, that plot line is secondary to the main plot, which involves Jane, her husband, and a professional dancer named Serena (Addie Yungmee). The two women develop an act of the type performed by Cirque de Soleil. The two complement each other--Jane is more experienced with heights and has tremendous upper body strength. Serena is more elegant and artistic, although, obviously, also capable of incredible physical feats.<br /><br />The film works because we can understand how Jane would turn to Addie, who is caring and compassionate, while Jane's husband has taken her for granted for the many years of their marriage.<br /><br />Both women are incredibly fit and athletic, and Dreya has the lean body and well-defined muscles that are characteristic of gymnasts. They clearly are truly performing their act, and the results are so excellent that we can believe they would indeed, be a success in Las Vegas, or anywhere else they traveled.<br /><br />The sexual tension between the women is obvious, and the situation becomes even more complex when the act requires them to kiss while suspended in the air. A woman with a neglectful husband and an attractive woman partner make for an explosive situation, which isn't resolved in a neat and tidy fashion.<br /><br />Of the six films we saw at the Rochester NY Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival, we thought this one was the best. It will work on DVD, and is definitely worth seeking out on large or small screen. NOTE: Stay for the credits!

The Mascot is Ladislaw Starewicz's masterpiece. It tells the tale of a stuffed toy dog who searches for an orange after he overhears the mother tell her daughter she hasn't any money. The dog gets picked with other toys to be sold off. In the truck, after the others jump off while the vehicle runs, the dog stays and waits to be picked up from store before setting off on his own. He manages to get orange after biting woman's leg as she was holding and selling the fruit. As he runs, he encounters the devil and accepts his offer to stop at nightclub. There, he meets the other toys who jumped off truck. The cat who was next to him in vehicle is especially determined to get dog's orange. I'll just stop here to mention that other wonderfully bizarre things happen in nightclub that you'll have to see for yourself. Suffice it to say, if you love Starewicz and is interested in all animation from the past, I most definitely recommend you seek this one out!

A beautiful film. One that made me think of god but not feel guilty nor overwhelmed. Made me think about death but not fear it, think about life but not hide from it. A movie that gave both love for all I stand for and at the same time condemned it to the deepest pits of hell. A movie that made me think of love and all that I have lost, but no sadness graced my eyes, for some strange reason, relief. A child of two worlds, god and theater. And a good bit of wine and irony! I most highly recommend *****<br /><br />'When The S*** Hits The Fan, Get A Tent' Oh and we should all go camping. Every day.

Kalifornia is disturbing. I believe there is no reason for this story to be told. It is neither entertaining nor does it have social value. Technically, the movie is very well make, the performances are top rate and first class. The story develops in an intriguing way that holds interest. But at the end this movie sickens and is abhorrent to decency. I recommend Kalifornia to no one.

It's the best movie I've watched this year! Excellent detail and storyline (for a remake).<br /><br />It presents to you a 'what if' situation wherein the island of Japan could totally be wiped out of this earth. A thought-provoking, life and death situation and not to mention all life on earth (well in this particular Japan). It also presents a great and genius solution to this massive tragedy.<br /><br />Horror, action, suspense, sci fi, documentary, love story and all the human interest story you can get you'll find everything here! But I also warn you that it is a real tearjerker! The casts, actors and all are all excellent, better than any Hollywood movie! <br /><br />The thing is...this could really happen to anywhere on earth! Now let me ask you this after you've seen it...'what would you do if you are faced in this life and death situation'?

How can anybody say that this movie is a comedy?? If I had not gone with then my finacee I would have fallen asleep and asked for my money back. I love Gwen Paltrow, but it was like she was on the wrong set. I like most chick flicks, but I hated this one. This is the only time I saw so much clevage and was not turned on. Those outfits were way overdone. No one talks that way anymore and I don't think they even did then. The dancing part was horrible.My ex said to me later...'Didn't ya like that part? Didn't ya think it was sensous?' I said yes only to spare her feelings. Now I know why we never married.This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I was surprised that ' Forgiving the Franklins ' did not generate more buzz at this years Sundance Film Festival. There were times that the laughter at the screening I saw was so loud that you could barely hear the movie. The movie has some excellent acting and a story that really makes one examine broader issues . You know little issues like Religion, sex and the truth. Lots of comedy's seem to rely on the same old corny contrived situations, many leave you thinking ' I know they ripped this off from some sitcom ' .This film takes off on its own unique direction . I really think that Jay Floyd did a fantastic job with a tight budget on this film.

This is the most cliche ridden and worst romantic comedy I have ever seen. Every scene is cringe worthy and the two lead actors - Corey and Danny are soo annoying. Corey is very dumb and naive and should have never listened to Danny's false promises.<br /><br />Neve Campbell and the killer from Urban Legend are the only redeeming qualities in this poor attempt of a film. Danny (Dean Paras) looks in his late thirties and the girl he's trying to bed - Corey looks as if she's still in college.<br /><br />Here in Australia, this film is called Too Smooth; there is nothing smooth about this film at all. 1/10 Avoid

This is a terrible film. Angie Dickenson is a class act and always does well, but she does not get many roles any more and she must have needed some money to do this film. By the way, she is on screen less than 10 minutes. Oooh, wait, there is one redeeming feature in this film: Meg Foster has a small part in this film. Now, Meg has been on the screen for 35 years and is not particularly great but she has the scariest eyes of any actress I have ever seen. By name, you probably don't know her, but one look at her eyes and you will recognize her. To summarize: the acting is horrid, the story bad, and even the filmography is dreadful. A screen going to black every time the director wants to change scenes is pretty moronic. Watch any thing else but this, even Mr Ed reruns!

Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful.

Born Bad is a well put together crime drama about a group of teenage kids. Teens as well as young adults would find this movie well acted and entertaining. The movie is similar to The Black Circle Boys in the sense that a bunch of teenage boys go around their town making up their own rules and not caring about the consequences.

Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.<br /><br />The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.<br /><br />The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.<br /><br />This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.<br /><br />After starting out as a 'this could happen to anyone' movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.

This is one of the few films where I consider the film rendition to be an improvement on the original book. The story is clear, accessible, amusing and interesting and the musical numbers are without a doubt exceptional. I adored the cyclical rendition of 'The old home guard' and the charming 'Portobello Road', a great combination of early animation + real actors techniques which, though dated do not detract from the charm of the piece. The background of the Second World War worked well and was not omitted as the film got under way, which so often happens in 'evacuee' stories.<br /><br />An often far too underrated film, it produces no end to enjoyment for people of all ages. The performances from the actors are exceptionally well done and the entire text is neatly tied together and well designed. Guaranteed to put a smile on your face!

There are frames in this film that could be Renoir paintings with vivid colors against muted backgrounds. The humorous combination of sexual honesty and innocence is refreshing in this fifties film and makes palatable the old story line of the ingenue that becomes a star. The can-can number at the end seems realistic and exciting but not over the top as in an American dance sequence.

Great acting on the part of Gretchen Mol. This film is one of the best biopics to hit the screen in some time. While it does cover the majority of Bettie's young life, it also manages to stay on a mostly focused path which is something most biographical films seem to lack. There is some lovely and alarmingly funny subtext in the dialogue and acting. This film is an excellent break from the Dir. of 'American Psycho,' and I think this will show through as her best work to date. Oh, and as a cinematography buff, I give this film 100% in the cine dept. It was amazing how well they pulled off a 50s look with modern film stocks. Accolades to the D.O.P. All around very enjoyable. I recommend any interested to see it: 8/10.

For the most part, I only enjoy the kind of movie that allows one to escape the current time into the future or past. This movie is pure escapism. The dancing starts almost immediately, and Debra Paget in her 'purple harem' bikini dress simply has no equal in film in my opinion. Her dancing, while sultry, is surpassed by her dance in Fritz Lang's Tiger of Eschnapur, available on DVD, where she played the temple dancer Seetha.<br /><br />One problem with the movie is the closed setting. There are few outdoor scenes shot, and they as well as other scenes are a bit claustrophobic. The same locations are used over and over again, but with some interesting secret passages and waterways. Her secret double identity is totally unbelievable with beauty of that magnitude. Debra even wields a sabre and holds 2 enemy soldiers at bay on a staircase, she could do it all.<br /><br />What does work is Debra Paget as a princess. With her beauty, she certainly would be the center of attention anywhere at any time in history. This movie, when hopefully it becomes available on DVD, will be a must buy. Overall, taken with a bit of humor, I loved it.<br /><br />

First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:<br /><br />- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work – the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;<br /><br />- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense – the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004; <br /><br />- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7/10 – the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;<br /><br />- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.<br /><br />Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): '11.11 – A Nova Profecia' ('11.11 – The New Prophecy')

It's not fair. I was really expecting this to be a hilarious, entertaining movie. I mean, I like Drake Bell from Drake and Josh, and Leslie Neilson is nothing to be sneezed at since his earliest classics, Airplane and the Naked Gun. However, After seeing Superhero movie, I'm glad I didn't even have to pay for it. It just wouldn't have been anywhere near the 9$ per ticket. More like a dollar and a few pennies. Because that would sum up for the hour and a few minutes. And as disappointing as this film was I'm glad the running time was that short, if not shorter. I just cant believe how incredibly vulgar, unnecessary, and above all, STUPID, some of the scenes were! And above that, I've seen better acting from a wooden dummy(without the ventriloquist). It's as if Craig Mazin purposefully wanted to make a film that deserves its 3.7, if not lower, and even try to be worse than 'Meet the Spartans'. Very disappointing indeed.

This is 2009 and this way underrated gem has lost nothing of the power it had 31 years ago. It connects a pretty wide variety of different characters and stories without appearing to be cluttered.<br /><br />Clothes and music might have changed over time, but in the end this is a story that will never lose its up-to-dateness. And especially this movie does the job pretty well. Of course it is cheesy at times, but very touching as well.<br /><br />Jodie Foster's performance is striking, and it shows that she is really a natural born actress who showed her true potential especially in her earlier movies.<br /><br />Don't miss this one.

before watching this movie my thoughts were like 'another israeli typical movie' but i was suprised to watch i great israeli drama. the plot is really good and the actors act great. one of the best isreali movies i saw... so at the bottomline i really recommend this movie. :)

This is a very visual film. By that I mean that the dialog is sparse, almost to the point of being a silent movie for some very long takes, beginning with the opening shot.<br /><br />The silences, however, are broken by a stunning sound track that ranges from discordant, staccato beats to a haunting mix of violins, and interspersed with vocals that sound like dreams. It's a feast for the ears as much as for the eyes, one of the early visuals being a man walking along a street, so preoccupied with his interest in a shapely woman, that he walks into a lamppost: one of the consequences of love and a metaphor for what lies in store...<br /><br />A long time ago, another movie – Love Story (1970) -- said that love is never having to say you're sorry. This narrative turns that idea on its head in a number of ways, beginning with the main character, Titta (Toni Sevillo), a seemingly innocuous long-term resident in a plush hotel somewhere in Switzerland. Everyday, week in, week out, he sits at the same coffee table, enjoying the passing world, his cigarettes, his coffee, his solitude – and he's been doing it for ten years. He sits, he observes, and once a week he engages in three very surprising activities that you'll find out about when you see this little masterpiece...<br /><br />Love is explored in another way, in a direct counterpoint to Titta's solitude and reserved nature: two older residents of the hotel are still much in love, but the man wants to die in a spectacular manner when his time comes, while his long suffering wife berates him for cheating at cards with the other guests, one of whom is Titta. Now, Titta knows about their squabbles, their love, the man's cheating, his apologies to his wife, and his whining. How? In a surprising and black-comedic manner...one of those surprise activities I mentioned.<br /><br />But, this is no comedy, in reality, although it does touch upon the idea of the human comedy in a Balzacian sense: the irony of life and what to do with it. That decision had been made for Titta ten years earlier when he left his wife and began to live in the hotel. He keeps in touch occasionally, and it is clear that he still loves his children (now grown up) and the sorrow in his voice speaks volumes. But, there's something more than just sorrow...<br /><br />Such a life as Titta's would obviously seem to be utterly boring, and it actually is from many perspectives. It is only when we learn what lies beneath his almost death-like countenance, however, that the horror of his situation hits the viewer between the eyes. But not before we know that the female bartender, Sofia (Olivia Magnani), is very interested in Titta and goes out of her way to pique Titta's interest in her.<br /><br />And that's when things start to unravel for Titta: he eventually succumbs to her femininity and in doing so discovers, once again, the consequences of love. Ironically, in doing so, he finally realizes what he must finally do with his life, and in a most spectacular fashion.<br /><br />I know that all of the above is somewhat cryptic; but, to say more would spoil the film and story for you. If you like Italian cinema – I love it! – I urge you to see this one. The acting is superb; the sound track chills the spine; the camera work is truly innovative; the direction shows the maturity of a true artist.<br /><br />I know I'll see this movie again, and again...

This long episode packs amount of astounding of surprises, thriller, mystery and concerns about a battle of wits of Sherlock against Charles Augustus Milverton, a master blackmailer. This is an excellent overlong runtime of Jeremy Brett-Holmes series. In the film appear usual Holmes's cannon as Inspector Lestrade and Mrs Hudson, though no Moriarty, however is a greatest villain, Charles Augustus.<br /><br />It's a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue, thrills, and suspense, including an exciting final twist. This is a particular Sherlock movie but we find to Holmes falling in love with a servant, kissing, crying and even robbing. This time along with the episode ¨Scandal in Boheme¨ with Irene Adler, result to be the only one which Holmes is enamored. Top-notch Brett performance, he alongside Peter Cushing are the best Sherlock TV , while in the cinema is forever Basil Rathbone. Brett performs as a resolutive, headstrong, impetuous sleuth. Here Doctor Watson isn't a comic, botcher, and clumsy pal personified by Nigel Bruce, but is an astute and cunning partner well incarnated by Edward Hardwicke, a perfect counterpoint of Brett. Casting is frankly magnificent, special mention to Robert Hardy as astute nasty. Hardy, today famous by role as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter, is a veteran actor with forty years of career and with several success such as, The 10th kingdom and Winston Churchill. Furthermore appear secondaries actors with terrific performances, Nickolas Grace, Sophie Gordon, Serena Gordon, among others. The movie gets a colorful atmosphere , the London streets and 221 Baker Street's house are well designed. The motion picture is well directed by Peter Hammond, director of various episodes. It's a must see for the Arthur Conan Doyle fans.

This documentary on dinosaurs was undoubtedly fascinating and very well made. However, I found myself watching many of the bits with unease. The film generally took a rather confident stand on anything it said and showed, but inevitably much of the behaviour of the beasts, their interaction with each other, what they looked like, how they moved, what they ate etc. much of that is surely guessing - sometimes guessing with reasonable confidence, sometimes just wild guessing. But the viewer is never made aware of that, the film pretends to actually observe real dinosaurs and their real behaviour etc. That makes probably better viewing than confronting the audience with mountains of disclaimers, but it makes it just a bit too populist in my estimation.

I am very into Waverly Hills and first watched Death Tunnel The Movie.Couldn't have been much worse. Then I heard that the documentary was coming out and got excited thinking that since it was a documentary it would be more serious and not have the horrible special effects.Wrong the same guys did the documentary and ruined it with effects instead of producing it raw the way a documentary should be.Waverly Hills doesn't need help with goofy effects its fine just the way it is. Tours are $20.00 per person and $100.00 for 8 hour overnight investigation per person minimal group of 10 for overnight investigation.Tours must be set up ahead of time. Awesome place for the Ghost Hunter!

I absolutely love this film. Everything about it. It almost felt like watching me and my friends on screen. The way this movie was filmed was a pure masterpiece, very original and creative. I related to these characters and even had the same thoughts as some. I'm really glad I ran across this movie. If only there were more genius' like justin out there!

First off, the lead, Brad Dourif is a KOOK. If you're trying to take this movie seriously, then, I guarantee he's going to ruin it for you. If you don't take him too seriously, then he's actually kind of fun to watch. As with another reviewer, I loved the scene where Lisa (Cynthia Bain) and Dourif are declaring their love for each other - in between dodging the jets of flame shooting out of his arm in the car. Another great campy scene was watching John Landis as a snotty radio show producer getting toasted and flailing around the room. In fact, I found the last 15 minutes of the movie to be a non-stop laugh-riot - I'm just not sure if Tobe Hooper meant it to be that way.

The only reason this show did not get a 0 is because one is not available. This show has gone from informative news to sensationalized claptrap. I tried to support this show in its decline, because I like human interest stories and Primetime used to have some very good ones. Unfortunately, April 21st has forever changed my mind about this show and the unethical newscasters that participate in it. ABC actually recorded a brutal case of child abuse and then refused to show it until the statute of limitations had run out and the parents could not be arrested on the charges they should have faced. What made it worse was how ABC swept the whole incident under the rug; instead of taking charge and seeking true professional help for these disturbed individuals, they had some pop psychologists send stern warnings TO THE AUDIENCE about how they shouldn't judge these poor angels too harshly. I was truly sickened. I hope this review stops one person from watching this investigative trash in the future. If it does, I will be happy. These days, all you can expect from Diane Sawyer and the good folks from Primetime Live are butt-kissing sessions with A-list celebrities and criminal acts covered up and praised to the stars. Don't waste the hour of your life; you'd be better off watching an old sitcom on Nick at Nite.

Well, I tend to watch films for one of three reasons. Unfortunately, there are no Transformers in this film, so I can recommend it only on comedy value and pretty women (read girls)<br /><br />Yes, it is funny, I know this due to the number of people in the cinema who were laughing on a regular basis throughout. Personally though, I loved it for Laura Fraser, who IMHO is FIT!

Why would anyone make a film like this? Why would anybody invest in a film like this? Why would anybody in the film business work on a film like this? Why would any theatre show a film like this? Why would any TV channel program a film like this? Why would any critic bother to review a film like this? Why would anybody watch a film like this? Why would mental examinations not be made of the writers/producers/directors of a film like this? Sometimes there are movies that are so bad they're good. This is a movie that is so ghastly that it's horrible. IMDb really must institute a '0' or even a minus scale to embrace works of this appallingly pretentious awfulness.

The movie forever strong will never be nominated for an Oscar, it will never be nominated for best acting, for best motion picture. But this movie does have things that other movies don't. In a nation with so much scandal, so many problems, movies being poured out with little thought to the morals of society, at least this movie promotes good. What is wrong with standing behind something that promotes happiness? We should support movies that tell our American teens that there is more to life than sex drugs and alcohol. As for this Haka debate as previously stated, the Hakka is not exclusive to the New Zealand All Blacks, various Utah high school football teams and colleges perform this ritual before games. Including Hawaii, BYU, etc.

For his first ever debut this film has some riveting and chilling moments. In the best horror film fashion the pit of your stomach tightens every moment during this film. The ending is superb. The makers of Blaire Witch obviously watched this film it's ending wasn't an end but a beginning of the end. A great movie and only a piece of Japan's great as far as scare factor a perfect score it makes you think and scared out of your mind.

When I saw this 'documentary', I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this 'documentary', which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch 'Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation', Made by Discovery channel and BBC.

Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first 'Atomic Man', a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.<br /><br />Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.

There are so many '10 Best' lists which could easily fit 'The Dead' - Best Screen Drunk, Best Literary Adaptation, Best Use Of Music Not Specifically Written for the Film, Best Use of Poetry, Best Screen Speech, Best Ensemble Cast and finally, perhaps, Best Film Ever Made. This was John Huston's last and greatest film, adapted by his son Tony from James Joyce's short story and set on the evening of the Feast of the Epiphany in the Dublin of 1904. It is confined, largely, to one setting, the home of the Morkan sisters, and not a great deal happens in conventional 'dramatic' terms. They entertain their guests; there is singing, dancing, recitations and much small talk but watching this film you can't imagine anywhere else you would rather be than in this company.<br /><br />Finally, of course, it is 'about' much, much more. It is about love, loss and regret, those stable mainstays of great drama. In the film's closing scenes the tenor Bartell D'Arcy, (Frank Patterson), sings a song, 'The Lass of Aughrim' which conjures up in the mind of Gretta, (Anjelica Huston), wife of Gabriel, (Donal McCann), the ghost of her first and probably greatest love, a boy who died in all certainty of a broken heart at the age of seventeen, and suddenly Gabriel realises he has never really known his wife and that he has not been the great love of her life, after all. Emotionally, these scenes are incredibly powerful, firstly as Gretta recounts the circumstances of her lover's death and then as the voice in Gabriel's head sums up his own feelings. This is great cinema, the monologues superbly delivered by Huston and McCann.<br /><br />But then all the performances are extraordinary. This is ensemble playing of the highest order and while it would be invidious to single out one performer above another, has the screen ever given us a more likable, genial or convincing drunk than Donal Donnelly or has poetry ever been delivered with such passion that Sean McClory, (the IRA man in 'The Quiet Man'), brings to his reading of Lady Gregory's translation of 'Donal Og' here? Added poignancy is to be had, of course, from the knowledge that Huston himself was close to death when he made this film which seems to me the culmination of his life's work. Death may well be its central theme but viewing this film is a life-enhancing experience.

I truly enjoyed this film. The acting was terrific as was the plot. Jeff Combs has more talent than he is recognized for. The only part of this flick I would change was the ending. The death of the creature was far too gruesome for the Sci Fi Channel.<br /><br />There were some interesting religious messages in this film. Jeff Combs obviously played a Messiah figure and the creature (or shark if you prefer) represented the anti-Chirst. There were some particularly frightening scenes that had that 'end of the world feel'. I only noticed this after my third viewing of this classic creature feature. I know many people won't get the references to Christianity, but if you watch close you'll get it.

The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!<br /><br />Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims 'Doctor, nothing will stop it!', how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out.

This film was really different from what I had imagined but exceeded my expectations nevertheless. This film has the exactly right mixture of comedy, drama, political criticism and satire (not necessarily in that order). Without being patronizing or wisenheimer it reveals the open and subtle problems of our capitalist democratic high technology society. It makes you laugh instantly and remain in thought afterwards. For those of you who liked 'wag the dog' and wished to have humane and manlike politicians this film should definitely be the choice!<br /><br />'politicians are a lot like diapers: they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.'

What made the original Killer Tomatoes fun was it was made by people with no budget who were just being wacky for a couple of days...<br /><br />This was something with a budget, but it just wasn't as much fun. John Astin of Adams Family fame is actually making an effort here to be comedic, but he is supported by lame actors, cheap special effects and unfunny gags.<br /><br />The plot. Dr. Gangrene (Astin) escapes from a French prison and decides he is going to put a pretender on the throne of France... The hero, his French girlfriend and the Gizmo-like 'Fuzzy Tomato' decide they are going to stop him...<br /><br />Forgettable Direct to Video nonsense...

John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as 'The Misfits' and 'African Queen,' directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on James Joyce's novella of the same name, 'The Dead' tells the quiet story of a New Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters, including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although 'shine' is too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances). 'The Dead' reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet way, a fitting final movie for a legend.

At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT 'Memoirs of a Geisha' that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this 'possessed' state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really 'evil' that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in 'Ghostbusters'. 'The House Where Evil Dwells' is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films 'Motel Hell' and 'From Beyond the Grave') intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like 'Motel Hell' maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. 'The House Where Evil Dwells' is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.<br /><br />Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.

Betty and Boris eye each other at a junior dance when they're still kids, but unfortunately Hugh gets to her first and thirty years later when we tune back in--Betty is married to Hugh and putting up with his fussy mother, who also lives with them.<br /><br />Neither Boris, nor Betty, however, have forgotten each other and when their paths cross again, they soon declare their feelings.<br /><br />But Betty feels she can't divorce Hugh, a Councilman, it would hurt him too much. What Betty doesn't know is, Hugh isn't hurting at all. He's rolling in the sheets with his beautiful secretary Meredith.<br /><br />Boris, an undertaker, thinks he has the answer. They'll fake her death.<br /><br />Christopher Walken plays Frank Featherbed, an outrageous, competing undertaker in their medium-sized town--that causes additional problems for Boris and Betty.<br /><br />All kinds of complications arise as Boris and Betty try to pull off this major coup.<br /><br />There are laugh out-loud scenes, some delightful dancing, and nary a curse word to be heard. In short, the film was a pleasure to watch.<br /><br />10 stars.

Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called 'PKO Productions' gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three 'Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories' from SNL. Plus, the 'cat swimming' section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10

I had a personal interest in this movie. When I was 17 and just out of high school I got a job at 20th Century Fox as a member of the Laborers and Hod Carriers Union. At the end of my first day (sweeping the deck of an aircraft carrier) I was told to bring a suitcase the next morning with enough clothes etc. for one or two weeks. When I arrived the next morning a bus was waiting and about 20 of us headed south toward San Diego. Just short of there we stopped at an army base called either Camp Callan or Camp Hahn. Once we were bunked in we went north a few miles into Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base. There, on the beach, we started building what was supposed to be a Japanese Pacific island base. It took us about a week or ten days to complete the installation, which included a water tank, gun entrenchments, sand-bagged trenches and living quarters. All this was at very high pay, sometimes 'golden time', which was triple our regular hourly wage. Our food was also first rate = prime rib at lunch, etc. - which was amazing because it was wartime and very hard to get good meat at home.<br /><br />Once the job was finished I waited eagerly for the movie to come out, which was about eight or ten months later. Then I waited eagerly through two hours of the movie before my handiwork finally came on screen. Then it was no more than three or four minutes (maybe less) of the movie's heroes dive bombing the base and blowing it to smithereens. A bit disappointing, but still fun. <br /><br />In spite of the disappointment I enjoyed the movie and have not seen it since. I learned later that this movie was underwritten by the government and Fox was paid on a cost plus basis, which maybe accounts for our extravagant pay and lifestyle down there. Bob Weverka

Susan Sarandon is, for lack of a better word, incredible. In my opinion (and yes I do understand that not everyone will agree with me here), she is one of the greatest actresses EVER and should have at least 2 oscars to her credit. I mean, that was an AMAZING performance in Lorenzo's Oil (but then I think every performance of hers is amazing) and they gave it to Emma Thompson...what was that about??? And by the time she got this oscar, she'd been in the industry for some 25 years. I couldn't think of anyone who deserved it more, especially for a performance as brilliant as her portrayal of Sister Helen Prejean. But then again, she is over and above all the artificiality of Hollywood and doesn't need an oscar - people know she's good anyway.<br /><br />This film carries some very deep, thought-provocing messages, so needless to say it is not to be taken lightly. Tim Robbins, of course, can't escape credit here. You would think that, because of his person feelings against the death penalty, the portrayals made in this movie wouldn't be accurate. However, both sides of the death-penalty debate are given even weight. On one side, you see the interesting side of Matthew, the human side which makes witnessing his death rather heart-wrenching. At the same time, you see the way he savaged his victims and the constant torment of the understandably grief-stricken parents. One word for Tim - BRAVO.<br /><br />A brilliant movie and, like I said, a well-deserved and long awaited oscar for Susan.

Obnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.<br /><br />Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid.

In 2006, the AMPAS awarded one of the most innovative documentaries depicting wildlife in the coldest place on Earth, that film was March of the Penguins narrated by Academy Award Winning Actor Morgan Freeman.<br /><br />Walt Disney Studios has had a monopoly on the animated circuit for decades now. They've taken their stabs at live action film making and it's been hit and miss all across the board. Disney then created a sub-division called Disneynature and release its first feature film titled Earth. This is absolutely one of the most touching and informative documentaries I've seen in quite sometime. <br /><br />Narrated by the great James Earl Jones, Earth doesn't offer anything new to anyone who has watched the Discovery Channel in the past five years or follows the Global Warming crisis very closely. Earth touches very deeply on the issue and takes a very liberal approach on the subject matter.<br /><br />It enables an emotional connection to nature that I haven't experienced before. It also shows not only the beauty and mystifying parts of our gorgeous planet, but the grunt and disturbing aspects that it often entails. It's one thing to watch 'Mufasa' fall from a cliff in to a stampede or Bambi's mother be shot by a hunter in the middle of the woods. It's all good because at the end of the film we know it is, just that, a film. This shows penguins, polar bears, elephants, all types of families, from all walks of life, living and dying in their natural habitats. These real things make a real movie experience.<br /><br />Though a bit heavy-weight on the graphic nature of the film (which many people will disagree), Earth is a touching experience. There is stunning cinematography work here by a great camera team and an amazing score by George Fenton. In comparison to March of the Penguins or Grizzly Man, it doesn't really hold any measure but it stands great on its own. At the end of the day, you grow an appreciation of our planet and a bit of sadness as many of us will probably never get to visit these places we'll witness in the film. We live here yet it's like we never get to explore the planet for one reason or another. Earth is beautiful.<br /><br />***/****

'The New hope of Romanian cinema'...if this is the new hope, then i wouldn't really like to see the saving hero of such a prolific cinema(Romanian cinema, that is). Now seriously, where should I start? 1. The crappy scenario: are you kidding me, this is not even believable not to mention it's high degree of stupidity 2. the Direction: what direction? This movie should have had psychological tension, at least that, since they have decided to make it look as trashy as possible. Oky, I admit, Radu Muntean is no Polanski, Hitchcock, Fincher or Lynch(the list could go on), but at least the minimum of effort would have been appreciated. 3. The language: Oky, I don't understand why (almost)every single Romanian director believes that if you make the movie as miserable and obscene as possible, then you have art. I don't mind explicit language or bad image quality as long as the final result makes it worthwhile. In this case, it doesn't. There is nothing to comment upon, since everything this movie wants to say was already told thousand times, the characters are far too thinly portrayed to become memorable, the 'shocking events' that occur are also poorly illustrated and become unimportant. This film relies only on the self-induced emotions, on the 'we must' hype. Someone was found murdered so 'WE MUST' feel sad, frightened or panicked, someone went through this and that so 'WE MUST' feel in a certain way. That's baloney. Because a movie is a piece of fiction, nothing is for real here. So the only true emotions are those that you discover when you wander deep into it's world(the movie's, that is)<br /><br />*/* * * * *

This is a true '80's movie': Back then they made maybe 100 times more movies than nowadays, and that makes many of them quite interesting... It was a cultural phenomenon, that don't exist anymore. Nowadays maybe the same kind of people that would have made cheap 'straight-to-video'-movies in the eighties, are doing cheap porn. Porn seems to sell. Anyway, this is above the medium trash-movie level: It has good&fascinating story, and it's quite well made I think. In one scene you can even see the microphone swinging on the upper edge of the picture. Of course there are also little cameos by Ozzy and Gene Simmons, but they don't very much contribute to the film 'success', although they are good in their small roles. The monster,heavy-singer 'Sammi Curr', looks really terrible, especially when he's singing. One of the scariest monsters I've seen in horror flicks. I may have nightmares of him next night. Not recommended for intellectual movie lovers.

This film came out 12 years years ago, and was a revelation even for people who knew something of the drag scene in New York. The textbooks on drag performance say nothing of these vogueing houses. Anthony Slide's 'Great Pretenders' says nothing. Julian Fleisher's 'The Drag Queens of New York: An Illustrated Field Guide' with its flow chart of influence that pulls together Julian Eltinge, Minette, the Warhol queens, and the 90s club scene - and postdates the film - ignores the houses completely. Even Laurence Senelick's 'The Changing Room' - the closest thing that we have to a definitive book on drag performance rushes quickly past the film and does not give the background information that one would have expected from it.<br /><br />I understand from the film itself,and various articles I found on the web that this house system goes back decades. The major film performance by a house member prior to 1990 seems to be Chrystal La Beija in 'The Queen', 1968. The historical context is the biggest missing part of 'Paris is Burning'.<br /><br />The film is valuable because it focuses on a scene otherwise being ignored. It is a valuable snapshot of life in 1989. The unfortunate fact that Venus Xtravaganza was murdered during filming provides a very dramatic ending, but this is not the only film about transsexuals to include a real-life murder. As we now know, Dorian Corey had a mummified corpse in her literal closet, but this did not come out until three years later.<br /><br />Of historical importance, but we still need someone to do either a book or a documentary film that provides more context.

I highly reccommend this movie. It blurs the line between childhood fantasy and everyday reality in such a seamless fashion that it has to be seen to be believed. The actors and director have such perfect timing that in one scene a name calling fight becomes a sort of dance. I loved the story line, the actors, everything. While I do think there were one or two decidedly cheesy scenes, over-all the movie was impeccably done.

Yes, Keaton looks like he really did enjoy making this film. With a skip in his step in his tailored pin-striped suits, he'll remind you of Jimmy Cagney! Johnny (Keaton) is the young hood who only does it to pay for his mother's high-priced medical bills & to send his younger brother (Griffin Dunne) to law school. No one even knows Johnny Kelly IS Johnny Dangerously until later on in the film. Joe Piscopo is Vermin & doesn't like Johnny one bit (& I don't like Vermin). Marilu Henner has a nice singing/dancing routine while Johnny revels in it. I love the part when they're in the ever-changing getaway car! The cop who's 'calling all cars' is the Skipper from Gilligan's Island! See this one for 1930's gangster laughs! The gags in this film are hilarious but you have to catch them or you'll miss them! Look in the background of every scene.

This is easily one of the best movies of the 1950s. Otto Preminger directed only four or five really good movies and this is one of them. Frank Sinatra gives his best performance and the music score by Elmer Bernstein is dynamite. From the opening titles (by Saul Bass) to the hysteria of drug addict Frank going cold turkey, this is a riveting movie! With Kim Novak (giving a very good performance), Eleanor Parker (giving a very bad performance) as well as Darren McGavin as the reptilian pusher and Arnold Stang as Frank's grifter pal. Beware of bad prints: this movie is in the public domain so some copies are pretty rough.

A poorly-paced sf/horror venture that takes itself much too seriously, memorable only for (a) the beautiful Mathilda May wandering around naked through the chaos and (b) terrible miscasting. It has a few mildly gruesome effects and startling moments, and some unintentionally funny scenes, but is mostly a waste of time.

There are two ways to regard 'Head'. Either it is a dazzling, mind-blowing collage of music, old film clips, psychedelia and T.V. sitcom-style comedy, or a plot less, pretentious, rambling mess. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. It is also one of the best movies of all time.<br /><br />'The Monkees' - Davy Jones, Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz, and Mike Nesmith - had just finished their hit series, and wanted to do a movie. In collaboration with writer Jack Nicholson and director Bob Rafelson, they made 'Head'.<br /><br />It begins at a bridge opening ceremony in San Francisco, where the Monkees gate crash the proceedings. Mickey jumps over the safety rail, plunging hundreds of feet into the water. Mermaids rescue him to the accompaniment of a gorgeous Jerry Goffin & Carole King composition called 'The Porpoise Song' and visuals that make the Stargate finale of '2001' look drab by comparison. By now you will either have switched off in puzzled disgust or be completely captivated.<br /><br />More bizarre happenings unfold; Mickey uses a tank to destroy a Coca-Cola machine in the middle of the desert; the entire Italian Army surrenders to him; the group are hired to play to play the dandruff in Victor Mature's hair for a television commercial; an overweight waitress insults the group, describing them as 'God's gift to the eight year old's'; a surprise birthday party for Mike goes wrong; the group are sucked into a vacuum cleaner, and to cap it all, are driven away inside a giant glass tank.<br /><br />You will either hate this or love it. I found it a refreshing change from mindless pop musicals of the 'let's do the show right here' variety. The songs are good too; 'Daddy's Song' is superbly choreographed by Toni Basil ( later to appear in Rafelson's 'Easy Rider' ) and boasts wonderful editing, with Davy's clothes changing colour at lightning speed. 'As We Go Along' is a lovely Goffin & King number whose accompanying images carry a strong environmentalist message.<br /><br />Frank Zappa, Annette Funicello are just two of the guest stars to crop up. Did Victor Mature read the script before agreeing to do this, one wonders? He's hilarious in it though.<br /><br />So mad there just has to be real genius behind it, 'Head' is a little '60's gem and one worth revisiting time and time again. Shame it did not find an audience at the time. If only 'Spiceworld' had been like this!

The father of the Who's alcoholic drummer, Keith Moon, was named Arthur. I found so many similarities between Dudley Moore and Keith Moon in this movie. Liza Minelli, who usually OVERACTS, did quite a good job in this one, and was able to turn cheek on Dudley Moore in every turn. Yes, I agree, Sir John stole absolutely every scene. It was a very 'different' movie, enabling the viewer to have a glimpse into another life. We often try to catch a rerun of this movie on satellite. God rest Dudley Moore; this was such an enjoyable movie. Much satire and thumbs down to the rich and snobby/affluent. The close friendship between Moore and Sir John is rather endearing.

Separate LIES changed my life. Actually, the Q&A did.<br /><br />SPOILERS BELOW. Read only if you watch trailers or if you've already seen it:<br /><br />The Emily Watson character cheats on the Tom Wilkonson character. My first reaction to the puppy-dog-eyed Emily was 'It's Over. Dump her. Bad riddance.' For some reason, he stuck around. Not in a pathetic way. He just listened. And tried to accept her needs. At times he needed to leave. But he stuck by her and let her live her life. But I still wanted to see her <br /><br />Afterwards, Julian, the screenwriter and director, talked about the film. I'm glad he did, because frankly I am too you and was too immature to get the point before he broke it down for me. <br /><br />Tom's character loved her, and no matter how much her pursuit of her needs might disagree with what he wants, he would always love her. The relationship and love they shared wasn't a lie, all of a sudden, just because she wanted to be with someone else. The fact that she wanted to be with someone else didn't make her who she was. When you get past fifty, there's a strong chance that finding the love of your life won't come around again, so you can't be as dismissive as you were when you were younger. You have to try and make things work, because the alternative may be much worse.<br /><br />She needed what she needed, and she couldn't help that. He had to learn to let go of her if he wanted to be the full man he could be. He helped her in pursuit of her lover, even when it hurt him.<br /><br />Another thing: Julian said that the strongest tool of a controller is guilt. <br /><br />Again: The strongest tool of a controller is guilt.<br /><br />At the end of the film, Tom released her from her burden. He felt a need to let her know that he loved her, but not to in order to get her back; he wanted to let her know she didn't need to feel guilty or think poorly about the relationship, just because it ended in such a terrible way.<br /><br />It is not my way to review a film based on the message, rather than the execution, especially when I understand that message better when it is explained to me by the director, but I make an exception here, as I feel one more mature than I would benefit from seeing the film.<br /><br />The execution of the film-making was a nice, British pace. Rupert was slimy and revolting. Tom and Emily were their usually solid, real characters.

Unhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.<br /><br />3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.<br /><br />And then there's the twist ending. The 'expected' unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.<br /><br />If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the 'WOW, that's what it was all this time' ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees.

Not many movies were made about the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) aspect of aviation, but this is one of them and it's damn good. Just a fun film to watch.<br /><br />Most of the movie takes place at the Navy blimp operations at NAS Lakehurst (with NAS Tustin playing the role). Wallace Beery plays a likable but Munchausen-like Senior Chief Ned Trumpet, an enlisted pilot, whose tall tales have gotten so frequent nobody really believes him. Half the fun is near the end of the movie when events start proving that most of his more outlandish tales are actually true.<br /><br />Set during WWII, the main plot centers around bachelor Trumpet wooing a local widow only to end up having a father-son relationship with the widow's crippled son, Jess. Told he would never walk without crutches by doctors, Chief Trumpet pulls some strings and a Navy flight surgeon helps in restoring the lad's crippled leg. Jess goes on to join the Navy to become a flight officer, flying blimps back at Lakehurst and facing a whole new set of challenges.<br /><br />A very well-done movie, albeit not without some corny Hollywood dialogue slipping past the technical advisers, and Beery's apparent inability to march in step. Otherwise this movie gets good grades for technical accuracy, and gives a rare look into the Navy's LTA operations. The Cash Register Scene, an exchange between Trumpet and Jess's future love interest Cathy, is an absolute hoot.

I had seen Rik Mayall in Blackadder and the New Statesman, so I thought I'd give this film a try.<br /><br />At around 4 pm I bought it, at around 8pm I started to watch, at around 8.15pm I fast forwarded the remaining film to see if there was anything left watchable for a human being with a brain... but there wasn't. At around 8.45pm I threw the DVD into the dustbin. And that's where this 'film' belongs.<br /><br />What ever happened to British humour? The humour so fine and witty, intelligent and artful that you find in Yes, Minister, Blackadder, Vicar of Dibley, Fawlty Towers or The Fast Show? The black humour Britain is so famous for? I don't want to insult anybody, but I presume even stupid children wouldn't find this funny. They deserve more intelligent fun. And Rik Mayall, you can do better, so please, do!

First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.<br /><br />The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.<br /><br />Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.<br /><br />The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.<br /><br />Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.

I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.

I have watched this movie at least ten times. I do not agree with the previous comments. This is a tongue in cheek movie and some of the acting is meant to be stilted. Men like Paul Cowley are few and far between, women like Linda, unfortunately, are a dime a dozen. The sad thing here is that although similiar relationships like this rarely lead to murder and frame ups, it is an all to familiar scenario. Boy worships girl, girl doesn't know he exists, they grow up, man sees woman he fantasized about down and out and rescues her. Bottom line, she never did love him-he came along at the right time and she used him. Thomas is excellent as the nerdy but adequate Paul. His portrayal is sensitive and touching. Madsen is perfect as the femme-fatale. What really moved me was the final scene. Paul says he eventually cried, but not for Linda, his wife, but for the unknown girl he had watched from a distance so many years ago..and longed for..and loved. And I loved the close-up of Thomas at the end.

I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old 'Twilight Zone' series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait.

For a long time, I, a fan of 'The Monkees' TV series, refused to watch 'Head' because it was not about the TV show characters, who were warm and wonderful. 'Head', instead, was said to be a cynical, dark movie. Finally, curiosity caused me to cave in. I didn't, of course, find a new episode to the TV show, but a fascinating movie that appeals to my dark side.<br /><br />I have always been fascinated by dreams, and 'Head' was very much like watching someone else's dream, with incomplete hints of stories, and a small detail at the end of one scene causing the film to segue off in a new direction, very much in a dreamlike stream of consciousness manner. The unfinished stories really make my imagination run wild, time and time again!<br /><br />The film also features very striking, beautiful cinematography, the epitome being the black-on-white, white-on-black look of 'Daddy's Song'. The music is haunting, especially the lush arrangement of 'The Porpoise Song'. ('The Porpoise Song' is the favorite song of my dark side, while my bright side prefers 'Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah'.)<br /><br />In the end, I think the TV series could have used some of 'Head''s drama, intrigue, and intensity. But 'Head' could have used some of the TV show's warmth, humor, and friendship.

An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.

The unpleasant 'home invasion' genre can be traced back to Wes Craven's early sleazefest 'Last House On The Left', with such nasty off-shoots as 'I Spit On Your Grave', 'Wrong Way' and 'The Visitors' soon following in the footsteps of that film. Here, in this early '80s Italian offering the same plot is regurgitated once more, with the twist being that this one is set on a continental train. 'La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto' – known in English-speaking countries as 'Terror Express' – starts out surprisingly well but about twenty minutes in it takes a turn for the worse, as the sex scenes start to gain precedence over the more serious action and suspense.<br /><br />David, Phil and Ernie, three rich youths who wallow in terrorising and humiliating others, board a trans-continental express in Italy. The train is full of other passengers, among them prostitute Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) who rides the train frequently and has struck up a deal with one of the porters to act as a kind of pimp, persuading the male passengers to part with their cash for a night of passion in her sleeping compartment. The three cretins quickly set about upsetting the passengers with their aggressive, drunken behaviour, but matters get more serious when they seize control of an entire car on the express and barricade themselves in from the rest of the train. Pretty soon, they are revelling in their temporary control…. a young wife (Zora Kerova) is raped by two of the youths in a cramped compartment; Juliette herself is subjected to a prolonged sexual assault; and later the odious trio force the male passengers to role a dice in order to decide which one will rape a 16 year old virgin travelling with her parents (a concept made doubly tasteless by the fact that her father is one of the men forced to play the game). The only passenger who seems prepared to fight back is a convict who is being escorted to Germany, but what hope does one man have against three armed thugs? <br /><br />La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto gets off to a decent start. Various intriguing characters are introduced, and the three hoodlums are shown to have a genuinely unsettling influence over the travellers. Though the story is clearly the stuff of exploitation, the opening scenes are built up carefully and the film seems to be rising above the usual gutter-level of its genre. Things fall apart during a horrid scene in which Kerova is sex-sandwiched in a toilet compartment by two of the thugs. The scene is gloatingly filmed, and the effect does not seem to be to generate sympathy for the victim or hatred towards the perpetrators… instead, we are being asked to feel turned on. This is sensationalism at its worst. Further humiliating rapes follow, but the rape sequences involve too much lingering camera work over acts of oral sex and the female genitalia. One sequence featuring the 16 year old girl teeters on the brink of hard core and feels particularly 'wrong'. By the end of La Ragazza Del Vagone Letto it is easy to forget that it was intended as a thriller, for the final hour of the film is dedicated to pornography rather than suspense. Lovers of sleaze will revel in it; others might want to look elsewhere.

96 minutes of this is cruel..and I love the old Munster's. Yes, the plot is thing; yes the lines are trite; but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. There is so much 'intrigue' (and I use that word with great pause) that I wonder if it's an old Starsky & Hutch episode. I lost count of the number of times I noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. Refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid-60's (ludicrous) the producers simply replace Marilyn & Eddie with younger actors. Why not let them grow and age? The addition of an Addam's Family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the Halloween Party.<br /><br />Grandpa & Herman fly to Transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous.) Sid Ceaser is the most, yes the most unbelievable character (I am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish & yiddish but claims to be an ancient Arabic ruler. And yes, it looks like the laugh track is missing. In fact, there are several spots where there is dead air, as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. The actors seem to wait on the faux audience. It's not laughable; it's sad. Oh, and the best part! Yvonne DeCarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. Marilyn says something like: 'Where could Uncle Herman and Grandpa be? They could have been in an accident. They could have been hit by a car...or a train!' Lily says responds with something like: 'You're Uncle Herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track.' What's amazing about this is: Yvonne DeCarlo's husband was a stuntman in the early 60's and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. He never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out Biography's fantastic review of her life and career) This line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her.<br /><br />If you are a real fan of the Munster's then you'll have to RENT this mess. It illustrates how some things are better left alone. Even with the (nearly) original cast, this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago.

its not as good as the first movie,but its a good solid movie its has good car chase scenes,on the remake of this movie there a story for are hero to drive fast as his trying to rush to the side of his ailing wife,the ending is great just a good fair movie to watch in my opinion,<br /><br />

As a Westerner watching another culture's view and tradition of marriag, I found Just Married mesmerizing and delightful. The idea of marrying a stranger through the mutual arrangement of parents is difficult, especially in this modern age. Yet this is the case in this Hindi film. Told with humor, and fresh perspective, we learn of Abhay and Ritika who have only met once and are now on their traditional five day honeymoon. As said, it is difficult to believe in this cell phone affluent age that such an archaic custom as an arranged marriage still take place. We see the awkwardness that this young couple feels as they come together on their first night, and how they try to forge a bond, even though they do not know one another. We see different views of marriage and commitment as presented by the other couples also on holiday, from a couple of forty years married to others still unsure of making marital commitment. There's song, witty dialog, poignant moments, blending and comparison of new ways and tradition. Watching the movie with subtitles definitely loses some of the trueness of the story, yet it is still a delight to watch. Granted some of the plot is a little trite and the bus incident a bit drawn out and contrived; however the overall movie was worth watching.

If you like horror movies with lots of blood and gore, tons of jump-scare moments and unrelenting, escalating scenes of excruciating death, then look elsewhere. If you like quiet, moody, thoughtful horror which casts blood aside in favor of a genuine feeling of dread, then Wendigo is for you.<br /><br />Thoughtful, stressed out George, his psychoanalyst wife Kim and their young son Miles are heading out to the snowy countryside for a long weekend vacation away from the city. On the way up, George hits a stag with his car. The hunters who had been pursuing the deer are not thrilled when they find that George has ended their chase. In particular, deranged hunter Otis takes it personally. He follows the family to their vacation home, making sure they see him. He spies on George and Kim as they have sex. He fires through their windows with his rifle when they aren't home, letting them discover the ominous holes in their windows and walls when they return. When Kim takes Miles to the drugstore in town, Miles is attracted to a small sculpture in a display case, carved to resemble a man with the head of a stag. A Native American man tells Miles that this is the Wendigo, a spirit of the woods who has a taste for flesh and is always hungry. Miles takes the figure home with him, already haunted by the death of the deer the day before. That afternoon, when he and his father go sledding, George is shot and Miles pursued through the woods by a creature barely glimpsed...or is he just in shock, and imagining the whole thing? Hours later, George is rushed to the hospital and Miles, still clutching his statue, either faints, dreams or goes on a vision quest, in which the Wendigo returns. This time the angry, flesh eating god - part tree, part stag and part man - is hunting for Otis, who has finally gone over the edge.<br /><br />Wendigo is a beautifully made film, almost totally silent but for the wind howling through the snow covered trees. Okay, so the monster itself is kind of fakey-looking, but it's a small flaw, more than made up for by the genuine feeling of tension and dread that creeps through every frame of the film, and the eerie backdrop of the silent, snowy countryside. The performances are great, particularly by Jake Weber as the moody and thoughtful George and Patricia Clarkson as his sweet but no-nonsense wife. They are a happy couple with their share of common problems, and it is the strength of their relationship and their love for each other that makes this film powerful. Watching this film is often like watching someone's home videos, so realistic are the performances. <br /><br />This movie is not for everyone. A lot of people may find themselves totally bored, waiting for the hideous Lovecraftian Beast and bloody revenge that never come. We can never really be sure if the Wendigo even exists, seen as it is through the eyes of a sensitive child and also, later, through the eyes of a madman. This is more a psychological drama than a horror film, but it has more than enough creepy elements in it to satisfy fans of subtle horror.

Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.<br /><br />What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase 'the real story of 'Ma BArker and her boys...', and the standard 'any similarity to actual persons...' disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.<br /><br />Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.<br /><br />However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.<br /><br />Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with 'Take The Girl!'?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 / 10 is what I must vote.

It is disappointing to see as talented an actor as Amitabh Bachchan in such a weak role, especially when he was beyond sensational in BLACK (which I highly recommend). One line in the film states: 'Sakar is not a mere man, he is a thought and a philosophy.' Director Ram Gopal Varma credits THE GODFATHER as an inspiration for this movie, and perhaps that is the problem. It seems like a badly mangled American movie set in India. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film-making--acting, continuity, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and production sets--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with 5 given as a average score. The film continuity seems high, an 8, by maintaining a violent tone infused with drama in places, and using justice outside the legal system as motivation. However, there seems to be a lack of emotion connected with the evil of organized crime. The acting rates a 4, it appears too weak, even when someone is being beaten or murdered, it seems hoohum. For example, when one character is shot in the forehead, I found myself wondering if, or when, he was going to fall. He does not, and ala Ronald Reagan he is placed in an automobile, with his bleeding face cradled ala John F. Kennedy. The plot rates a 5 as an example of American-style gangsterism, with a family oriented Robinhood at its head. Character development appears static, and the characters seem like chess pieces on an abandoned chess board, thereby earning a rank of 3. The dialogue seems stilted, and appears to be forced to fit some Bowery pattern of speech--a 4 for dialogue. Production sets look to be below average--a 4. And, artistry is puzzling, with far too many close-ups, too rapid panning, and too many group scenes where the actors seem over rehearsed--a 3. To me, too much camera movement is disruptive. The average of the Left Elbow Index is 4.4, and with a slight deduction based on poor derivatism it moves down to a 4. Two questions continually arise in the film: one, why are so many people eating so often: and, two, does not India have its own brand of organized crime? Do films like this have to be so dependent on Western cultural examples? As much as I like Amitabh Bachchan, I cannot recommend this film.

Shirley MacLaine in another tailor-made role. As the aunt to a single mom in a 1962 working-class Chicago neighborhood, the veteran character actress gets another work-out as a gutsy woman who won't let any set-backs defeat her spirit of success. The children, a pre-teen boy and girl, are drawn to their spirited Aunt Zoe, although the many magic tricks and practical jokes learned from her, and applied at all the wrong opportunities eventually get them expelled from school.<br /><br />The plot is cleverly enveloped in the Cuban Missile Crisis, with all of the social implications. Men building bomb shelters, people watching news programs on what seemed to be the only TV set, at a diner, and a general mist of uneasiness and fear in the air. When a 'harmless' miracle is blown out of proportions, the climactic conclusion nonetheless makes the viewer feel good. Yes, Virginia, the sun will come up tomorrow! Clearly a small-budget production, this is still a sweet little film, filled with the magic that Sunday Matinees were made of. With a few choice 'Oldies' thrown into an effective Sound Track, the whole family is sure to enjoy this one.****

Kurt Russell IS Elvis, plain and simple. His dedication to this role resulted in what I think, is the best movie bio ever. If you're an Elvis fan, see it if you can.<br /><br />The made-for-television film was made two years after Elvis' death.<br /><br />One piece of advice, there are two versions - one at 180 minutes and one at 117 minutes. The only one to watch is the longer one. The shorter one has more than one hour of footage edited out. It just does not work because the scenes in it are often dependent on the scenes that were cut.<br /><br />This masterpiece takes you from Elvis childhood through his emergence as entertainment's greatest star. Shelley Winters and Bing Russell (Kurt's real dad) are excellent as Elvis' parents. And Pat Hingle delivers a very competent Col. Tom Parker.<br /><br />Long live the King!

This movie is a haunting telling of the life of the author and poet, Mishima. It jumps around through his past, through his last day, and through some of his stories but is expertly constructed as it moves from section to section. It captures the flavor of the man, his work and of his times...the difficult 1960s.<br /><br />I think the most wonderful parts (literally, full of 'wonder') are the excerpts from his works. The sets (especially designed to work with the camera) are amazing....stylized, beautiful and effective. They could be used as exemplars for any set designer. I woke up at night dreaming of the Golden Pagoda. <br /><br />The stories were powerful explorations of the nature of man and of art. After watching this film, I wanted to learn more about the works of this artist.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie for anyone interested in art, poetry, theater, politics, or Japanese history.

To begin with, I have to admit I've never been a big fan of the Dutch movie-genre. Unfortunately watching De Dominee hasn't made me change my mind. It shares some common flaws, like having a plot that's too predictable and linear for my taste. <br /><br />Worse however is that the cast has their dialogues as if they were stage-actors in a play. Unfortunately this is common too in many Dutch movies and, at least to me, makes it impossible to feel any kind of involvement with the main characters.<br /><br />The actor that plays Adri (I'm sorry, I forgot his name at the moment) is at least delivering a decent performance, and is one of the reasons I don't rate this movie even worse.Another reason is the fact that at least it seems to have had some budget, and the production seems professional. <br /><br />Ironically the fact that the acting is often too articulated might not be so much of a problem if you don't speak Dutch,although I already warned you that the plot isn't spectacular either, but at least it might make it an acceptable movie to watch.

Those who are not familiar with Cassandra Peterson's alter-ego Elvira, then this is a good place to start.<br /><br />'Elvira, Mistress of the Dark' starts off with our heroine with the gravity defying boobs receiving a message. It seems that a great aunt of hers has died and that she needs to be present for the reading of the will. Anxious to raise money for a show she wants to open in Las Vegas, she decides to go in hopes of getting lots and lots of money.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the place she has to go is the town of Fallwell, Massachusetts. Having to stay a spell due to her car breaking down, she finds out that her great aunt left her 3 things: a house, a dog and a cookbook. The town residents have mixed reactions:the teens like her, the women hate her, and the men lust after her (Although trying to remain moral pillars of the community). Her worst problem turns out to be her great uncle Vincent (W. Morgan Sheppard), because he wants her cookbook. Seems that the cookbook is a book of spells that will make him a more powerful warlock.<br /><br />The film is actually pretty funny, with Peterson a.k.a. Elvira using her 'endowments' and sexiness as a joke ('And don't forget, tomorrow we're showing the head with two things... I mean the thing with two heads'). Especially funny as Edie McClurg as Chastity Pariah, the woman that works her hardest to keep the town in line, but ends up looking ridiculous (The picnic scene is the perfect example). Deserves a peek (The film, not her boobs, of course).

This movie was horrible. I swear they didn't even write a script they just kinda winged it through out the whole movie. Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watch it* They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been long gone. The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track him with out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 Assault SHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eight shells?? It would take 1000's of shells to cut down a tree that size.) Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. And they even saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn't see a scope on that thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that was retarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where he stuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn't blow up and kill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel.

This film is amazing and I would recommend to child and adult alike. The animation is beautiful, the characters are rich and interesting, and the story is captivating; far better than anything the American studios were producing at the time. However, there is a couple of caveats to this statement. It's a shame that Disney bought the Studio Ghibli back-catalogue and then proceeded to butcher it. My main point being, Disney re-dubbed the film, despite the original English version being very impressive. The new cast with Van Der Beek et al ruined it and took away much of the attractiveness of the characters e.g. Pazu and Sheeta went from adventurous companions to whiny teenagers. The Original music score is also far better than the Disney remix. It begs the question why did Disney make such changes? It seems to me is that by having Van Der Beek et al being cast then Disney can draw in more money, which is fair enough, but in the process they tainted they film. It is still a beautiful film and I would still recommend it to anyone. My main beef is that Disney ruined a film from childhood which I loved and still love. I am lucky enough to have an original Japanese import with the original English dub which I am now going to guard with my life!

I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.<br /><br />'666: The Child' is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than 'Godsend') with scenes that rip from 'The Omen' without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way 'The Omen' ends. <br /><br />Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing.

Little Gus is a ten year old delinquent. He runs away from his parents and decides to go on a road-trip. Reaching the petal is somewhat tough for him, so he creates a device to help him. His goal is to win a gimmicky lottery type card game called Motorama. He has to find all eight letters in order to spell M-O-T-O-R-A-M-A. Dark laughter follows as it turns into the road-trip from hell. He runs into some deranged Lynch like characters. Most memorable is the gas station attendant, who puts his picture on a kite in hopes that God will see it. Later Gus gets a tattoo and an eye-patch for his injured eye. He becomes one of the most rebellious bad-ass 10 year olds you may ever witness on screen. This is no kid's flick! Look for cameos by Jack Nance, Flea and Drew Berrymore. Be warned although Drew is on the front cover, she only appears in the film in a dream sequence for a couple seconds. Also the film gets confusing towards the end reaching David Lynch territory, you may want to watch it a couple times. 'Motorama' was written by Joseph Minion, most well known for his screenplays for 'After Hours' and 'Vampire's Kiss' So enjoy this depraved surreal road-trip of fun!

This movie is actually FUNNY! If you'd like to rest your brain for an hour so then go ahead and watch it. It's called blonde and blonder, so don't expect profound and meaningful jokes. What this movie and enjoy all the stereotypes we have about two blondes. It's just a funny movie to watch on a date or with a company of friends (especially if you're not too sober. Lol ) Pamela and Denise are still pretty hot chicks. It's a mistake to judge this movie as a piece of art. C'mon, this movie is about BLONDES! It's supposed to be light, funny and superficial. One more thing, I do not think that girls will appreciate and like this movie but guy definitely will.

I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool.

Perfect for families with small children who are looking for lighthearted films that contain no violence and are enthralling for the child and amusing, albeit, completely corny, to adults. Not a bad film for a low-budget job. Children will be amazed with Santa's workshop and the 'magic' that enables him to enter homes through chimneys that appear too small, or homes that have no chimneys at all!<br /><br />Kids will thrill over the Santa's success at thwarting the nasty devil named Pitch (complete in classic red outfit with horns and tail!). They will sympathize with the poor little girl who's greatest wish is to have a little doll to love. And the poor little rich boy who only wishes to spend time with his forever absent parents. And what child does not know someone at school who are just like the nasty boys that are enlisted by Pitch to help capture Santa and ruin Christmas? In the end, everyone, including the nasty boys, get just what they deserve for Christmas!<br /><br />The film will endear children to both Santa and the message of love he delivers to people throughout the world.<br /><br />