Datasets:

ajaykarthick

/

imdb-movie-reviews

like 4

Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor McLaglen are three soldiers in 19th Century India who, with the help of a water boy (Sam Jaffe) rid the area of the murderous thuggee cult. The chemistry between the actors helps make this one of the most entertaining movies of all time. Sam Jaffe is exceptional as the outcast water boy who is mistreated by all and still wants to be accepted as a soldier in the company. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem. A must see by anyone who enjoys this type of movie.

I really really liked this one. I know, it's rampant with what are now cliché plot lines, and plenty of overacting, but it was hell of a lot of fun.<br /><br />In our quest for 70's and 80's horror cheese, we come across many flicks that are so bad they're good. We also have some that are so 'good' they suck, and then, we have some that are so bad they are just bad. This is definitely so bad it's good.<br /><br />Some teens traveling come across an 'oasis' in the middle of nowhere, a forgotten slice of roadside America, and they decide to 'check it out.' They cross every line of inappropriate until it is absurd and they pay for it. They pay dearly.<br /><br />I would not normally give a movie like this a 9, but the girls in this one are the type that we miss from the 1970's: ditzy, scantily-clad and FIT. These aren't the anorexic broads from today's horrible horror; they look awesome in booty shorts.<br /><br />I give it a 9 out of 10, kids.

Before Tuscan Sky, I saw Diane Lane's tender performance in this otherwise lark of a movie. Campers are invited to the camp of their youth and experience it as adults. Each of those that return seem to be looking for something they lost, which makes it so realistic. Maybe you had to be a camper to really get it, but in the words of one character noticing all her clothes were wet 'this is so camp!' From the practical jokes and fighting over boyfriends, to the scary lunch lady and the early morning bell ... it's amp. Once exciting activities now seem mundane. A terrific ensemble cast makes the best of one-two dimensional roles and makes them believable. Bill Paxton, Diane, Elizabeth, Mrs. Brad Paisley (probably when he first fell for her!!) The beautiful scenery, bright colors, comical music (including variations of Hello Muddah)and a comic acting turn by noted director Sam Raimi makes this a movie you can pull out again and again like looking up an old friend.

Cheap, amateurish, unimaginative, exploitative... but don't think it'll have redeeming amusement value. About as unentertaining, uninstructive and just plain dull as a film can be.

The first in the series was brilliant, easily one of the best Horror films of all time. This is the crappiest. When I sat down to watch this, I was actually thinking that how bad the fourth and fifth ones were, this would have to be good after the previous terrible ones. Boy was I wrong. Incredibly wrong.<br /><br />When I watched the first ten minutes of it, I was actually really tempted to turn it off, but I thought no, maybe it'll improve. It didn't.<br /><br />Not only is this just a dire film by itself, it didn't need another sequel, because the last two (fourth and fifth) had already been terrible enough! Also, how many times can you bring Freddy back!? The acting in it was TERRIBLE, the story-line was predictable and crap and it also had flaws in it as well. The way they made Springwood was just totally wrong. Pays no respect to the first one at-all. To add to this, the whole thing seemed really over-the-top.<br /><br />Some people are saying that this film was 'funny'. This film is not 'funny' at all. Since when is Freddy Krueger supposed to be 'funny'? I would call it funnily crap. This film is supposed to be a Horror film, not a comedy. If Freddy had a daughter, wouldn't that information have surfaced like in the first one!? The ending was also just plain stupid and cheesy, exactly like the rest of it. This one completely destroys the essence and uniqueness of the first one. Just shows itself up.<br /><br />Such a shame that Wes Craven created something so good in the beginning, yet it has to be dragged down because of this trash that belongs in the bin. They shouldn't have even bothered making this film. Nor any of the other sequels, except the third one. The third one's the only decent one out of all the sequels.<br /><br />If this was a DVD by itself and not part of the Nightmare On Elm Street DVD set that I got, I would have chucked it out when I got it.<br /><br />Summary: A pathetic and poor attempt at a sequel.<br /><br />- a complete MOCKERY of the first film <br /><br />So please, don't waste your time on this worthless junk.

Recently when i was shopping, i saw the box-set of Americian Gothic, and i thought 'I remember that!' I used to set my alarm to get back up & watch this when it was on CH 4 in 1996 at 1.30am (i was 14). I remember it mostly because it was really scary and weird, no person could ever be as frightening as Lucas Buck (with a B!!) No one ever was anyway. <br /><br />What annoyed me though was they did the same thing to the box-set as when on TV. Episodes in funny order, I kept thinking when does Dr Matt leave??? - they made it so confusing. <br /><br />However this is not the writers, producers or directors fault (its TV people in background the money makers They still do the same - Just look at shows like Carnivale and Farscape they don't like originality in studios!!!!!)<br /><br />To finish - If you've not seen this and you call yourself a Sci-Fi Fantasy, Horror, supernatural drama..Fan = YOU MUST. They even said the same in SFX when reviewing the box-set.

Hmm, IMDb rating of 7.5, good comments, bla, bla ... okay, two of my friends and me, we orderd Pizza, sat down and wanted to see something as cool as Ichi or at least something brainless but funny like Versus. But Naked Blood sucked. It's a complete waste. Okay, the scene with the woman who likes to eat is quite outstanding. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't summerize the plot, other people did already, I just wanted to stop the hype. But watch it and rate for yourself. Maybe we can push the rating where it sould be. One more thing that comes to my mind: the soundtrack is even worse than Carpenter ever was - okay, John's cool ... :) 2/10

I liked Half-Life. I am still it's fan. It was frightening, intelligent and challenging. I don't tell any news it is one the best FPS ever made. Maybe I'm too hardcore Half-Life fan but the so called Half-Life 2 is not Half-Life 2.<br /><br />And I have a question: is THIS the next chapter of Half-Life? Maybe the creators -Valve- thinks so but I don't. Where are the intelligent enemies? Where is the frightening atmosphere? Nowhere. I believe they wanted to make a bit different Half-Life (instead of another research station story), but they didn't just made a very different one, they made something that has to do with Half-Life like for example Quake does to Doom. The entire game so unsightly and unreal that it's almost forlorn.<br /><br />Though the physics are truly great and there were a few good level to play, the idea to make a revolutionary physic-driven gameplay has utterly failed. When you get the Gravity-gun, that can move objects, you can expect with rights to use it as a weapon- that would turn the schematic FPS gameplay upside down. The truth is, you can't use Gravity-gun as a real weapon. Why? Because the best you can do is throwing boxes and barrels that don't do much damage. If you want to keep an object in front of you to protect it can fall from about 3 shots. If you want to throw an exploding barrel to your enemy it can explode in your own 'hand'. The gravity-gun doesn't work as a weapon. The best usage is solving some physic-puzzles. I ask Valve: Why? The truth is you must use your boring, schematic FPS weapons to the end(except for last level) Weapons are not that made original Half-life a classic. If Gravity-gun would be always like at the last level -a real weapon- I'd admire what Valve did. But not this. This is disappointing.<br /><br />So if you want Half-Life then you are searching at the wrong place. Maybe you will enjoy it but I repeat: it is everything but not Half-Life and even not a faithful continuation of that. This is the greatest disappointment of all time. Valve have shown they can make awful games too. They have managed that.

Charlotte Beal arrives at an isolated country mental hospital to become a full-time nurse there. She is confronted with a motley group of crazies and a seemingly crazier supervisor. Is Dr. Masters all she seems to be?<br /><br />DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT is one of the best low-budget movies in the genre and why people always put it down is beyond me. The acting is excellent, my favorite performance being by Betty Chandler as Allyson the nymphomaniac. The chills just jump right off the screen. You probably won't have to say 'It's only a movie, it's only a movie', it isn't that scary, but it should appeal to any horror fan who respects the low-budget horror genre, which I do. It is very hard to make a creepy film on a low budget and few actually succeed. AXE is another cheap film that is looked down upon. Maybe people are so spoiled by the big budgets of recent films that any movie that doesn't have excellent effects and/or isn't considered a classic doesn't have a chance with an audience. But I think that after people see this movie, they will see how important the low-budget horror genre is and this movie is a classic that stands out among the other rubbish.

Six out of seven people who took the time to comment on this movie have very positive responses. The one negative review happens to reside (or did) on the first page of the movie's location in the IMDb.<br /><br />I found 'What Alice Found' to be one of the best movies almost no one's heard of that I have seen this year. It's 6.4 rating is misleading and may be more a function of the difficult subject matter than the quality of the movie. Who would think that a movie purportedly about truck stop prostitution would be worth seeing? Guess again.<br /><br />For me, 'Alice' was a positively gripping psychological thriller. I was virtually on the edge of my seat the entire time. It's a very credible story with a realistic script and is very well cast. In a fairer world, actress Judith Ivey would win awards for keeping you guessing whether she was good or evil.<br /><br />Ignore the rating and see this terrific movie. (And by the way, I wish there was a soundtrack album.)

when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.<br /><br />what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary<br /><br />why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly<br /><br />take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!<br /><br />sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.<br /><br />i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie<br /><br />the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time<br /><br />expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it.

I came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others.

A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.<br /><br />This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.<br /><br />In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10

I saw this stage show when it was broadcast on PBS in 1983. I was involved in local theatre at the time and had seen some pretty incredible stuff out of the Dell Arte Players, but Bill Irwin floored me.<br /><br />I was most impressed at how a man of his size (he's quite tall and beefy) could fold himself up into a small box without so much as a pause for adjustment and move across the stage at a dead run without even a whisper of sound from his feet if he chose not to make any noise.<br /><br />Most amazing for me, though, in this performance, was the way he rose to his feet during the jack-in-the-box / marionette piece. Those who saw this show will recall that when he climbed from the box and collapsed to the floor with his body limp and limbs akimbo, he 'pulled' himself up by the top of his head as if by a string, and rose not just to his feet, but to a full ballet point—and did it in one fluid, seemingly effortless motion. Just consider the strength, grace, balance and focus such a series of movements must take in order to accomplish them the way he did! Add to his physical prowess his strong and believable characterization skills, and there lies a consummate actor / performer. My jaw dropped at the movement and my heart broke at the portrayal of a puppet who is determined to be more than just a lifeless thing in a box.<br /><br />As to the unfortunate (yes—'tragic' would be a better word) unavailability of this piece in home media form, I have noticed that much of PBS' works are not available on tape or DVD. Sometimes, PBS shows will be available for direct purchase from them for a limited time immediately following a broadcast, but they seldom stay on the market for long. There are exceptions, of course, but these are mainly the science and history documentaries; rarely does an arts piece remain in print for long—assuming it ever made it into VHS / DVD to begin with. I don't know why this should be so; certainly, PBS could use the income from home media marketing of their shows, but they don't take advantage of it much. This is a shame. There are many things I've watched on PBS that I wish to own, but pieces such as 'The Regard of Flight' are, I'm afraid, a one-shot, once in a lifetime treat, never to be repeated on PBS again and never to be available for home media purchase. That really sucks. I'm lucky to have caught it when I did.<br /><br />Oh, yeah—our local library did get a copy of 'The Regard of Flight.' And yes—it was stolen.

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

What can you expect from a direct to DVD film? You know what you are getting yourself into when you rent this. The quality of the cinematography reminds me of reality TV shows. <br /><br />Why are they shots always up so close to the actors!? And why are they always centered? There isn't anything to look at. (And the actors are that great looking, so that blows.)<br /><br />The writing and dialogue is just plain awful. That intro scene, with the British Guy is hilarious. Just try and listen this words, they hardly make any sense, just goes around in circles. The lines in the rest of the movie sounds like they were pull out of romance and sci-fi novels, as if the writers had no idea what they were doing. The characters definitely sound like they have no idea what they're saying. <br /><br />This is a terrible movie. I feel bad for the actors tied to this project. Embarrassing!

I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero.

If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.<br /><br />The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.<br /><br />The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.<br /><br />Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that How to Lose Friends and Alienate People was nowhere near as 'gross-out' a comedy as the trailer had led me to expect. I rapidly became absorbed in the unfolding of the narrative and remained engrossed throughout. Pacing of the more visual humorous content was, I thought, spot on. (I mean I got the impression I was witnessing Pegg's attempts at restoring lost control very much 'in real time', so to speak.) At other moments there was time allowed to share the main protagonists' (i.e. Pegg's and Dunst's) reflection on how events were affecting them and what had led them to where they now found themselves. All the characters were well cast, to some extent interesting in and of themselves, and generally quite likable. (Any apparent ruthless ambition displayed tended to be tempered by a corresponding good natured resilience.) An entertaining, intelligently scripted, brilliantly directed and superbly acted film that I would thoroughly recommend.

I have probably watched the movie 4 or 5 times. Every time, i get more and more impressed by how far the wish of a young heart can go, and the strenght of both Kai and Gertha to struggle for what they believe in.<br /><br />And the whole story is presented in such a way, you just get transfered into the plot and before you know it, you are there. you can see... yeah, there's Kai... working hard on the mirror... a little jump.... there's Gertha, fighting for her love..... and there's the Snow Queen...<br /><br />it's just a wonderful mix of love, adventure, tension.<br /><br />it's brilliant 10 out of 10

Keira Knightley and Sienna Miller stars in the story of two of the women in the life of Dylan Thomas. Knightley is Thomas's boyhood sweetheart he re-encounters during the Blitz. Meeting at a bar they reconnect, however things become complicated when Thomas' brings his wife (Miller) along the next time he meets her. The women hit it off and things proceed at pace until the trio are joined by the man who will become Knightly's husband. This further complicates things as jealousy begins to show its face.<br /><br />Beautiful to look at, extraordinarily written and wonderfully acted (everyone disappears completely into their roles) this is a sumptuous feast for the eyes and the ears. It's so nice to see a film about adults being adults. On a purely visceral level I really enjoyed watching the film because the film is so artistically pleasing. Rarely have I ever seen a film that is this beautifully crafted.<br /><br />The trouble with the film is I'm not entirely sure of everything that happened. Something seemed to be missing and a couple of times I had to replay the film to see if I missed something. Its not bad, but its not completely satisfying as a result. (I tried to look up on line to see how much of the film is true but I couldn't find anything) Still I think this is a film worth seeing. It's a beautiful film for adults with probably the best acting the leads have done.

In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a 'thinking man's horror film.' Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.

Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.<br /><br />1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)

There have been countless talking-animal films in the past, the majority of which either feature animals' mouths digitally animated to nearly match the voice acting, or are ridiculously amateur. 'Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey' is neither.<br /><br />This film doesn't need the infant-pleasing addition of moving canine lips, or gesturing feline limbs. It has the ability to make you believe that the animals are authentically talking to one another, and you can get rather emotionally attached to them at heart (as all great boy-and-and-his-dog films should).<br /><br />Homeward Bound is the epitome of all family-friendly animal romps to me, and boasts some beautiful cinematography, an inspiring soundtrack (from the genius of Bruce Broughton), and an impressive cast...<br /><br />Michael J. Fox ... Chance<br /><br />Sally Field ... Sassy<br /><br />Don Ameche ... Shadow<br /><br />Frank Welker (Voice God) ... Various<br /><br />It is a modernised version of the children's classic work of fiction 'The Incredible Journey', which was made into a semi-documentary film by Disney long long ago in 1963. The sequel (Lost in San Fransisco) isn't nearly as good a film, but extends the adventure of my favourite furry-footed friends, and is a fun urban-twist on the grand-outdoor-adventure theme. Want to entertain your children with a witty, pretty, heart-warming mini-epic, without the idiotic and often utterly ridiculous comedy of modern children's cinema? Parents, buy all three films for your children - now! Thank you, Disney, for bringing a tear to my eyes with each time I watch this early-90s classic!

The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new 'setting traps' piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10

Every once in awhile I'll remember that I've actually seen this bizarre fiasco that's a cross between 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?', 'Sunset Boulevard,' the Lana Turner LSD movie 'The Big Cube' and the Manson murders, which also took place in 1969 but maybe before this so-called 'movie' was made! There are some descriptions of the plot already here, so I won't go into it. But it's worth noting that Miriam Hopkins plays a parody of herself: a chattering, ego-maniacal, fading actress. Perhaps she thought she was making a movie that would be as successful as one of the Bette Davis horrors. The old gal Hopkins never stopped working, so you have to hand it to her. She shows a little too much flesh in this movie, something Davis and Crawford would never have done. And there's a scene with Miriam in the actual tacky Hollywood Boulevard Christmas parade, which must have been filmed Xmas, 1968.<br /><br />Gale Sondergard is old, old, old. It's just shocking how wrinkled and awful she looks. John Garfield, Jr. looks a bit like his father, but not as interesting. I think one of the Three Stooges is the tour guide at the beginning. If it's not one of the Stooges, it's somebody.<br /><br />I was astounded to come across this thing in the form of a commercial videotape given to me by a friend who knows all about junk like this. It's amazing!!!

I knew I was in for a LONG 90 minutes when the opening voice over mispronounced the word 'scarecrow' (it sounded like Scare Crew). And sure enough 90 minutes later, after witnessing beyond horrid acting, tedious drama, scarecrow's punches going nowhere near their intended target, but 'hitting' it anyway, Ken Shamrock 'acting', and the most stupid illogical ending, I've seen in my life (Ok, no, I take that last one back, in about a week). After making it through all that, I openly weeped that I couldn't just go to Lacuna a la Jim Carrey and just erase it completely from my mind. Any thoughts I might have had that Director Brian Katkin might have made an OK film given the right circumstances that I had after watching 'Slaughter Studios', are totally and completely gone from my mind now.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Tara Platt and Lisa Robert get topless <br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 22nd, 2005)

This has to be one of the most sincere and touching boy-meets-girl movies ever made. While 'Rebel Without a Cause' and 'Say Anything' deliver nice portrayals, this movies strips down useless subplots and Hollywood divergences. This movie focuses purely on watching the budding of a beautiful romance. You never doubt for a second that the film will lead towards the romantic pairing of these two people. You almost immediately sense the synergy and the chemistry between Jesse and Celine, and it is simply pure joy to watch them find it. This movie is mostly all dialogue -based. But, every conversation between these too is greatly intriguing. What makes this pairing so romantic is how real it is. How in all that conversation, while often having no real bearing on anything critical, you can sense the nuances as these two become more fond and trusting of each other. This is exactly they way you would dream that you meet that special someone. And what makes it so true is that it is not even too fantastic to believe. This could be what would happen if you had been confident enough to strike up a conversation with that person you noticed somewhere random. And what puts the icing on this film is the magnificent backdrop of Vienna in which this film takes place. It just adds to the feeling of romantic nirvana that the film suggests. And no matter how many times I watch this film, I don't think I will ever tire of that.

Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.<br /><br />As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book.

Omar Epps is an outstanding actor. I really think he gets into his character alot. When deja gets shot he shows true emotion. He also shows true emotion when remmi puts the gun to him in the room. Omar is a very talented actor!!

Viewed this GREAT Classic film of Greta Garbo and thought her performance was excellent. However, the German film version which had English captions was her greatest performance. Greta Garbo even mentioned to the press that the German film was her favorite where she had to make the change from Silent films to sound. Greta had a high pitched voice and had to take lessons in order to lower her voice for her future roles in films. This story was very sad because Greta Garbo(Anna Christie),'Ninotchka','39, was abused on a farm by young boys and her father left her years ago as a sailor and then as a coal barge captain. There were many scenes of Old NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge, Coney Island and the sky line of Manhattan. Charles Bickford(Matt Burke),'Days of Wine & Roses','62 a Classic veteran actor gave a great supporting role.

This Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle comedy is best remembered for featuring a young Buster Keaton, fresh from splitting with his family's roughhouse Vaudeville act, in his film debut. Buster gets quite a substantial part in this film and it's quite a funny one overall. 'The Butcher Boy' has lots of laughs and is an example of pure old-fashioned slapstick done well, though it would seem to come from the brief era of two-reel comedies when filmmakers still imagined in one-reel segments as a matter of course.<br /><br />The first half of the film takes place in a general store, with Arbuckle as the the butcher boy of the title. It's an excuse to mine the many possibilities for fast physical humor that a general store provides, and Arbuckle really shows himself to be a 300-pound acrobat, demonstrating subtlety, skill, and grace in his performance of what might have been unremarkable slapstick routines that raise them to a different level. A running gag has him flipping a large butcher knife casually so that it spins accurately into it's proper position stuck into the cutting board, and I'm still stunned that Arbuckle really seems to do it each time. There's also a really nice gag that sees him leaning on his scale and confused as to why his cuts of meat weigh so much.<br /><br />Buster Keaton is a boy who comes into to buy some molasses, and performs deftly in a foot-stuck-to-floor routine that follows. Apart from the odd and almost unsettling half-smile, his idiosyncratic attitude and body language make him recognizable immediately as the Buster we know. He even has his eventually-trademarked flattened hat -- here destroyed for the first time when filled, of course, with molasses.<br /><br />The second half of the film moves into more situation-based comedy and Arbuckle and his rival Al St. John dress in drag to infiltrate Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school. A lot of the humor also comes from the generally surreal and mysteriously laugh-inducing sight of these two odd fellows wearing drag and trying to 'be girls.' buster is in this segment too, but mostly stands there in the occasional cutaway, helping St. John.<br /><br />The ending of 'The Butcher Boy' becomes a little emptily frenetic, but on the whole and beyond its historical curiosity interest, it's a well-done comedy that gets just the knockabout laughs it is going for.

This excellent drama had me in suspense the whole time. I could not take my eyes off the screen for one second because every word kept connecting the pieces to this puzzling murder. This movie really touched me because it showed how sad and hard life can be. I really did cry in the end (which I don't want to give away!) It also let me realize how cruel and sickening people can be when it comes to murder. <br /><br />The cast was also very good. The only bad cast member was the actress who played Anne Marie. The actress did a great job, but the director didn't. I say this because he found someone who didn't look a single bit like Anne Marie Fahey herself.

At first sight, I must say already, watch The Contractor, 2007. With Wesley Snipes too. A better action movie and with a more dramatic plot.<br /><br />The Detonator has an horrendous plot focusing in some sort of atomic bomb, set in Romania and with awful directing for an action movie-- there is no thrilling moments and an action movie is turned in to boredom.<br /><br />Really, what you expect Wesley Snipes to do, when awful screenplays like this one are offered to him? Don't blame him, he needs the money.<br /><br />This was the first impression when I saw the movie, 3 years ago. But I won't see it again, no way. Screw it. It sucks. There. I said it.<br /><br />PS: I don't think I ever said 'this movie sucks' on a IMDb review. Thank you, Detonator!

I stumbled upon Nine Dead recently and read the current reviews thinking I could deal with an average movie. This movie however was slightly below average, yet watchable. The script was poorly written and the acting was at average for a B-level movie with a couple standing out as pretty good. The plot borders on that of Saw, teach people what they did wrong in a situation and try to make them appreciate life more, but that is really where the comparison ends. Nine dead tries to have heart and purpose behind simple ideas that are not new. The main fault that I found in Nine dead, was the slap in the face to the viewer of flashbacks that occurred 3 minutes before in the film and were completely unnecessary and a completely inadequate ending that people won't see coming, in a bad way. Barring any spoilers I have seen the worse of bad movies and even they didn't end this poorly. Decent flick, bad acting and ending though...

L'Homme Blesse is not for an impatient, adventure-seeking audience. There are no explosions nor is the drama straightforward. Like the films of Lynne Ramsey, the director is working more deeply with mood than with storytelling in a manner that is effective and incredibly moving. Because it does not rely on gratuitous nudity, or superficial pop-cult. story lines, this is quite frankly one of the best gay foreign film I have seen (also, see Francois Ozon, Pedro Almodovar). Nicolas Roeg's 'Don't Look Now' gets a lot of bad press because it is sold as a horror film. That film, like L'Homme, is more than what the box might lead you to believe. If you are in the mood to sit back and be absorbed by the subtle, transformed powers of cinema, you'll love this movie.

When this film was originally released it was promoted with the notably unimaginative tagline 'Dirty Harry is at it again'. Whatever this pitch lacks in originality is more than compensated for by it's complete and total accuracy. 'Sudden Impact' retains all the aspects that made the previous three Dirty Harry movies so successful- tight pacing, a compelling plot, strong supporting characters, endless gunplay, and bone-dry humor. Some of these elements are not only retained but amplified- this is easily the darkest, bloodiest, and most overtly right-wing installment of the franchise.<br /><br />The plot is somewhat intriguing: after killing a ridiculous number of hoodlums, Inspector Callahan is sent on a forced 'vacation' by his superiors to the sleepy coastal town of San Paolo. He is tasked to investigate the background of a recent homicide victim who was shot in the genitals before being put out of his (no doubt considerable) misery by a second shot to the head. Early on in the film, the audience is made aware of the identity of the killer- an artist named Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke) who is hunting down the thugs who gang-raped her and her sister at a fun fair some ten years earlier. This incident is shown in a very disturbing flashback, snippets of which recur before each new murder. As more bodies start to appear with the same M.O, it becomes clear to Harry that both the local police chief and his new love interest (guess who?) know more than they are telling. To make matters even more complicated, the one-time rapists realize who is hunting them and start to hit back hard.<br /><br />'Sudden Impact' offers relentless action from beginning to end. Clint Eastwood directed this film himself and expertly handles a series of set pieces that culminate in an exhilarating climax. Sondra Locke's performance effectively conveys the blend of ruthlessness and fragility that define her character. That having been said, it is fair to wonder if another actress (who was not Eastwood's off-screen companion at the time) could have brought more charisma and dramatic weight to the role- Theresa Russell and Cybill Shepherd jump to mind as possible candidates. Members of the supporting cast that punch significantly above their weight include Albert Popwell as Harry's partner Horace, Paul Drake as the psychopathic Mick, and the truly scene-stealing Audrie J. Neenan who portrays the vicious Ray Parkins. <br /><br />However the film has some notable problems- some of the subplots (the animosity between Harry and a gang of twentysomething hoodlums, a Mob vendetta against him) take up too much screen time and don't really have any bearing to the larger story. Their only real use is to raise the body-count to absurd levels. In the first half of the film it sometimes appears that Dirty Harry shoots people more often than he has to use the restroom. However the film moves into top gear as it progresses and the triangulated cat-and-mouse game between Callahan, Spencer, and her former tormentors assumes prominence. This second hour makes it clear that a more stripped-down and slightly refocused screenplay would have given 'Sudden Impact' the potential to be a first-class, neo noir-style thriller that could have taken the series to new levels but still have contained more than enough .44 magnum heroics to satisfy the Harry loyalists. Instead we get the film that Eastwood and Warner Bros. clearly wanted to make- a superbly executed but prototypical Eighties action flick that mostly declines to particularly challenge the intelligence of it's intended audience. <br /><br />This was by far the biggest grossing of the series at the box-office and it is not hard to see why. Though not the film that it could have been, this is still big, trigger-happy fun. Even after repeated viewings, it's going to make your day.

this isn't 'Bonnie and Clyde' or 'Thelma and Louise' but it is a fine road movie. it sets up its two main characters gently and easily. viewers learn the underlying tensions quickly, which is a tribute to the director. there is the young french (and English) speaking son who wants to do well in France, has a french girlfriend and who drinks alcohol, parties as young men do. And there is his moroccan arabic (and french) speaking father who devoutly follows his Muslim faith, with generosity and the wisdom of elders and who rejects the new culture surrounding him (like mobile phones). the film could explore very powerful politics - the odd couple drive thru the former Yugoslavia, thru Turkey and then thru the Middle East to get to Mecca. these are areas where the Muslim populations have been involved in wars, repression, ethnic cleansing; where dictators have pursued torture and summary executions to hold power and where religious communities are in constant deadly battle with each other. yet the film moves thru those places and possibilities with only hints of such agendas. the relationship between the two is key to this film, and faith, politics are the backdrop. it seems to be saying that we are all human, and need to understand and care for each other in order to manage well in this world. it certainly isn't 'Natural Born Killers' and is all the better for it.

This is a film.., not porn.<br /><br />This is a wonderful film!!! Full of tender moments and memories!! A beautiful piece of work!!! Excellent!!! For intelligent, viewers only!!!<br /><br />If you are a film lover. A romantic. A person who has loved deeply, this is your film!!!!<br /><br />It has a beautiful surreal quality. Fine acting and directing. Watching this film made me remember my first love.<br /><br />Thi is a film for those who want to reflect on life, love and the meaning of loss.<br /><br />Highly recommended for all film lovers.

I've read some grumbles about the court scenes. These people betray their ignorance. This production went to simply amazing lengths to recreate all aspects of the period in which the story occurred. Courtly manners are something few people outside the court ever see. While the acting may appear highly stylized, it is, in fact, as close a replication as possible of the behavior of individuals in their particular stations as the director could create. The actor's facial expressions are a marvel, particularly the duplicitous Marquis Changxin and the King's mother.<br /><br />There are, of course, reflections of both Greek and Shakespearian tragedy in the relationship between the king, his parents and his love. The juxtaposition of the king transforming from good to bad and the assassin from bad to good provides much food for thought on the evolution of an individual's nature. This movie would provide much to ponder in a college course on the humanities.<br /><br />At the same time, it almost rushes along, even in the slowest scenes heading towards an inexorable denouement. One suspects the involvement of large portions of the troop movements, which were quite awesome. It makes The Lord of the Rings battle scenes pale by comparison. Few directors have the ability to literally field thousands of humans on the field of battle just for art's sake. I recall one scene in which at least 30,000 troops can be seen moving across a huge plain. The logistics for such a shot would have been staggering.<br /><br />I could go on... but simply, I can't recommend this film highly enough.

This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while. The acting was just soooo bad. Anthonie Kamerling is usually a fairly good actor, but in this film, he sounded like he was reading his text from a piece of paper. Especially his voice over was extremely wooden. Beau van Erven Dorens was completely over the top as frat boy Fraser, although this probably had more to do with the crappy dialogue. 'Ik ook van jou' is an adaptation of a book, and it seem like the makers of the film forgot that film dialogue follows different rules than literary dialogue. It all sounded way to bookish.<br /><br />Some of the situations were very badly visualized. Example: somewhere at the beginning of the film there is a scene where a canoe goes over in a rapid. This bit is just too incredible to be true. You see an obviously rather shallow bit of river, with a lot of rocks right beneath the surface (hence the rapid). We hear some suspenseful music to warn us that there's danger ahead. A canoe with to girls goes over in that rather shallow rapid. Our hero then dives several meters below the surface to rescue one of the girl. Girl swoons in his arms and utters the words 'You saved me...' Vomit!<br /><br />It actually was so bad, that it became funny. This is sad, because it really wasn't intended. At the intermission I overheard some guy behind me say 'O god, there's another part!' My feelings exactly. What scares me is that the end credits of 'Ik ook van jou' were in English. Does this mean that it will be released abroad? Just when the Netherlands were starting to get a good reputation after films like 'Antonia' (Antonia's line) and 'Karakter' (Character)...

If you were enjoyed by watching 'Guinea Pig' - then you'll like this movie to! 'Psycho: The Snuff Reels' is a nice pseudo snuff movie with lots of sex elements. Actually the effects are not so realistic like in 'Guinea Pig', but its still pretty gory.<br /><br />'Psycho: The Snuff Reels' contains 70 minutes of sex, fetish and then torture scenes. First 20 minutes is like a normal porno movie. After that you'll see fetish sex scenes. And last one is a torture scene. The guys torture and rape girl - they cut off her legs, hand, tongue... In the end guy rapes girl in her stomach (!) and after that other guy beat him and cut off his balls. Sounds pretty sick, isn't it?:) <br /><br />Like I said - it's pseudo snuff movie. 'Psycho: The Snuff Reels' is pretty rare Japanese movie and as I know it's really hard to find it. But if you are crazy about that sort of films I believe that you can find it!

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

Michael Stearns plays Mike, a sexually frustrated individual with an interesting moral attitude towards sexuality. He has no problem ogling naked dancers but when women start having sex with men that's when he loses it. He believes that when women actually have sex that's when they lose any sense of 'innocence' and/or 'beauty'. So he strolls through the Hollywood Hills stalking lovemaking couples at a distance, ultimately shooting the men dead with a high-powered rifle with a scope.<br /><br />The seeming primary reason for this movie's existence is to indulge in sexual activity over and over again. The 'story' comes off as more of an afterthought. This is bound to make many a happily heterosexual male quite pleased as we're treated to enough protracted scenes of nudity (the ladies here look awfully good sans clothes) and sex to serve as a major dose of titillation. Of course, seeing a fair deal of it through a scope ups the creepiness factor considerably and illustrates the compulsion towards voyeurism. (For one thing, Mike eyes the couples through the scope for minutes at a time before finally pulling the trigger.) This is all underscored by awfully intrusive if somewhat atmospheric music on the soundtrack.<br /><br />Those with a penchant for lurid trash are bound to enjoy this to one degree or another. It even includes one lesbian tryst that confounds Mike and renders him uncertain *how* to react. It unfolds at a very slow pace, but wraps up with a most amusing ironic twist. It's a kinky and twisted rarity that if nothing else is going to definitely keep some viewers glued to the screen.<br /><br />7/10

Staten Island filmmaker Andy Milligan is well known in the horror community for being an even worse director than Ed Wood. And with this as a dim example of his output I'm apt to agree with them. In 'The Ghastly Ones' we basically have three bickering couples traveling to their childhood home (located on a conveniently secluded island) to collect an inheritance. There they are killed off one by one and the events unfold in murder/mystery fashion with a scarred retard hunchback butler added to throw you for a loop. The film is in such bad shape that it looks like someone just ran it through a dishwasher, the sound is terrible, the dialog is otherworldly bad, there's some primitive mannequin gore (plus some dismemberments and guts) and it's technically inept in every possible way it can be inept. But is it enjoyable in a bad movie kind of way? Sort of. It's excruciating to watch but oddly entertaining in a train wreck fashion. Approach with caution. If you're not a fan of horrible movies better deep six this one.

I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the 'best movies of the century' was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.<br /><br />'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.<br /><br />This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).<br /><br />Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time.

I just found out before writing this review that 'Komodo vs. Cobra' and another movie called 'Curse of the Komodo' were both directed by the same guy, Jim Wynorski. That might explain why they are films of nearly identical premises. They both feature a military-governed island, a colonel whose concerned more about covering his tracks than the lives of his employees, people racing to get to a chopper that is conveniently lying in a field somewhere on the island, and giant komodo dragons created through genetic experiments running amok. What differences are there? Well, the intruders on the island are now capitalists wanting to expose the government secret and there's a giant cobra on the island as well, hence the title 'Komodo vs. Cobra' even though the conflict between the two monsters is hardly relevant to the 'story.' 'Komodo vs. Cobra' is more or less what you'd expect given its title and its channel origin: the Sci-Fi Channel. Although every now and again you will find one that for one reason or another may appeal to you (I liked a movie called 'Komodo') I hardly doubt this one will.<br /><br />'Komodo vs. Cobra' is not only a boring film, but it's also one of the least enthusiastic sci-fi flicks I've seen in a long time. In some of these movies, there is an air to them that indicates the filmmakers were giving at least a certain level of effort, but I see very little here. That's indicated again by it just being a rehash of 'Curse of the Komodo.' The CGI for the monsters look as if they came straight out of a second-rate video game, the cinematography and misc en scene is poor, the acting ranges from passable to poor, the action scenes are dull, and then there are some parts that are, frankly put, unforgivably bad. I see a lot movies where a person will shoot a gun many times without reloading and I can deal with this. But in this movie, where Michael Paré takes a single thirty-eight handgun and fires it approximately fifty times nonstop without reloading once…well, at first I laughed, but even then it just became tiring. That would be the 'action.' A monster appears, people scream, Paré fires nonstop without reloading his gun once throughout the entire picture, and somebody gets eaten.<br /><br />'Komodo vs. Cobra' is a very bad movie. The only thing in the movie that is worth mentioning in a charitable manner is an actress named Michelle Borth, who is not only very beautiful, but a surprisingly strong performer. Even with the trashy dialogue and lack of enthusiasm in the screenplay she was given, Michelle Borth managed to pull off a surprisingly good performance and it just appalls me that an actress as good as her can get stuck in a film as junky as this. She obviously took it for the paycheck, but it won't boost her career any, I'm afraid.

Navy Seals is an ignorant, racist and complacent movie which thoughtlessly uses the Middle East conflict as the backdrop for an action flick concocted for a comfortably sheltered American Mid-West audience. The conflict, as well as those involved, is used simply as cannon fodder to glorify the photogenic young Americans who proudly kill Arabs for the good of 'freedom'. But what is worse is that the film's action scenes are sloppily handled and unexciting, which prevents Navy Seals from working even as a mindless shoot-'em-up.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen's character (Hawkins) is disgusting, obnoxious, ignorant, reckless and, above all, racist. He refers to the Middle East as a 's**t-hole' and to its inhabitants as 'rag-heads'. Throughout the film, the Navy Seals' characters are glorified through the use of the Lebanese natives as cannon fodder. They indiscriminately massacre these people with a consequence-free attitude. There is even the tasteless murder of a young Lebanese boy who is shot by Hawkins; Hawkins makes fun of his language before shooting him whilst making another humorous quip. Besides being tasteless, this should be unacceptable. The film's extreme (though predictable)pro-American stance is also revolting. This can be seen when the Lebanese-American female journalist informs Hawkins that terrorists cant be made to talk because 'they are religious zealots.' Hawkins then retorts with 'yeah, and we are the Navy Seals!' The implication is obviously that zealots are meaningless next to American military might. Moreover, even after insulting this journalist's racial heritage and treating her like a sex object, the script demands her inability to resist this disgusting thug and she still ends up sleeping with him - because he is an All-American Navy Seal. This marginalizes the journalist's character by making her submissive to the 'superior' pro-American attitude of Hawkins despite his insulting behaviour toward her. Beyond ethics, this plot twist also has little credence as drama. <br /><br />The screenplay is also amateurish. Most scenes are simply strung together without any thought for mood, plot or character development. The 'music video' scene at the golf course, for example is just shoddily edited eye candy. And the two scenes where Charlie Sheen plays the reckless hero are also pointless. In one he jumps off a bridge from moving car just to show his mates how tough he is, and in the other he chases down a tow truck on a push bike and drives his car-off it. Neither scene has a follow-up anti-climax, both are highly improbable, and neither has any bearing on the plot as a whole. They are just candy designed as a vehicle to showcase Hawkins' cheap all-American heroics, and are poor substitutes for character development. Most of the other plot development scenes are also badly filmed and poorly scripted as - in fact this affliction affects the entire movie. Apart from the African American Navy Seal and his wife as well as the characters of Michael Biehn and Charlie Sheen, every other member of the team seems unknown to the audience, so that when the climatic scenes roll around there seems to nobody to root for and anybody's death to lament.<br /><br />In such a film, the action sequences can potentially rescue the production. But here they don't. These are badly directed, badly lit, and showcase badly performed stunts. In fact, their direction is so poor that they are almost incoherent to the viewer, resulting in not only the scenes being incomprehensibly hard to follow, but also in a complete lack of fear and suspense. Poor lighting only adds to their impotence. The explosions look fake, gunshot wounds unconvincing and one of the more daring stunts, involving crashing a Mercedes over a tank, looks just like a stunt which has been staged on a backlot and then poorly edited.<br /><br />The ending of Navy Seals places the coins firmly on the eyes of this production. First there is the obligatory slow-motion 'running-away-from-the-big-explosion-that-should-have-killed-me' scene with Sheen carrying Biehn on his back. This was obviously the default scene intended to be the star of the movie's trailers. Then there is the ending itself when the remaineder of the Seal team, wounded and floating in the ocean, are rescued by a submarine. This submarine had in fact turned for home long before, but of course it had miraculously returned in the nick of time. Topping it all of, despite the Seals' violent and stressful ordeal, and despite the fact that numerous of their colleagues had just been killed, with a number of them still bleeding acutely, they all manage to laugh heartily while blessing America vociferously. Predictable? You can just imagine this ending while watching the opening credits.<br /><br />This movie indulgently uses the Middle Eastern conflict as a vehicle for the macho All-American tendencies of the movies' photogenic young leads. Arabs are treated condescendingly and dismissively, and their slaughter in the movie is used as a fulcrum to glorify the use of American military might against an 'inferior' minority group in a consequence-free environment. The events of 2001 have pointed out that such smug and overconfident trivialising of the conflicts of such minority groups is certainly not a consequence free passtime. The Middle East can no longer be written off as a s**t-hole full of rag heads knocking each other off (to quote Charlie Sheen here); it is now a place in which involvement can lead to severe consequences. Today we are reminded that the consequences of such arrogance can manifest themselves quite close to home. Therefore, in the very least Navy Seals looks pretty foolish these days; but this is to be kind. This is a highly ignorant movie, whose production values and professionalism are equally suspect. Navy Seals is, ideologically and artistically, a complete insult to the intelligence of its audience.

Someone i know said that there was this film called flatliners that was probably up my street. I was told about this movie after watching final destination 2 and watching the extra feature about near deth experience.<br /><br />I bought the DVD of flatliners at the modest price of 5 pounds. Got home and watched it. And i could not help but smile and feel good wondering how this film hadn't been in my life before. The film is about a group of medical students try to see what it's like after near death experience. But then there sins come back in reality and can harm them physically.<br /><br />Acting from Kevin Bacon and Keifer Sutherland is great as you would expect from the pair. And Joel Schmacheur made this a great movie like he did with the lost boys.<br /><br />This is an edgy and stylish thriller bound to please nay type of film fan.

Such a joyous world has been created for us in Pixar's A Bug's Life; we're immersed in a universe which could only be documented this enjoyably on film, but more precisely a universe which could only be documented through the world of animation. For those who have forgotten what a plentiful and exuberant world animation can offer – when it's in the right hands that is – A Bug's Life is a warm reminder. We walk out of the film with an equally-warm feeling, and a sense of satisfaction derivative of only high-calibre film productions.<br /><br />It is only Pixar's second animated feature. The sub-group of Disney made their spectacular debut and perhaps entirely inadvertent mark on the film world three years prior in 1995, with their landmark movie Toy Story. It was a movie which defied convention, re-invented and breathed new life into animation and defined a whole new level of excellence. Now, they return with their sophomore effort which, to be honest, draws a creeping sense of cynicism in us all prior to seeing the film.<br /><br />After all, it's a film about ants. Well, all walks of the insect and bug world are covered in A Bug's Life, but it is the ant which is the focal point in this film, as humans are the focal point in dramas, romances and so on. How can such an insignificant species of animal such as an ant act as the protagonist of a movie, let alone provide the entire premise of a feature film? Surely they jest. However, we forget that in Toy Story, a bunch of toy-box items were able to become the grandest, most inspiring and lovable bunch of animated heroes and villains ever concocted. The guys at Pixar manage to pull off the same feat, and manage to turn a bunch of dirty and miniscule bugs into the most endearing and pleasant gang of vermin you'll probably ever encounter.<br /><br />Not only are they all entirely amiable and likable – there isn't an unpleasant character in sight; even the villains are riveting characters – but they're colourful, they're eclectic, and they're idiosyncratic. And the array of characters is also gargantuan for lack of a better term, only adding the rich layers of distinctiveness already plastered onto A Bug's Life from the beginning. We shall start with our main character, and our hero. His name is Flik (David Foley), and his character is rather generic to say the least. Out of the thousands of faithful and obedient worker ants residing on the lush, beautiful Ant Island, he is the one considered the 'black sheep' of the clan, as seen in the opening moments of the movie when he inadvertently destroys the season's harvest with his antics.<br /><br />The problem arises in the fact that the ants' harvest is for a bunch of greedy grasshoppers led by Hopper (Kevin Spacey), who are eager to continue to assert their wrath and autocracy amongst the puny little ants; when they show up to Ant Island for their annual banquet and see that their offering is gone, they go insane, for lack of a better term. Hopper offers a proposition to save the ants from total extinction at his pack's hands; however, it's a negotiation which is simply impossible to fulfil. The cogs and clockwork in Flik's mind run at full steam now despite his guilt and shame, and he offers to leave Ant Island in search of some mighty bug warriors who can come to the colony's rescue and fight off Hopper and the grasshoppers.<br /><br />If you think about it, A Bug's Life bears some heavy resemblance to the plot line's of Akira Kurosawa's classic Seven Samurai, or the American remake The Magnificent Seven, in which a village of hapless but good-hearted folk are threatened by malevolent and wicked enemies – one lone village-dweller goes in search for help in the big city, finds it and returns to the colony to drive off evil. In A Bug's Life, the help comes in the form of a down-and-out circus troupe who is mistakenly perceived by Flik as warriors in a bar-room brawl.<br /><br />Much amusement comes out of these scenes, and much amusement comes out of these circus troupe bugs. Among them are an erudite stick insect (David Hyde Pierce), a side-splitting obese German caterpillar by the name of Heimlich and a quasi-femme fatale ladybug who's in fact a gritty and masculine ladybug (Dennis Hopper). It's exceedingly enjoyable watching these bugs on-screen, as it is watching the bugs and the insects interact on-screen, as is the entire movie collectively.<br /><br />As I've said, much amusement and mirth comes out of their characters and joyous interactions with one another, which give way to a bevy of hilarious lines, wonderfully suspenseful and riveting situations and overall a dazzling movie. What makes A Bug's Life even better is that the film isn't restricted simply to children as many may perceive it to be, although children would indeed find more entertainment out of this film – the clichéd kid-friendly situations are a bit more abundant than we'd like. However, it's easy to ignore this fault, and it's incredulously easy to enjoy this film.<br /><br />Although A Bug's Life may not reach the dizzying and landmark standards set by its predecessor, this is still a superb movie, and the start of something promising here. Pixar have proved that they're not just a one-hit wonder, but instead a much-gifted and talented group of film artists in Hollywood. They raise the bar endlessly, and when someone always manages to top their standards, it's only always by themselves. What more is there to say about A Bug's Life other than: see it; it's not quite the best which we've seen from the folks at Emeryville, California, but this beats out the lot of its year – and I'll be damned if this isn't the best animated feature of 1998.<br /><br />8.5/10

Wow. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a 'gang of local thugs' that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge ('Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy'), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs ('Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy'), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the 'gang member's' poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy.

Masters of Horror: The Screwfly Solution starts as America is being infected by an airborne virus that affects the male population, when aroused men indiscriminately kill any woman in sight apparently in the name of God. Scientist Alan (Jasn Priestley) is brought in by the Government & knows more than most & senses the situation may have gone too far already so he tells his wife Anne (Kerry Norton) to take their teenage daughter Amy (Brenna O'Brien) & try to survive as the future of the human race may depend on them...<br /><br />This Canadian American co-production was episode 7 from season 2 of the Masters of Horrror TV series, directed by Joe Dante I thought The Screwfly Solution was pretty bad. I personally think the script by Sam Hamm sucks, it takes itself far too seriously & I don't really understand why it's part of the Masters of Horror series, the horror that the filmmakers are going for in The Screwfly Solution is in the actual story itself & themes & ideas it brings up rather than on screen visual horror particularly the tenuous ecological message it sees intent on ramming down our throats whenever it's gets the chance during it's short 60 odd minute running time which I felt itself was a problem as the thing just finishes out of what could easily be interpreted as necessity rather than any meaningful attempt to wrap things up. I wasn't happy with the inconsistencies with the story either, if men only kill when sexually aroused why does the flight attendant casually break that woman's neck on the plane? Was he sexually aroused, I think not. Why does every bloke then think he's killing in the name of God? I just can't see every single bloke on Earth suddenly knowing the Bible & starting to believe in God, I just found the notion ridiculous & the show also states clearly that there's nothing religious about what's going on so what's the deal with everyone thinking they have a divine to murder any woman they see? Then there's the fact people get turned on by different things, what about gays for instance? Will they kill guys instead of women? I know there's a brief scene which makes a joke out of the gay issue but it's conveniently brushed to one side & then there's the thing which annoyed me the most. The fact that presumably every bloke on earth has turned psycho & killed all the women they go about their everyday business like nothing ever happened, it just felt so stupid, the plotting is rubbish & to round things off there's a ending which looks like it was taken from a rejected episode of The X-Files (1993 - 2002) with a bright neon alien.<br /><br />Director Dante on this showing definitely doesn't qualify as a Master of Horror as far a I'm concerned, the story is badly paced, it's just so stupid considering it's played deadly straight & instead of trying to make a proper horror show he turns in more of a thriller with it's deadly virus on the loose situation & the subsequent mother & daughter on the run because of it, there's very little here in the way of what I would call effective horror & even less gore. There's a scene when a woman is stabbed with a broken bottle, a brief scene after when a guy stabs his own groin with said bottle & another woman is stabbed in the stomach but nothing else to write home about.<br /><br />Technically like the other episodes it's really good & it doesn't have the look of a cheap TV series, the special effects are great as usual & it's well made. The acting is alright but no-one really stood out.<br /><br />The Screwfly Solution is easily the worst Masters of Horror episode I've seen but bear in mind I haven't seen all of them... yet. As a stand alone piece of entertainment it did nothing for me & as a show made by a so-called Master of Horror it disappoints me even more.

There is a running thread in film comedy that all the great comics are just falling short of the law or on going to jail. Think of that conman's conman W.C.Fields in THE OLD FASHIONED WAY, or the Marx Brothers in A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, or Chaplin in THE ADVENTURER, of Mae West in SHE DONE HIM WRONG. The skirting of the law is inevitable, and when they end up on the side of the law the results are actually still hostile between the forces of law and order and the comic. Think of Lloyd in his first talkie, WELCOME DANGER, trying to 'assist' the San Francisco Police Department in the midst of a crime wave, and making police sergeant Edgar Kennedy want to kill him. Think of Laurel and Hardy as ill-fated cops in MIDNIGHT PATROL. I find this type of hostility is so patent in all these giants' (and their peers') comedy that even a fake title for a film deals with it. Think of Jerry Seinfeld in one episode of his series creating a Three Stooges short, SAPPY PAPPIES, where the boys end up being electrocuted for murder.<br /><br />Buster Keaton frequently pulls in the forces of law and order to be his opponents in his comedies. Look at STEAMBOAT BILL, JR., where he tries to spring his dad from a calaboose. But he actually had more conflict from police forces in his shorts. In CONVICT 13 he is dragged back to prison when mistaken for an escaped convict. In COPS (perfect title - if you see it you'd understand) the police force of a large city is repeatedly looking for Keaton, mistaken for a terrorist). And in THE GOAT he is unable to avoid the police for most of the film.<br /><br />Keaton is a tramp just looking for food. But he is totally unlucky. When he sees a stranger throw a lucky horseshoe (which Keaton earlier ignored) over his shoulder, and then find a wallet full of money, Keaton tries the same thing, and hits a cop in the head. The cop gives chase, and Keaton (as luck would have it) runs into another cop, tries to act normal, but ends by throwing the other cop into the path of the first. Soon he has three cops chasing him. Briefly shaking them he walks by a window at the local jail where local murderer 'Dead Shot Dan' (Malcolm St. Clair*) is being photographed. Passing in back of the barred windows, Keaton is stupid enough to stop and look straight in. The desperado notes this and ducks as the picture is taken. When Dead Shot flees the police, it is Keaton's face on all the wanted posters.<br /><br />(*St. Clair would eventually be a successful director of silent and early sound comedies, although in his later biography would be a stint at 20th Century Fox where his work with Laurel & Hardy was below par.)<br /><br />Keaton flees to another town by train (disconnecting the passenger cars containing his pursuers from the locomotive and tender). This is the film (by the way) that has two famous Keaton jokes. His arrival on the locomotive is done in a distant shot, with it coming closer and closer, and suddenly the audience sees Keaton sitting on the cowcatcher. <br /><br />The second famous sequence goes later (and may have influenced Chaplin somewhat in the beginning of CITY LIGHTS). Keaton had accidentally knocked out a man who was arguing too violently with a pretty woman with a dog (Virginia Fox). When he sees the poster's calling him a murderer he thinks he killed the man. He is being chased in this town by a suspicious chief of police (Joe Roberts), and momentarily loses Roberts in the park. A statue of 'Man-of-War' is being constructed and the sculptor is unveiling a clay model of the horse). Keaton is seen seated on the clay model, trying to maintain his dignity as the clay legs of the horse start collapsing under his weight. <br /><br />Keaton manages to meet the pretty Ms Fox, who invites him home for dinner. Only he doesn't realize her father is Roberts. The last five minutes of the film deal Keaton fleeing and avoiding Roberts while he and Fox get away together.<br /><br />It's a funny comedy, and a wonderful example of Keaton's work at his best.

After seeing a preview for this film at my local mall where there is a stand for purchasing foreign films, I thought it looked very entertaining. Before watching the movie i went on to IMDb to see what ratings and comments it received. I was worried when I noticed the low numbers and the negative ratings. Despite the hype, I watched to movie and to my surprise I found it unbelievable. <br /><br />The story was great (just pay attention) and the characters and their relationships within the film is astonishing. I haven't seen such a good combination of leading characters in long time. I really felt for both characters and sensed a strong bond. As reading previous posts about this movie not being 'epic' enough or a lack of martial arts I could not disagree more. This film is what it is, its not Braveheart and its not Enter the Dragon but it is still a wonderful film that does an excellent job combining story both and action.<br /><br />While Sword In The Moon isn't perfect (what movie is?) it still is wonderful and moving. Just wait until the ending scene, with the music and cinematography together, its breathtaking. I only hope more people can see this movie to give it a fair voting.

28 years before 9/11, there was another 9/11 which represented a key date in the history of Chile, South America and the whole world. This was the date in 1973 when a bloody coup in Chile deposed Salvador Allende the first Marxist president elected democratically anywhere in the world and put an end to the Chilean experiment of a democratic transition from capitalism to socialism. Allende committed suicide when the armed forces attacked the presidential palace.<br /><br />Unfortunately this film is too biased and too nostalgic towards the time of Allende's rule to be an objective rendition of the man and of his place in history. The times were troubled and Allende was a disputed figure in the history of his country and of the whole world. True, he was democratically elected, but his policies plunged Chile into economic crisis. He was deposed by a coup and a right-wing dictatorship followed with repression and flagrant human rights abuses, but he was also an ally of Castro who saw in his policies another way of making revolution. We'll never know if his tentative to build a socialist yet democratic society would have succeeded. The authors of the movie take a completely pro-Allende position, there is no opinion or point of view trying to explain the other side, to answer questions like why did the middle class oppose him, or how his democratic views could go together with supporting or being supported by Castro. The tone of the commentaries is nostalgic and apologetic, almost propagandistic. People who want to get a better understanding of this episode of the history need to wait for a more balanced and objective film or book in the future.

I am a great fan of Martin Amis, on whose book this film is based. Unfortunately the director has been unable to translate the book to the screen. The novel is thoroughly post modern and highly artificial in its wildly overblown characters and the disintegration of traditional plot line and character development. It is an hilarious examination of human greed, excess and emptiness by one of the most moral of contemporary British writers. The director of the film has completely missed the point of the novel. In his hands, the film screams along at breakneck speed, indulging in every known trick shot and 'odd' camera angle possible. It is like Ken Russel on acid, and suffers from that older director's self indulgence cranked up to a hundred. Not even the (brief) glimpse of gorgeous actor Christian Solimeno's penis was enough to save this wretched film for me. Abysmal!

Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.<br /><br />As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.<br /><br />Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.<br /><br />It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way… so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

After playing a nymphomaniac in WRITTEN ON THE WIND, Dorothy Malone finally said good-bye to her sweet sister/wife roles and demonstrated an ability to play mantraps with the best of them. She and Gloria Grahame played the same sort of tramps--and for her efforts here in a very manipulative role, Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.<br /><br />The film she's in is not quite up to Oscar standards, but it is a strong enough melodrama under Douglas Sirk's capable hands. There's an almost noirish look to the explosive opening scene and it sets the tone for the rest of the sudsy fireworks in a story that has ROCK HUDSON, LAUREN BACALL, ROBERT STACK and DOROTHY MALONE as its headliners.<br /><br />Domestic squabbles among the inhabitants of a wealthy family with an oil background are the primary focus of the drama, with the accent on the strong supporting players, Stack and Malone. Both of them seize the opportunity with both hands and Stack, too, should have been awarded for his sterling job as the weak, alcoholic brother driven to desperation by his own wild motives.<br /><br />The nominal stars have less impressive work to do, but do it with their usual skill and conviction--Hudson and Bacall. They play their more sympathetic roles with quiet authority and understanding.<br /><br />The use of color is particularly striking (as it usually is in a Sirk film) and yet it doesn't preclude me from thinking of the film as a Technicolor film noir in the vein of LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN.<br /><br />Well worth watching with some interesting performances from the entire cast.

think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.

One of the problems with popular culture, especially when discussing the popular culture of the 1970s, is that mass media - especially television - is usually about four years behind 'underground' media, primarily music. Many people think the 'Woodstock Generation' remained important throughout the 1970s; actually, it was all over at Altamont in 1970. By 1972, 'underground' rock or the 'counterculture' had moved east to England and Led Zepplin, Black sabbath, and David Bowie, early metal-heads and the so-called 'glam-rockers,' who were all 'peace and love' - not. Neither, in a darkly different vein, was Charles Manson's 'family.' <br /><br />This obvious pilot for a television show (that, thankfully, was never picked up by the networks) is attempting to come to terms with a culture that was already as withered as yesterday's flowers. The script must have been lying around a few years - by the time it was produced, writer Carlino had already achieved recognition for tough Mafia revenge tales. And the cultural references are all to 'Easy Rider' and Woodstock (1969). The music referenced on the soundtrack is actually earlier, 1966/67 - at Woodstock Hendrix, Canned Heat, and Sly and the Family Stone had blasted this kind of folk-pop into oblivion.<br /><br />The movie is about a middle-class family that goes on the road in order to meet hippies. Wow, man, farout, outasight, it's a groovy mind-blowing happening of a bag. However, politics count for nothing - Vietnam? some place in Asia, right? <br /><br />This average (meaning stale and vacuous) TV movie is only redeemed by Jeff Bridges' surprisingly mature performance as the young college drop-out who convinces his parents and grandma to 'discover' (hippie) America. All the rest of the performances are standard TV fair by standard TV actors of the time. The director avails himself of some nice location cinematography, but otherwise the film is a poor way to spend 90 minutes.<br /><br />I knew it was all over when Sal Mineo remarks of a young runaway (who tells the other characters they are not really there): 'She's a latent existentialist.' Wow, far out, groovy. <br /><br />A couple extra points for being 'so bad it's funny,' but if you don't care about the '70's TV version of the '60's, stay away.

The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny. <br /><br />On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.<br /><br />Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.

6/10 Acting, not great but some good acting.<br /><br />4/10 Director, makes some stupid decisions for this film.<br /><br />2/10 Writer, story makes no sense at all and has huge amount of flaws.<br /><br />4/10 Overall score for this movie.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film, it's not worth it. I gave 4 for this movie and it may be too much. Characters are so over exaggerated than they can ever be in real life and some pretty unexplainable stuff happens 'storywise', not in good way. Because of the style this film has been filmed you get bored after 30 minutes (too many special effects: slow motions and camera shakes and fast forwards). It's always good that movie uses music to make the story go smooth but there's too many tracks in this one. In the first hour there is almost 50/50 dialogs and musics

There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.

This movie was just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001. <br /><br />The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.<br /><br />I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.<br /><br />0 out of 5 *'s.

Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the 'freaks' in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a 'freak', the discussion of superficialities between the 'freak' and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams 'martial-arts coordinator') I just don't know. The character named 'Steve' irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did 'Splatter', this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.

I loved this movie!<br /><br />Movies and plays fulfill their purpose when they expose social, political, and other problems that affect the majority. This movie served that purpose.<br /><br />I identify with the plot and know people to whom this has happened. At the time this movie was made, concepts presented in this flick were advanced for the public, yet had already happened to friends of mine by way of people in powerful positions. And, I know what it is like when people do to you what they did to Angela Bennett, because they have done it to me.<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Angela Bennett/Ruth Marx. She portrays a pretty, intelligent, and witty young woman who has the courage to avoid giving up to overwhelming odds, fight hard to keep her sanity and restore her life, and try to protect those whom she loves. Losing her self-concept and succumbing to that age-old attempt to bolster a sagging self esteem by indulging in sex with a stranger added a poignant touch of reality.<br /><br />The climax of the plot reveals the only real solution to this kind problem.

What you saw in BULLITT and THE FRENCH CONNECTION is nothing compared to what you have here. The chase goes on for nearly 15 minutes and is the best you'll ever see. This movie has become a classic crime drama from the heyday of 70's film-making. It's a gritty and realistic portrayal of the mean streets of New York City. Featuring one of the slickest wise guys ever put on screen, Tony Lo Bianco's behavior in this movie is cool as ice. He's ripping off his own associates and making it look like the police are responsible. His childhood friend, Roy Scheider, is a street detective who becomes puzzled by the disappearances of the mobsters. You can tell that Lo Bianco's enjoying the game throughout the movie. At times though, the film gets dull, but then right when you feel like giving up on it, something big happens and it pulls you back in. The score by Don Ellis sets the tone of the cold, gray wintertime in New York City and to top it all off, my man Joe Spinell shows up in an early role as Toredano the garage man.<br /><br />Score, 7 out of 10 Stars

This movie can be described in those 2 words 'just unbelievable'. This is the best movie ever made, I just cant see why this movie isnt in the top 250. I also can't see why anybody would not love Scarface. Anyways, if you havnt seen it, it is a must buy.

this film sucks a big one. so many holes in the plot. if the devil is invincible, why does he require the protection of arnies bodyguards? I couldn't fathom why arnie didn't turn up for work for several days and then suddenly appears, takes their entire armoury and disappears again!! Nice work if you can get it. It's sad that the last 1/2 hour has to result in the standard arnie 'uzi 9mm' finale. Arnies interpretation of a depressed cop is to bow his head and sniff. i thought he had a bad cold for most of the film. Dreadfully scripted, Arnie is called 'buddy', 'dude' etc for 95% of the film and then suddenly we hear him being called by his real name of Jericho Cane (where do they get these names from??). The ending is so twee you'd better get the barf bag ready. Shame that Gladiator pulled off the same ending with 100% more class.<br /><br />

Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of ‘Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's ‘grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played ‘Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a ‘brainless moment'! 2/10

Wow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.<br /><br />Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of 'The Spirit of the Forest' ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the 'plot' begins.<br /><br />So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the 'Spirit') from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.<br /><br />After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)

I tuned into this thing one night on a cable channel a few minutes after the credits ran, so I didn't know who had done it at first. The longer I saw it, the more I started thinking, 'Jesus, this looks like an Albert Pyun flick.' Wasn't quite sure, though, for two main reasons: the photography was quite good (and the Utah desert scenery was beautiful), and Scott Paulin gave an hilarious performance as Simon, a murderous cyborg, but with some style and a sense of humor. Paulin must have ad-libbed the many clever one-liners he shot out, because Albert Pyun hasn't written anything even remotely funny or coherent in his career. Unfortunately, Paulin doesn't have all that much screen time before he's gone, and the movie's the worse for it. Lance Henriksen, playing the evil head cyborg, growls his way through his part, as he's done in countless other movies like this. I don't know what the hell Kris Kristofferson is doing in this thing; maybe he wanted to see what the Utah desert looked like and get paid for it. He goes through the movie looking (and sounding) like he just woke up, and in fact spends most of the last half of the movie on his back in a tent. Kathy Long, the nominal hero, has a great body, is attractive, has a great body, fights extremely well, has a great body, and doesn't have an iota of acting talent, but that doesn't matter in a movie like this. This being an Albert Pyun film, it's full of the trademarks that we've all come to know and love: inane and idiotic dialog, choppy editing, and the impression that they lost a reel in the middle of the picture and figured, 'Ah, nobody'll ever notice.'<br /><br />As bad as this movie is, however, it's a shade above most of Pyun's other efforts--this is 'Citizen Kane' compared to his brain-numbing 'Adrenaline: Feel the Rush', for example. The fights are pretty well done, if repetitive (after she knocks down eight or nine guys one after the other, you find yourself saying, 'Alright already, go to something else'), and Long is very athletic (and, as a previous poster has noted, has a great derrière). It's not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not anywhere near as incoherent and incompetent as Pyun's usual extravaganzas. You could do worse than rent this movie--not much worse, granted, but worse nonetheless.

Think of it as an extreme form of detention without trial. Without commenting and taking a side on the US Foreign Policy, the process of Extraordinary Rendition involves taking persons suspected of terrorist activities to a foreign country, an opposite to an extradition if you wish, to a place where torture is not a crime but a means to illicit information. Instead of staining your soil with blood of potentially innocent parties, you do so on foreign land where such tactics are accepted interrogation techniques.<br /><br />Naturally, given the severity of the tactics and attempts at breaking down a person, sometimes you would get what you want once you pass the resistance, or get nothing, or worst of all, get a confession just because the mind has been broken to the point that the subject will agree to whatever you say. It's an ugly process, and what better way to do it when you're the champion human rights, giving the nod to use whatever means necessary in the name of protecting more lives, in an age where information is key to the battle against terror, and doing so in a country where probably the rights record is questionable.<br /><br />Rendition is this year's Syriana, though in the run up to the new year we do have a number of political thriller contenders to take that crown, with Rendition first of all, followed by the Robert Redford movie Lions for Lambs, starring Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep (again, though now on the other side of the fence), and The Kingdom with Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner, though this one would probably turn out to be more action driven. Directed by Gavin Hood, who did Tsotsi and will be helming the new Wolverine spin off, Rendition is a decent thriller with a top notch cast, in a narrative that has been proved quite popular these days - the split, which provides for some ample differential perspectives to be presented through an ensemble cast.<br /><br />Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), a chemical engineer, gets renditioned en route to going home under the orders of CIA top brass Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep). At a detention facility outside the US, Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (oh so prophetic) embarks on his very first interrogation session, no doubt being thrust into a position that he didn't sign up for. Back home, a very pregnant Reese Whitherspoon searches frantically for answers to her husband's disappearance, and sought after an ex-flame Alan Smith's (Peter Sarsgaard) assistance, since he's working for Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin). Throw in J.K. Sinmmons, a terrorist plot investigation and a budding forbidden love story between Fatima (Zineb Oukach) and Khalid (Moa Khouas), you have quite a bit going on in a busy picture.<br /><br />Given a number of casts, locations, timelines and the likes, Rendition wasn't confusing at all, and it plays out with deft handling of the material, never quick to judge, presenting ideas and thoughts from both sides of the equation. Every character has their own agenda, and the unveiling of this agenda engages enough not to bore nor to confuse you. And the best part of it all is how, very truly, they bow down to self-preservation in different forms, and ultimately, in various lose-lose situations unfortunately. It kept you guessing as well - did he or didn't he, and constantly played with your mind as to whether Anwar deserved what he's getting. It utilized one extremely smart sleight of hand which I didn't see coming until it's too late (so there goes the credit), though it did succumb to the usual stereotyping of terrorist militants, and without spending much time in depth to explore their motivations. <br /><br />Perhaps it didn't find a need to, given so many movies out there already touching base on this issue (Paradise Now, Day Night Day Night, Syriana even). While it turned out to be rather one-dimensional (personal tragedy to strapping of bombs to become a suicide bomber), I felt Rendition did right in not providing any saccharine sweet ending, that this fight against negative, destructive ideology, isn't something that can be addressed in a two hour movie, and I'm glad it steered clear such fairy tale implausibilities. <br /><br />What we have instead is a well crafted tale that sets its gun sights on the issue of Rendition, and probably capable enough to spark discussion once the lights come on, on which camp you belong to - do you support inflicting severe pain in interrogation? Yes or No? This is the quintessential question of our time. Yes or No? (OK, I'm already geared for Lions for Lambs)!

This film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.<br /><br />The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.<br /><br />The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as 'The Bagman'. Who will survive? You have to watch.<br /><br />If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out 'The Bagman'.

Not a knock on Korman as he was very funny on the Carol Burnett show. He was also good at playing secondary characters in Mel Brooks' movies ('High Anxiety' comes to mind). He is, however, not a person who can carry a movie in dueling roles no less. This one is basically a 'Gremlins' knockoff, following a tradition of such movies as 'Critters' and 'Ghoulies'. It is not a very good knockoff either, on par with 'Ghoulies', but with a much lighter tone to it as it is no where near as dark as that movie got. In fact, this one is too light and frothy, and unfortunately many of the jokes end up falling flat. Though I did give it a 3 for a score, this is only because there is a movie that is even a worse 'Gremlin' knockoff. If you watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 you know the one I am talking about...the infamous 'Hobgoblins'. This one has a guy finding a little critter in some underground place (I only saw this movie once a long time ago so I don't remember everything to clearly) and it starts out friendly enough. However, this creature quickly becomes unfriendly and of course more are spawned and that is the movie. More misses than hits in the joke department, and it is also really lame to see Korman playing the evil brother role. Best to skip this one, but then you may want to check it out just for kicks.

Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).<br /><br />Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.<br /><br />I savour 'moments', and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...<br /><br />Hugely enjoyable.

There is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.<br /><br />Probably a straight transfer from VHS. <br /><br />There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.<br /><br />I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.<br /><br />As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source

This movie is such a waste of talented people and Hollywood budget. It made me think everyone in the movie was paying off a favor by being in it because they were all out of place and wasted talent in this horrible trash pile of a film. It's a contrived plot that is just pathetic, unrealistic and not even close to fun or interesting. The only thing that kept my interest was the numerous big names in the movie that kept popping up for no apparent reason and who had no acting or good lines to contribute to the mess of a film. I kept expecting it to have some good stuff since all of these people had been cool in other films. But it never came through. This film should be shown in prison as punishment, but that would be cruel and unusual. You will be shocked to see so many recognizable faces parading around such a horrible pathetic script with flat lines and horrifically bad acting. This movie reminded me of another complete waste of time with lots of recognizable faces BIG TROUBLE (2002), which also went off the readable scale on the suck-o-meter.

Alfred Hitchcock's remake of 'The Man Who Who Knew Too Much,' is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over 'Vertigo' and 'Rear Window.'<br /><br />Like 'North By Northwest,' it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.<br /><br />While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain. <br /><br />Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over.

Where to start, this movie started badly and ended badly! It consists of extremely poor acting and unrealistic effects that had me cringing in my seat, seriously, my cat could have acted better than this lot.<br /><br />Some of it was actually laughable because it was so unbelievable, i would of rated this lower but they haven't got anything else! So, heed my warning and unless your so bored your close to suicide and would like a good reason to continue with your suicide mission, don't bother with this one. I'm still in shock that this could actually be released to the public, this should be a crime and all involved should be arrested. I gather you've got the gist by now so i'll leave it up to you to decide.

the fact that the movie is predictable is not a problem. this movie is like a beautiful painting to be enjoyed. the museum scene is like a nice music video. the apres sex scene is an all too familiar scene in all of our adult lives. but the movie would not hold any interest for me without keith gordon. keith gordon is maybe one of the most underrated actors of our time. almost everything i know about acting came from studying mostly his eyes. he had the most compelling face. his character possesses the qualities i look in a guy, sensitivity and dedication. keith gordon is gorgeous. BTW, i kinda wish he'd shave his beard now as his lips, jawline and adam's apple were his prettiest set next to his eyes.

Dark Angel is a cross between Huxley's Brave New World and Percy's Love in the Ruins--portraying the not too distant future as a disturbing mixture of chaos and order, both in the worst sense of the word. Once one swallows the premise that all modern technology can be brought to a standstill by 'the Pulse,' it provides an entertaining landscape for exploring the personalities of and relationships between the two primary characters--Max (the Dark Angel/bike messenger) and Logan (the rich rebel). It seems uneven, perhaps a result of a variety of authors, but is held together by the energetic, beautiful, and charming Jessica Alba, who seems both strong and calloused yet vulnerable and sensitive. I think that Fox has done it again.

I simply never tire of watching FREEBIRD. My husband was an extra so I was involved from the start. Have kept in touch with Jon and have helped out with promoting the film both in Cinemas and now the DVD release. Even to the extent of distributing promotional postcards on cross channel ferries and various places throughout France. FREEBIRD was expertly written and directed with the perfect combination of fun and serious moments plus choice casting. Only Phil Daniels could fit the role of Grouch. Great privilege to meet Jon and the cast at the party following the premier in January. Anything else you want doing Jon just ask, either email or phone, you know how to get me. Sue xx

No way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK

This series is set a year after the mission to Abydos in the movie Stargate. It explains a lot of the stuff that the movie neglected to mention. Such as, how was the Stargate activated without a human computer? Where did the Goa'uld (Ra's race) come from? How many are there? <br /><br />The first episode has a retired Jack O'Neill (spelled with 2 Ls) recalled to active duty by General George Hammond due to an attack by the shut down Stargate from Apophis, a powerful Goa'uld who killed four men and kidnapped one woman. We meet Samantha Carter, a brilliant scientist who claims that she should have gone through the Stargate the first time, and is determined to go through now. We find out that Daniel got married on Abydos, and that there are hundreds of Gate addresses that they can dial. Then Daniel's wife gets captured by Apophis and becomes his new queen. <br /><br />It continues in the second episode where General Hammond announces the formation of the SGC which includes nine teams, in which Jack's team will be SG-1 which consists of Jack, Samantha and Daniel. They go to Chulak, a Goa'uld homeworld to rescue Daniel's wife and another one captured at Abydos named Ska'ra. They get captured, and just as Apophis gives the order to kill them and many other prisoners, a Jaffa named Teal'c, First Prime of Apophis, saves them and goes to Earth with them, where he is made part of SG-1. <br /><br />That was only the beginning of the adventure. In the course of the show they have gone to the past and future, gotten transported to alternate realities, swapped bodies, grown old, met alien races which include a rebel alliance of Goa'uld called the Tok'ra, in which Samantha's Dad becomes a member, the Asgard, a cute little race in which we see Thor most often (he's Jack's buddy),and avoid global disaster by the skin of their teeth countless times.<br /><br />The show was recently canceled, but lasted ten seasons. In season nine, a new enemy called the Ori came in flaunting brand new powers, new dangers and bringing to light new mysteries surrounding the Stargate and its creators, the Ancients. Season nine and ten also saw the introduction to two new characters, Ben Browder as Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1 and Claudia Black as Vala MalDoran, a female human from another world who brings a new sense of fun to the team. <br /><br />Very well-produced, interesting characters, fantastic Special effects and a subtle love interest between Samantha and Jack, this one has it all. A different way of travelling the galaxy, and different kinds of adventures, this is one show you don't want to miss. Unlock the gate and step through. You won't regret it!

I really enjoyed this both times I watched it. And both times, I walked away thinking about it, and the 'morals of the story' a great deal. I agree with another reviewer in that the movie is not centred around the sci-fi aspects you might expect from an alien-on-Earth movie, but rather is about the human condition. The characters in the psych hospital provide a great insight in to that, and how they go from hopelessness to hope. This movie has touches of sadness to humour to sympathy to the final 'is he or isn't he'. That final question was well handled and even though some might argue you don't know what happens in the end and the question goes unanswered, I feel it is done in far more detail than something wishywashy like say, the movie Ronin (with Robert De Niro) where you never find out what's in the box and feel very frustrated because of it. I highly recommend K-PAX. 8/10

There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)

This is an excellent film!Tom Hanks and Paul Newman performed great!I was really surprised when Newman was beating on his son!That was a great scene and the shooting scenes were staged good.I was very surprised about the end.Rent this film today as it is one of Tom Hanks' best!

Adela is a rebellious teenager with the attitude that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She needs to be the center of attention and she'll act stupid to make it so. With her attitude she gets sent to charm school.<br /><br />There she meets the typical characters in today's cinema; the nerd, the clumsy one, the stepford housewife and the sexual minority. Things happen and in the end Adela 'learns her lesson' so to speak. The plot tries to carry a deeper meaning to the state Adela is in, but utterly fails to deliver (at least I didn't buy it). So what you are left with is superficial interaction within the same stereotypes you've seen in a million movies before. Plus the director seems to have a breast fixation, Adela flashes her boobies a few times too many, at least I can't see that they are relevant to the story.<br /><br />So the film is OK, but if you are like me and don't like to watch a teenager pissing people off and making a behavioral U-turn in an instant, which I found very unbelievable, think twice before watching.

While this outing certainly doesn't live up to its predecessor, it does have more than its share of memorable moments. My personal favorite, just after laying waste to a city block with his 'Videodisc Cannon,' we see a close up of Nimoy's face. As a single tear sheds from his left eye, we know at that point that Nimoy is more than just a killing machine. The viewer can't help but be pulled into his emotional turmoil and we understand that his previously flat affect was only a facade. Absolute brilliance!!! The sex scenes display a nice balance, carnal, but not pornographic. Afterwards, I felt I had a pretty good understanding of how to work the Magnavision Videodisc Player. Too bad they haven't produced them in over 25 years.

I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.<br /><br />I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.<br /><br />This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.<br /><br />Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us. <br /><br />I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works.

This film must have been quietly released on some other side of the world, perhaps even in English. Hopefully nobody understood a word, not there's anything to understand in this movie anyways! Haahaa! Call me a nut, but I think this is one of the best movies ever. Why would I come to that conclusion?? Because it's my national pasttime to sabotage horrible films and this one begs for it every other minute! Once I became a fan of Myster Science Theater 3000, I had no doubt in my mind they'd find it somewhere and use it. Sure enough! The version they acquired was entitled 'Cave Dwellers' using some strange intro footage not even from the film itself (apparently, they were ashamed to use footage from their OWN film!). I can't say I recommend buying this film. Rather, I highly recommend getting the MST3K version. Sure to find it most anywhere MST3K DVD's are sold, don't miss out!

Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.<br /><br />A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.<br /><br />I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all!

It is quite rare that a movie comes along that is so useless, that I with IMDb allowed the use of negative scores. In fact, I reflect back upon this movie and I truly cannot think of a movie that had so little going for it. Acting: Your Kidding right. Direction: No. A plot: No. This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth. This movie is so empty, that it cannot even suit that purpose. I have to give this a -1/10, three points lower then any other movie I have ever rated. I truly feel that the staff involved in this movie should pay me for the 83 minutes I spent watching it. I do not really have the words to describe how bad this is. No one should ever watch this for any reason again.

Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo 'performing' if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score). <br /><br />It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.

I didn't see this movie until it appeared on television because I was doubtful about comic flicks. Ever since the 'Batman' series, 'Spawn,' 'Judge Dredd,' and many other pitiful p.g.-13 bombs, I dodged everything at all cost. I would question in my mind, 'why can't someone make a movie that is rated R and stays true to the story, how difficult is that?' And finally my prayers have been answered with Blade. This movie pops right out of the pages onto the screen with sheer violence, blood, martial arts, weapons, fire, the good against evil, etc. Yeah sure a lot of action flicks contain all these goodies, and most of them have bombed. But not Blade, the movie was filmed just right, not going overboard, delivering a good length and never a dull moment. Blade II is cool, but not as cool as the first. Blade is indeed one of the best real comic flicks I've seen in a long time.

Another case of a decent DVD case betraying the shot-on-video quality of the film. <br /><br />It wasn't that bad. Rochon does a serviceable job and Damn! the cast is good looking. I've never seen that many musclebound guys hang out together on a regular basis. This movie really wanted to make you think Rochon was the killer, but it was not to be. My biggest problem with the film was that by the end, I didn't much care who was the killer, and the real killer made little sense, since it was out of the blue and the filmmakers were thinking 'ha, betcha didn't see that one coming, sucker!'. Yeah, there were continuity errors about (mainly with ms. Rochon's ever-changing wardrobe), but for an indie slasher it's not that bad. I was pretty sure at the beginning it was just a thinly veiled excuse for girls to go topless, but that was just a gimmick. The dialog was overly think and painful at times.<br /><br />Just don't have high expectations going into this, and it won't be that bad. And Lloyd Kaufman's cameo is wonderfully understated.

It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official 'truth' and caught so many 'news' agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real 'scoop'. It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers 'only' had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.<br /><br />The Venezuelan elite teaches us 'How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy'. It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.<br /><br />The fact that the 'Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians' scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called 'free' (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what 'really' goes on in the world.<br /><br />The famous 'objectivity' challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse 'us' - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading 'democracy' around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.<br /><br />I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of 'our' involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.<br /><br />All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud.

My guide for the quality of the a movie is if I'm still thinking about it after leaving the theater. I'm still thinking about this one the next day, which doesn't happen often.<br /><br />The scenery (a reasonable guess for 16th century Italy), costumes, lighting, cinematography are all excellent. It is a beautiful film visually.<br /><br />Characters can never rise above the script they must recite, but these actors made the most of their material, which is excellent. This is one of Shakespeare's best plays, which people will still enjoy another 400 years down the road. All of the principals were interesting and enjoyable.<br /><br />Those who say this is anti-semitic must be deaf and blind. If anything, it is anti-Venitian-16th-century-Catholic. While Shylock plays a man controlled and tortured by the hurts he has suffered, it is clear that the society in which he lives is largely to blame. The script clearly places his personal responsibility where it belongs, as well.<br /><br />A great film.

Was the script more fitting for a 30 minute sitcom? Yes, but they still make it work! I thought the actors did a fantastic job with an otherwise bland script, especially Jack Black and Christopher Walken. Most people on the board seem to really hate this film. I personally can't see how that could be, but Envy is just one of those film that you either love it or hate it. Much like Napoleon Dynamite and every Leslie Neilsen movie ever made. You either think it's one of the worst movies ever made or one of the funniest. Don't avoid this movie because of the reviews. Watch it and see if you're one of the ones who really like it! If you do, I guarantee it's worth your money. If you don't like it... well, now you know.