Datasets:

avsolatorio

/

mteb-imdb-avs_triplets

like 1

This is pretty much a low-budget, made for TV, type of movie intended to capitalize off of the success of the original. I'm a fan of b-movies, and this one might have been good had they not attached the name "Cube" to it, because as is, the director and plot of the original were better, and this movie just about ruined my taste for the entire series. The characters are annoying and clichéd, there are problems with continuity, and several outright production screw-ups. The story hardly gets a chance to develop because of superfluous dialogue and suffers from that. They more or less use the same horror gimmicks over and OVER throughout the movie, and because the first one was so good, this simply turns out as a disappointment.<br /><br />If this was a stand-alone b-movie, I'd probably give it about a four. The "1" rating I give it was pretty much a statement about how it utterly paled in effects and intelligence as compared to the first.

negative

Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?

negative

This movie has great style, fantastic visuals and hot sex scenes with a beautiful woman. It falters at the end as the story twists get a little bit extreme.. but all in all, I would recommend this movie just because it has that good old Russian feel to it.. big, impressive, powerful, bleak and brutal and at the same time beautiful in the old tradition of tragic beauty.<br /><br />PLOT: A guy who can make a blade shoot out of his hand at will (not a spoiler since they show it in the trailer) when he is REALLY mad at you tries to have a girlfriend.. he discovers that after you kill one person with your sword hand, it's kind of hard to keep a stable relationship....<br /><br />Sword boy is on the planet for a reason.. he just doesn't know what it is.. YET.<br /><br />Lots of dark street fights with guys unexpectedly getting filleted creatively.<br /><br />RUSSAIN w ENG subtitles.. slick worth a watch..

positive

One doesn't get to enjoy this gem, the 1936 Invisible Ray, often. But no can forget it. The story is elegant. Karloff, austere and embittered in his Carpathian mountain retreat, is Janos Rukh, genius science who reads ancient beams of light to ascertain events in the great geological past…particularly the crash of a potent radioactive meteor in Africa. Joining him is the ever-elegant Lugosi (as a rare hero), who studies "astro-chemistry." Frances Drake is the lovely, underused young wife; Frank Lawton the romantic temptation; and the divine Violet Kemble Cooper is Mother Rukh, in a performance worthy of Maria Ospenskya.<br /><br />The story moves swiftly in bold episodes, with special effects that are still handsome. It also contains some wonderful lines. One Rukh restores his mother's sight, he asks, "Mother, can you see, can you see?" "Yes, I can see…more clearly than ever. And what I see frightens me." Even better when mother Rukh says, "He broke the first law of science." I am not alone among my acquaintance in having puzzled for many many years exactly what this first law of science is.<br /><br />This movie is definitely desert island material.

positive

Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.<br /><br />This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.<br /><br />Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.<br /><br />I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.<br /><br />If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely.

positive

"The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr." is the definitive documentary on the life of the man who brought us such movies as "Glen or Glenda", "Bride of the Monster", and, of course, "Plan 9 from Outer Space". This exquisite film far exceeds where other documentaries, such as "Look Back in Angora" and "The Plan 9 Companion", failed. It rounds up his surviving entourage, many of whom have passed away since filming, and gives an honest examination of Ed Wood and his work. Nostalgic in the fact that it looks back at the darker corner of yesteryear Hollywood, sentimental in its treatment of the director (down to the haunting music), this documentary is an absolute must-see for anyone who loves the director who so failed in his day. The entire two hours of the film lovingly and retrospectively pieces together Ed's life and untimely death for the viewer. Best watched at 3 am while wearing an angora sweater.

positive

One of my favorite scenes is at the beginning when guests on a private yacht decide to take an impromptu swim - in their underwear! Rather risqué for 1931!

positive

A documentary without a loss for words... ever...<br /><br />Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable. <br /><br />But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.<br /><br />Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different.

positive

This is a cute little horror spoof/comedy featuring Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, the most infamous horror hostess of all time. This was meant to be the pilot vehicle for Elvira and was so successful that it was picked up by the NBC Network. They filmed a pilot for a television series to feature the busty babe in black but unfortunately the sit-com never made it past the pilot stage due to it's sexual references. This film however, is very amusing. Elvira is the modern-day Chesty Morgan and the queen of the one-liners. This film was followed up a few years later by the abysmal "Elvira's Haunted Hills" which was meant to be a take-off of the old Roger Corman movies but falls flat on it's face. Watch this movie instead for a much more entertaining experience!

positive

As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.<br /><br />Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.<br /><br />In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMÉLIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.<br /><br />I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.<br /><br />TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.<br /><br />As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography.

negative

the government that he fought to establish to recognize his loyalty with a promised and much needed pension. Ripstein's lyrical work is a sweet ode to all those who, like the Colonel, suffer under the abuses of a cynical and hardened society that strengthens itself by denying its citizens the means to live with dignity and purpose. Unlike the absurdity of WAITING FOR GODOT, the Colonel's wait for the arrival of his pension gives hope and significance to his otherwise miserable life. Two things in the film drive the Colonel who is masterfully played by Fernando Lujan; the hope that his military pension will one day arrive and the knowledge that his son, Agustin, died for a noble cause, a reason other than a drunken fracas at a rigged cockfight. Unable to realize the former, and forced to prove to the world the latter, the Colonel does the only thing he can do, set about training his son's fighting cock. The cock is now the warrior who can bring fortune and justice to the Colonel and his asthmatic wife, but his fighting ring is that of the killer of his former owner, Agustin. In a tense scene of confrontation between the Colonel and Nogales, his son's killer, the Colonel is offered by Nogales, a paid government agent, money enough to equal the Colonel's full pension. But, this is blood money; hush money designed to hide the fact that those in power have turned their backs on one who fought for their political ideals, and to conceal to the world that the warrior colonel's son was assassinated because he wrote for an underground paper that favored the rights of labor unions and the common man. With maximum dignity, the Colonel rejects Nogales' offer, picks up his fighting rooster and walks away as nobly as his old legs can carry him. Once he is at home, Dona Lola, his scolding wife, wants to know why the Colonel refused the money when both of them are starving. In response to her continued question, "What are we going to eat until November (when the cockfighting season begins)", the Colonel responds, "Shit." Excrement is what the poor and disenfranchised have been eating all of their lives, and excrement is a meal that the Colonel willingly chooses to eat with dignity, knowing that he could never sell his soul to those who oppress him. The Colonel waits as the only man of honor and valor in a world without principles.

positive

I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.<br /><br />

positive

What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br />

negative

Sometime I fail to understand what do the directors think when they make a movie... I had had a trauma after watching Welcome (2007) and thought that they wont do it again. But after loads of amazing promos, Tashan finally ended as heart attack.<br /><br />Such amazing 3 songs in promo - Dil Haara, Chhaliya and Tashan Mein..... and what u get in the movie? Zero story, predictable plot, plenty of Akshay Kumar stunts and nothing interesting apart from watching Kareena after her major weight loss...!!!<br /><br />Music-wise another major disaster... in the music album, they have spent time on giving pathetic small dialogs of these 4 jokers and they haven't thought of giving the background song of the scenes when Akshay Kumar is doing stunts...! that song is such nice, quite comparable to Tashan Mein and that is not taken in the music album!!! :-( If you plan to watch this movie, i would say, watch it to listen to that background song which goes something like ...'Bachchan Bachchan Pandey...'<br /><br />Overall very disappointed even with the way Bhaiyyaji has made attempt to speak bad English!<br /><br />Go away man, i need to puke!

negative

Early Hollywood at it's best!! A classic Kipling poem is transformed into an epic adventure featuring memorable performances by a stellar cast. I think the measure of a good film is how many times you can watch it and still genuinely enjoy it. I've seen it a dozen times and still cry at the end and, admit it, you do too!!

positive

This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value.

positive

The folk who produced this masterful film have done fine service to a novel that stands as perhaps the best fiction work centering upon human guilt and human responsibility ever published. Nolte takes the role of Howard W. Campbell, Jr., and makes it his own, remaining true to Vonnegut's depiction of a man who has lost ALL (to and) for Love.<br /><br />No weaknesses in this fine adaptation.

positive

When seeing this movie you should take notice to that it´s not a normal movie. It has no real story just characters, a bunch of gangster characters who come together in a perfect harmony. The dialogue is wonderful, you can just lay back and listen. The movie stands out thats why it´s hard to find a right way of describing it.<br /><br />Thats why the user comments on this movie is so mixed.<br /><br />I for one love the movie and recommend it to all who love one-liners and things that differ from the "normal". You can´t really put the finger on what´s so wonderful about it it´s just a comical world where gangsters rule. A place of love and danger. A movie that you can see more than one time.

positive

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!<br /><br />I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.<br /><br />This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.<br /><br />There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.<br /><br />The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.<br /><br />I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.

negative

The one reason I remember this is that it was shown the week after Nigel Kneale`s brilliant QUATERMASS serial was broadcast . The trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like Victor Caroon from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT stalking the streets of London .<br /><br />No such luck because THE RACING GAME is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . I suppose if you`re a fan of Dick Francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when THE SWEENEY had just finished and THE PROFESSIONALS was still being produced , there`s something lacking about THE RACING GAME . One trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way , if it`d been a trailer for THE SWEENEY you`d see Jack Regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while THE PROFESSIONALS would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . I think that sums up what`s wrong with this series

negative

I would just like it to be known, that I do not often rate movies below a 5. I was originally very excited to see this movie. Its numerous trailer bumps on TV for several months made me REAALLY want to see this movie. So, the other night when I saw that it was available on FearNet on Demand, I got some popcorn and sat down to watch the film.<br /><br />The storyline seemed intriguing enough - some dude is butchering unsuspecting people on the subway. There's a photographer obsessed with the missing people. Where are they going? What's happening to them? One day, the photographer sees a connection between some photos he has taken, and becomes obsessed with the butcher, following him around, yada yada. The film had a way of sucking you in, even though the plot was highly predictable. "Oh no, it's dark, look out behind you" I say, quite bored with the cheap thrills.<br /><br />The plot, even though predictable, was intriguing...that is, until the end. "This was good until the end.... Then it just got silly", says Jack_skellington_freke on the message boards. And I fully agree. And here come the spoilers...<br /><br />See, I was hoping it was some mad killer, some psychotic person obsessed with cannibalism. No. It was some secret society keeping creatures alive for centuries. Woo. How original. How unrealistic. How dull.<br /><br />3/10. Come on Lionsgate. You've had amazing films, but this one sunk.

negative

"Cinderella" is a film about a young girl whose mother passed away and her father remarried. Once her father died, Cinderella's stepmother became very mean to her and made her do all of the chores around the house, like cleaning up after her two evil stepsisters. One day the King sent out a message to all of the single women to attend the Royal Ball in honor of his son, to find a wife. Of course, Cinderella didn't get to go, but her stepsisters did. Cinderella was very upset and thought that there was no way she could attend the Royal Ball, until her fairy godmother appeared. So she did some magic and made Cinderella into a beautiful woman, but she had to be back by midnight because that is when the magic changes back. While at the Royal Ball, Cinderella loses track of time and the clock strikes midnight, so she runs out of the palace and loses her glass slipper. Then the King orders the duke to find the women who wore that slipper. The duke searched every house, but finally found the women who it belonged to, Cinderella.<br /><br />Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske directed one of the best animated Disney films in 1950. This film is about a magical fairytale. In the beginning of the film Cinderella was a servant to her own family and had nobody to love her, but with a little bit of magic her whole life changed around and finally found love.<br /><br />My favorite thing about "Cinderella" is the music. When Cinderella's fairy godmother appeared doing her magic, she sang the song Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo. When I was a child, it was one of my favorite songs to sing around my house, so I will never forget it. I also loved the part when Cinderella and the Prince were singing the song So This is Love while they were dancing because they realized that they are in love. Overall this film was my favorite film when I was a little child because every little girl wants to live a fairy tale life.

positive

I agree with those reviews I have read here, and I have no words to define such a turkey like this, but despite everything, I still can find a reason for movies like this to exist. Do you remenber those happy days in which video was a prosperous business, and a lot of movies were made with the only reason of filling the shelves of the video stores? this movie comes from that period and I can imagine that was the only reason for which it was produced and the same happened with many, many, many other stinkers. Do you remember "Rambo" imitations? and so many slashers of Z grade?, I still feel nostalgia for that period.About this movie I can say I didn´t waste my time watching it because I pressed the fast forward button after the first fifteen minutes, just to find a very funny scene in which a guy was pushing an axe against heads which exploded because, as you perfectly notice, they were made of plastic. And about the end, well, it was so badly filmed I could not understand what happened. That´s the same, I had not followed the non-existing plot at all. But boy, Video-age was a great age despite movies like this.

negative

How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman tells a story that is alternately sad, scary and life-affirming. It ends with a brutal finale that you knew had to happen, even though you were hoping--maybe even beleiving--it wouldn't.<br /><br />Utlimately, this is the film's greatest strength: it expertly plays with your emotions and expectations, then drops a bomb on you.<br /><br />I saw this in a film theory class at USC back in the mid-'90s. It is not easy to find, but is definitely worth hunting for.

positive

If ever I was asked to remember a song from a film of yester years, then it would have to be "Chalo Di Daar Chalo Chand Ke Paar Chalo" for its meaning, the way it is sung by Lata Mangeshkar and Mohd. Rafi, the lyrics by Kaif Bhopali and not to mention the cinema photography when the sailing boat goes out against the black background and the shining stars. The other would have to be "Chalte Chalte." Pakeezah was Meena Kumari's last film before she died and the amount of it time it took can be seen on the screen. In each of the the songs that are picturised, she looks young but after that she does not. But one actor who didn't change in his looks was the late Raj Kumar, who falls in love with her and especially her feet, after he accidentally goes into her train cabin and upon seeing them, he leaves a note describing how beautiful they are.<br /><br />Conclusion: Pakeezah is a beautiful romantic story that, if at all possible should be viewed on large screen just for the sake of the cinema photography and songs. The movie stars the Meena kumari, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar and is directed by Kamal Amrohi.<br /><br />Kamal Amrohi's grandson has now started to revive his grand father's studio by making a comedy movie.

positive

Beforehand Notification: I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of playing the race card here, but when I saw the preview for this movie, I was thinking "Finally!" I have yet to see one movie about popular African-influenced dance (be it popular hip hop moves, breaking, or stepping) where the main character was a Black woman. I've seen an excessive amount of movies where a non-Black woman who knew nothing about hip hop comes fresh to the hood and does a mediocre job of it (Breakin, Breakin 2, Save the Last Dance, Step Up), but the Black women in the film are almost nonexistent. That always bothered me considering so much of hip hop, African-influenced dance, and breaking was with Blacks and Latinos in massive amounts in these particular sets and it wasn't always men who performed it, so I felt this movie has been a long time coming. However, the race does not make the film, so I also wanted it to carry a believable plot; the dancing be entertaining; and interesting to watch.<br /><br />Pros: I really enjoyed this film bringing Jamaican culture. I can't recall ever seeing a popular, mainstream film where all the main characters were Jamaican; had believable accents; and weren't stereotypical with the beanies. The steppers, family, friends, and even the "thugs" were all really intelligent, realistic people who were trying to love, live, and survive in the neighborhood they lived in by doing something positive. Even when the audience was made aware that the main character's sister chose an alternate lifestyle, it still didn't make the plot stereotypical. I was satisfied with the way it was portrayed. I LOVED the stepping; the romantic flirty relationship going on between two steppers; the trials that the main character's parents were going through; and how she dealt with coming back to her old neighborhood and dealing with Crabs in a Barrel. I respected that she was so intelligent and active at the same time, and so many other sistas in the film were handling themselves in the step world. They were all just as excellent as the fellas. I don't see that in too many movies nowadays, at least not those that would be considered Black films.<br /><br />Cons: I'm not quite sure why the directors or whoever put the movie together did this, but I question whether they've been to real step shows. Whenever the steppers got ready to perform, some hip hop song would play in place of the steppers' hand/feet beats. At a real step show, there is zero need for music, other than to maybe entertain the crowds in between groups. And then when hip hop songs were played, sometimes the beat to the song was off to the beat of the steppers' hands and feet. It was awkward. I was more impressed with the stepping in this movie versus "Stomp the Yard" (another great stepping movie) because the women got to represent as fierce as the guys (in "Stomp the Yard," Meagan Good got all of a few seconds of some prissy twirl and hair flip and the (Deltas?) let out a chant and a few steps and were cut immediately). Even when there were very small scenes, the ladies tore it up, especially in the auto shop, and it was without all that music to drown out their physical music. I know soundtracks have to be sold, but the movie folks could've played the music in other parts of the film.<br /><br />I'm not a Keyshia Cole fan, so every time I saw her, all I kept thinking was "Is it written in the script for her to constantly put her hand on her hip when she talks?" She looked uncomfortable on screen to me. I thought they should've used a host like Free or Rocsi instead. Deray Davis was funny as usual though. Also, I groaned when I found out that the movie was supposed to be in the ghetto, like stepping couldn't possibly happen anywhere else. Hollywood, as usual. However, only a couple of people were portrayed as excessively ignorant due to their neighborhood and losers, which mainstream movies tend to do.<br /><br />I would've given this movie five stars, but the music playing killed it for me. I definitely plan to buy it when it comes out and hopefully the bonus scenes will include the actual step shows without all the songs.

positive

First off, the movie was not true to facts at all. I just saw the documentary a few days earlier and the movie wasn't anything like it. First of all Nash was a genius at mathematics and this is what the movie should have been about not a story about a man who was cured and who found love at the end and so on. Also there are a lot of scenes that were just plain wrong - the scene where he rode around with a bike at the campus happened in his early university years not after it. In my opinion Russell Crowe didn't fit to this part at all since he doesn't look the intelligent/individualist type, therefore he really couldn't play one. It would have been great if it would have focused more on the mathematics (similar to Pi) and not the over-dramatized lovelife. At this level ABM was too hollywood-ish and too superficial to be great. Personally I think he wasn't mad nor paranoid and he was onto something since people of that caliber tend to know more than we "lesser mortals". 5/10

negative

I saw this on a Cantonese VCD with the English subtitles. I thought the story was good but there were times when some of the subcharacters were grossly over-acting. This took away from the film as did the fairly lame musical score, which really irked me throughout the entire movie. If the musical score was improved I could overlook the few overacted scenes. Then the film would be much, much better.

positive

DOUBLE EXPOSURE was a tremendous surprise. It contains outstanding acting (particularly from the underrated Callan), fine cinematography and a compelling storyline. In other words, it's one of the finest horror efforts to emerge from the 1980s.<br /><br />Callan plays a fashion photographer who experiences dreams of murdering his models, at a time when he is reunited with his psychologically volatile brother (who happens to be missing an arm and a leg). When the models Callan dreams about killing actually turn up dead, the photographer begins to doubt his own sanity... but there is more to the picture than he is seeing.<br /><br />This film never received the praise it deserves. Most critics and filmgoers lump it in with the horde of slasher films released at the same time, but it stands high above the bulk of that sorry lot. It's clever and unique, which isn't something one can comfortably say about most films of this genre, but it's also passionately crafted and performed. DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a gem of its kind.

positive

This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10.

positive

Nina Foch delivers a surprisingly strong performance as the title character in this fun little Gothic nail-biter. She accepts a position as secretary to a London society dowager (played imperiously by Dame May Witty) and her creepy son (the effete and bothersome George Macready). Before she knows it, she awakens to find herself in a seaside manor she's never seen before, where Witty and Macready are calling her Marian and trying to convince the servants and the nearby townspeople that she's Macready's mad wife. Of course this pair can only be planning dastardly deeds, and even though we know Julia has to eventually escape her trap, director Joseph Lewis builds real suspense in answering the question of just how she'll manage it.<br /><br />"My Name Is Julia Ross" has nothing stylistically to set it apart from any number of films that came out at the same time period, but I was surprised by how well it held together despite its shoe-string budget and B-movie pedigree. There are quite a few moments that just may have you on the edge of your seat, and I found myself really rooting for Julia as she caught on to the scheme underfoot and began to outsmart her captors. In any other Gothic thriller, the heroine would have swooned, screamed and dithered, waiting for her hero to come and save her. So I can't tell you how refreshing it was to have the heroine in this film use her brain and figure out how to save herself.<br /><br />Well done.<br /><br />Grade: B+

positive

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

negative

Kurosawa really blew it on this one. Every genius is allowed a failure. The concept is fine but the execution is badly blurred.<br /><br />There is an air of fantasy about this film making it something of an art film. The poverty stricken of Tokyo deserve a fairer and more realistic portrayal. Many of them have interesting stories to tell. A very disappointing film.

negative

It was considered to be the "Swiss answer to the Lord of the Rings", but it is much more than that. It isn't an answer to anything, it's in itself something new, something funny and sometimes it's downright stupid and silly - but was Monty Python any different than silly?<br /><br />The beginning immediately makes the statement that this film is low budget and not meant to be taken entirely seriously. Cardboard clouds on strings knock into the airplane in which the main character is seated. But, to compensate the missing special effects, the landscape does the trick. It is absolutely beautiful and stunning - who needs New Zealand, Switzerland has it all. <br /><br />What I liked about the film was the simple approach and the obvious passion and energy that went into it. It isn't brilliant; yet it's got some good humorous parts. Edward Piccin as Friedo is absolutely convincing, it would be enough to go and see the film because of him!There are some good jokes, some of them are very lame, some of them won't be understood by people outside of Switzerland. I liked the idea of having "Urucows" instead of Uruk Hai; I loved the scene where Friedo decides to take "Pupsi", a telehobbie, with him on the journey. Also very funny is the scene when Rackaroll, the sword-fighting knight, decides to show off with his sword - and subsequently smashes it into a wall, breaking it. And there is this one scene where the "nazgul-ish" characters do a wonderfully comic scene that includes a toilet brush... I didn't approve of the idea of the Ring being used by Schleimli, the "Gollum" character, in order to "seduce" the ladies. That was a bit far fetched. The idea of Lord Sauraus wanting to cover the lands with fondue wasn't that brilliant either. Original, certainly, but not brilliant. But most of all did I dislike the idea of a gay dragon, that really wasn't necessary. All in all I recommend to see the film simply because it is so crazy and totally trashy. Don't expect a LotR parody like "Spaceballs" was for Star Wars. But if you go to the flicks thinking that this is going to be an amusing evening out, with absolutely no ambitions, then you'll enjoy. I am not sure if it works in other languages, because it does live from the Swiss dialects as well as from the jokes and actors.<br /><br />All in all: hat off to the courage of the Swiss crew who did that!

positive

Not sure one can call this an anti-war film, it shows war at an elite level. These are elite troops that know what they are doing and take great pride in it. Even when they are pacifist, they still enjoy the skill level and defeating their foes, even if it does go against being a pacifist. The movies is slow and rather uneventful and in many ways is rather tame as war movies go-more so by todays standards, no body parts flying off as in modern movies. It is brutal in other ways though as you see killing at a personal level. This is more of a thinking man's movie. Once you start to watch you don't want to miss anything. The thoughts of the men in the movie and their interactions, is what the movie is about- not the combat itself or a big exciting storyline. This maybe called a war triller.<br /><br />If you are into the skill of war, if you are into reading or seeing programs about the SAS and so on, YOU WANT TO WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!<br /><br />Comparable movies are The Hill (1965) with Sean Connery, 49th Parallel (1941) with an all star cast, The Naked and the Dead (1958) with Cliff Robertson. All are unusual in their way and show war at a personal level. Enjoy!

positive

I'm not sure if this is some kind of masterpiece or just sleazy fluff elevated by the performances and visuals. Whatever the case, I'm sure I loved it. From the wonderfully twisted, lurid, intertwining stories, to the deliciously sinister performances from Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone, to the vivid, gaudy colour with which it's all captured, this is high-class trash and it's great fun. Not to mention the amusingly sly and thinly veiled sexual subtexts which permeate the entire film, always threatening to escape from the image into the dialogue but never doing so. I'd be lying if I said that the film's sheer entertainment value didn't contribute to my love for it, but there's some sort of bizarre artistry behind the unintentional (or was it?) comedy and I really, really dug that. I could really get into this melodrama stuff.

positive

***SPOILERS*** Seething with hatred and revenge half breed Zach Provo, James Coburn, had spent the last 11 years on a chain gang planing his escape. What Provo want's more then freedom is to even the score with the man who captured him and in the process, during a wild shootout, killed his Navajo wife: The former Pima County sheriff Sam Burgade, Charlton Heston.<br /><br />Making his escape after killing two prison guards Provo makes his way towards Yuma knowing that that's not just where Burgade lives but where his his young daughter Susan, Barbara Hershey,resides as well. Using his fellow escaped convicts to lure Burgade into the vast Arizona Desert, by promising them $30,000.00 in gold coins that he buried there, Provo plans to exact his bloody vengeance on Burgade. But only after having him witness his daughter being brutally raped by his fellow convicts or are, in not being with a woman for years, as horny as a rabbit during mating season!<br /><br />Brutal and very effective western that updates the John Wayne 1956 classic "The Searchers" in a father searching through dangerous Indian territory for his kidnapped daughter. Charlton Heston as the guilt-ridden Sam Burgade in his felling somehow responsible for killing Provo's wife and then having to face the fact that the same thing can very well happen to his daughter Susan is perfect in the role of the aging and retired sheriff. Charles Coburn as the vengeful half breed Zach Provo is also at his best as the obsessed with hatred and murder escaped convict.<br /><br />The man who escaped with Provo are really not interest in his personal affairs but have no choice, in that he knows the territory like the back of his hand, but to go along with him. It's only the thought of them having their way with Susan, when Provo gives them the green light, as well as the buried $30,000.00 in gold coins that keeps them from breaking up and going their own way.<br /><br />Also going along with Burgade is Susan's boyfriend Hal Brickman, Chris Mitchum, who proves in the end that he's as good as Burgade is, who felt that he just didn't have it in him, in both tracking down the escaped criminals as well as using common sense, which in this case Burgade lacks, in doing it.<br /><br />***SPOILERS**** The unbelievably brutal and blood splattered showdown between Burgade and Provo is almost too much to sit through. Provo who's hatred of Burgade bordered on out right insanity wanted him to suffer a slow and excruciating death. it was that hatred that Bugrade took advantage of and, after taking some half dozen bullets, thus ended up putting the crazed and blood thirsty, as well as mindless, lunatic away for good!

positive

This movie is good. It's not the best of the great CG kung fu flicks but its pretty good. First thing first, the story is actually good. The whole idea of gods vs fallen gods type deal with super powers is pretty cool. My problem is theres too many characters! It got very confusing when they switched scenes! The special effects were INCREDIBLE! The fighting scenes were very fast paced and complex. This movie practically all computer generated. The acting is superb, as always expected from such high profile players. Ekin Cheng makes an excellent protagonist, loner character. Zhang Ziyi did nothing for me in this movie. I thought she would have a bigger part but she did one fight scene and a whole lot of yapping. The bad guy, the whole skull army and the whole blood cloud thing is very frightening. The music is also excellent. To me this story deserve at least a mini-series and not just ONE movie. Theres too much story to cram in 2 hours. Maybe if there was a book or something, I would be able to keep up with all the characters and the details. This movie sacrifices story integrity for action. I reccomend Storm Riders over this any day.

positive

I gave this film 8 out of 10, reserving 10 for e.g Amadeus, and 9 for Slumdog Millionaire most recently. This film is close to Slumdog, but it is difficult to judge on such film without understanding Balkan life, mentality and a soul which Kusturica presents masterfully. To understand it you really need to be one of Balkan. This is an amazing movie, much better and more contemporary of his previous films, which are boring at this time, I think Kusturica is moving forward with this movie. I like humour (Balkan humour), photography is an art itself, each scene is artistic to the limit. Plot is probably a fairy tale , don't recall it now, but remember reading to my daughter-going-to sleep a similar story.

positive

The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.

negative

Without "mental anachronism", this film which I would like to find in DVD offer an extraordinary diving in the vital and mental context of thought of the people before the "disenchantment of the world". That, there is thirty years, a director and a scenario writer could test one such empathy and such a romantic truth to do it of them masterpiece leaves me astounding. It would be necessary to be able to see and re-examine it film for better seizing than the temporal and cultural distance us to make lose of capacity to be included/understood, analyze and finally to accept of such or such example of "primitive thought". Because this thought maintaining almost impossible to feel in the secularized world however contain certain keys of our behavior, that only them future generations will be able to analyze with sufficient relevance. If somebody knows where I then to get a numerical copy or VHS to me or DVD… thank you in advance.

positive

Some films manage to survive almost on originality alone - "Wonderland" is certainly one of those films. The script manages to throw everything into a near-fever pitch, but without making it incoherent. The speed of this thriller is not to chosen to cover up a weak script, but rather to accurately reflect the drug-addled reality.<br /><br />As director, James Cox as a very peculiar way of working his actors. Most of the characters are perpetually on edge, and often because they're rather quite ugly personalities. Val Kilmer has described John Holmes to be a hustler, able to manipulate and control. No offense to Kilmer, but his version of Holmes seems only able to control the drastically weak-minded. Nonetheless, it's a stunning performance. Comparing this to Kilmer's more 'Hollywood' roles like in "The Saint" it seems to prove he is far more at home in gritty indie flicks.<br /><br />The actors are the main force holding all together. There are various little performances that stand out - especially the women. Carrie Fisher, Kate Bosworth, and Lisa Kudrow all have limited screen time next to their male counterparts, but they are all fantastic. Aside from Kilmer, Ted Levine and Dylan McDermott give a weird, stunning energy to their roles.<br /><br />I originally put off watching "Wonderland" because I assumed it was a film about a porn actor, in the strictest sense. Yes, the story revolves around John Holmes, but it has literally nothing to do with his professional career. Basically, this film is a murder mystery, and as such - it's excellent.<br /><br />RATING: 7.5 out of 10

positive

I'll make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!<br /><br />I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.<br /><br />I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.<br /><br />This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.<br /><br />The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.<br /><br />1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!

negative

From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable. Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure. In this film you will find none of that. The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards. It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.<br /><br />The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.<br /><br />This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. I found the film a real chore to watch. It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more.

negative

From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts.

negative

What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.<br /><br />see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back...

positive

First of all, I loved Bruce Broughton's music score, very lyrical, and this alone added to the film's charm. The best aspect of the movie were the three animals, superlatively voiced by Michael J.Fox, Sally Field and the late Don Ameche. Whereas Fox has the funniest lines, Ameche plays a rather brooding otherwise engaging character(the voice of reason), and Field adds wit into a character that is always seen telling Chance off. The humans weren't as engaging, and sometimes the film dragged, but that is my only complaint. This is one beautiful-looking film, with beautiful close up shots of Canada, I believe. Although the film itself is quite long, there is never a seriously dull moment, and this is advantaged by the voice work and a well-written script. All in all, a charming and perhaps underrated film, with a 9/10 from me. Bethany Cox.

positive

I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.<br /><br />Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.<br /><br />Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.

negative

I don't know why, but when I am asked about bad movies I have seen, I often think of "The Air Up There". I know that technically, lots of movies are horrible compared to it, and I have seen worse acting. it's just that it's so bland, so predictable. In a word: mediocre.

negative

First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.<br /><br />Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.<br /><br />The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.<br /><br />When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.

negative

The question is, can a movie this entertaining really be considered a "bad" movie? My husband and I picked this up at a used video store for 99 cents simply because of the title and the fact that the box had the words "Vestron Pictures" on it (Vestron has been highly regarded as a mark of quality ever since I first acquired the legendary films "Suburbia" and "Class of 1984"). We were not expecting a movie as full of win as this one was. Your basic plot as is follows: Grange, this goombaesque thug from planet Earth, robs "the bank of the Moon" and is sentenced to a penal colony on a remote planet (I don't even remember the planet's name) to mine for bauxite and other minerals. The "governor" of said colony and the owner of the mine are exploiting the prisoners for labor. Walker, a bounty hunter (apparently one of only three on the whole planet) reminds the prisoners that there is no escape, because there's only one shuttle out of the whole planet and they'd have him to deal with. Then there's the nameless "Colonel", a retired bounty hunter who suffers from a haunting reoccurring nightmare. Much of the movie centers around "futuristic" car chases (dunebuggies with plywood slapped to the sides) with explosions galore. The planet itself looks suspiciously like Hemet, CA or one of those other dusty Inland Empire outposts. But what makes the movie truly shine is a surprisingly awesome soundtrack featuring several LA punk bands of the mid-80s. I seriously doubt that this soundtrack was ever pressed to vinyl, but it's definitely worth buying the movie just for the soundtrack. I can't even remember the names of the bands (they're listed in the credits) other than Exploding White Mice, because that was the only one I'd heard of before I saw this movie, but I'm definitely looking into them.<br /><br />Basically, the movie is definitely not a waste of your time and would be best enjoyed with a 12 pack of beer and a few of your closest friends.

positive

What a horrible comedy. Totally lame. The supposed "humor" was simple and stupid. Stanly Tucci (a great actor) had the only parts worth chuckling at. And he was tied up and gagged at the time. Don't waste your time with this one. It deserves a 0/10.

negative

I can watch a good gory film now and then. I've seen some pretty sick stuff. However, this is one of the few films that I found to be grotesque in a way that was just plain repulsive and revolting. I like gore films when they are fun. I like wen they are a lot of creativity behind them. The gore in this film is not creative. It is sick. It is repugnant. It is completely unpleasant. Because of this, this film is certainly not entertaining. The film is a horror film, but it lacks scares. So pretty much the only reason why one would watch this film is for the gore, but that is the most unappealing and ugly aspect of the whole film, and that's saying a lot. The acting is terrible, the plot makes no sense, and the music is really annoying and WAY too electronic sounding. It all took me right out of the film. Pretty much the whole film is one big long depressing ordeal. There's this guy that has a freak accident in a shuttle and awakens in a hospital to find that his skin is dissolving and melting off. I guess that after that he goes out and eats human flesh in order to slow down the melting process. There's some weird subplot involving an old couple getting chased by a dog, some dismembered head floating down a stream, and an ending involving a man being electrocuted. There were times where I tried really hard to enjoy it, but the only scene in the whole film that I thought was even entertaining was the scene early on in which a nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion. If you like ugly, nasty, ad unappealing horror films, this one is for you.

negative

This really is a great movie. Some of the songs have become immortal classics and the dancing by Fred and Ginger is among their best ever. But basically, all of Fred and Ginger's movies are the same. After the singing and dancing is over, it's the other characters in the movie who make the movie work. What really bothers me is why all the negative comments about Randolph Scott? His romance with Harriet Hilliard and the sub plot of the movie is the reason why I watch this over and over again. He adds to this movie, he doesn't detract from it. He has a winning personality and a great smile. Randy is in my top ten all time favorites list. It's great to see him as something other than a cowboy. OK, so he isn't really a great actor, but like so many other stars: Errol Flynn, Alan Ladd, Victor Mature, etc. he was very likable and could rise to the top on certain occasions. All of Fred and Ginger's movies had sub plots that depended on other actors to fill in the space between the musical numbers, otherwise the movie would have to be shortened by about a half hour. I just wish more people would appreciate Randy and I felt a need to stand up for him.

positive

Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles.

positive

This film is actually pertinent even today given the threat of bio-terrorism, and the threats of superbugs, West Nile Virus, and SARS. As a thriller, the tension is fairly intense. Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas are more than serviceable in their roles. The domestic scenes between Widmark and his wife provide a nice interlude to the main plot. The actor in this film who most left his mark is Jack Palance. His sharply defined features and seemingly easygoing exterior always wither way to reveal the avaricious and cruel man beneath the surface. The chase scene through the packing plant is impressive even today. Recommended, 7/10.

positive

Everyone should totally see this movie! It's freaking scary, but doesn't resort to lame "jump-out-at-you-just-to-surprise-you-and-pass-it-off-as-scary" things. It really is great. See this freaking awesome movie!!! The director is Stanley Kubrick, easily the greatest director who ever lived. Every single one of his movies are masterpieces, including this one. The Shining is about this family that goes to a hotel in the Colorado Rockies as caretakers for the winters, and get snowed in. Well, the house is haunted. The kid is psychic. The husband is easily impacted by evil haunted hotels, and...well...HILARITY ENSUES!!!! Not really. It becomes this gripping thriller where stuff gets thrown at the viewer from all different directions, and it gets scary. Not just the classic, "Here's Johnny" scene. It's memorable, but can't speak for the whole movies. It's one of those things where words don't explain it adequately, and you just gotta see it. So go on Netflix, and get it! GEEEEEETTTTTTTT ITTTTTTTT!!!!!!!

positive

The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!<br /><br />summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!

negative

I have not read the novel, or anything other by Kurt Vonnegut, but I am now intending to start. This grips you from the very first frame, and does not let go until the end credits start rolling. Taking you places you don't expect, the plot is interesting throughout. The pacing is spot-on, nothing lasts too long, and this does a perfect job of balancing between unexpected twists and allowing the viewer to process what we've seen. It is well-told and well-thought out. I've never watched a film that I feel I could particularly compare this to. It is intense and exciting, as well as funny and sad. The acting is excellent, Nolte absolutely shines, Goodman again proves that he doesn't have to go for laughs, and Lee and Arkin are spellbinding. I could go on, really... no role is treated to a less than stellar performance. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and all of the visuals are great, with a couple of unforgettable and astonishing ones. I am going to go for other movies directed by Keith Gordon, as well as the other two apparently related to this, through the author of the books. There is one scene of sexuality, and a lot disturbing and unsettling content in this. I recommend this to anyone who can appreciate it; it is not pleasant. 8/10

positive

The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.<br /><br />Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.<br /><br />This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is.

negative

I just saw this film on Turner Classic Movies last night and was blown away by Victor McLaglen's performance:In every sense of the word a "tour de force". The atmosphere of 1922 Dublin evoked through the cinematography and production design really foreshadowed techniques used in the best film noirs of the 40's and early 50's.Very nice attention to detail also;during Frankie McPhillip's (Wallace Ford's) wake, the mourners are all praying in Gaelic. Max Steiner's score is unforgettable. As in later films such as 1939's GWTW, he appropriated folk ballads to lend local color and a sense of place and time. John Ford: already a film giant in 1935!

positive

you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean "face-value") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not "bad good," either): the reason i'm giving this movie a "4" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....

negative

The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.

negative

This sequel is thoroughly uneven, incoherent and rambling in "plot" (if there really is one)and tries too damned hard to be modern (ridiculous, out of period and character 21 st century style songs predominate) and cute (yawn: there are too many manufactured, belaboured jokes with animals.) The actors in his film are secondary to the juvenile plot. Even Glenn Close (and she is normally very good) sweeps through this film, parodying herself as the original De Ville and the lead from Sunset Boulevard! It's a film that isn't even good to look at. This is a very good example of a bad and pointless sequel. Even Basic Instinct 2 had a plot, characterisation and acceptable acting. This doesn't. It is bad.

negative

THE FBI STORY (1959) was Warner Bros. 149 minute epic tribute to the famous criminal investigation agency! From a book by Don Whitehead came a somewhat laborious screenplay by Richard L. Green and John Twist and was directed with only a modicum of flair by Mervyn LeRoy. However it did have splendid colour Cinematography by Joseph Biroc and a helpful score by the studio's musical magician Max Steiner!<br /><br />The movie charts the history of the Bureau from its lowly beginnings in the twenties to modern times and its all seen through the recollections of aging fastidious agent Chip Hardesty (James Stewart) as he relates his investigative experiences - in flashback - to a class of budding young agents. But it's all very long-winded and episodic! And as it progresses it begins to look like a TV mini series instead of a major movie production as the young Hardesty runs the American crime gamut from taking on such notorious criminal figures as "Baby Face" Nelson, Ma Barker, Dillinger etc. to sorting out nefarious organisations like the Ku Klux Klan, Nazi spy rings and the Red Menace. And here it has to be said that only for the screen presence and appeal of its star THE FBI STORY would probably have ended up a forgotten disaster. Moreover, this is another problem with the picture - Stewart is left to carry the entire movie almost on his own! With the exception of Vera Miles - who has the thankless role of being his long suffering but devoted wife - he is surrounded by a cast of minor players! Throughout you find yourself half expecting someone like Robert Ryan, Jack Palance or even Raymond Burr to make a welcome entrance as a mobster or a police chief or whatever. But nothing quite as imaginative as that ever occurs! Pity!<br /><br />The film does however manage to give a good look inside the workings of the Bureau! With the help of Stewart's narration we learn about the thousands of men and women who work for the organisation which includes the hundreds of agents in the field. And we are also treated to a peek inside headquarters which houses the gigantic records section and we also get a glimpse of the chemists and fingerprint experts meticulously going through their daily chores.<br /><br />Another plus for the movie is Max Steiner's remarkable score! Heard over the titles is a powerful, rousing and determined march while for the picture's gentler moments there is an attractive love theme. But quite ingenious is the menacing and ominous march theme for the Ku Klux Klan sequence. And better still is the rhythmic Latin-American music the composer wrote for the South American scenes especially the exciting Fandango like orchestrations for the arrival of the Federal troops on horseback. THE FBI STORY was one of five scores the composer wrote in 1959 which included Samuel Bronston's naval epic "John Paul Jones", the charming Rom-com "Cash McCall", Delmer Daves' seminal western "The Hanging Tree" and Daves' "A Summer Place" from which derived the Young Love Theme - which was to become a major hit tune for Steiner better known as "Theme From A Summer Place".<br /><br />THE FBI STORY just about passes muster as a movie thanks to Biroc's rich colour Cinematography, Steiner's wonderful music and of course Jimmie Stewart who makes anything watchable!<br /><br />Classic but implausible line from THE FBI STORY............. As the bland Nick Adams (who has just blown up a plane with 43 people on board, including his mother) is being led away handcuffed he turns to the arresting officer and blurts: "In case I get any mail you can send it to Canyon City prison for the next month or so - after that you can send it to HELL". Wow!

negative

I've seen thousands of movies and have never written a review, but the Red Eye I witnessed is so at odds with the glowing tributes posted here that I'm compelled to offer my two cents in protest- and vote the lowest score possible just to bring the average closer to reality. <br /><br />This is a dull, boring stinker of a film that is memorable only for its apologist depictions of the terrorists' target (a John Bolton-esquire bully diplomat who's really a great guy, don't you know) and of the oh-so-handsome and popular Dr. Phil (whose bestselling book, one learns, is read by frequent fliers worldwide). The only real Red Eye I experienced was from rubbing my eyes in disbelief.<br /><br />Before you fork out $10 or so dollars for this B movie, read the selected 'Quotes (from trailer)' above, and ask yourself if you'll really enjoy a movie in which these were the cleverest lines to be found. Unfortunately, nothing else in this film is any better. The basic premise is goofy as hell; the acting is bland and uninspired, completely lacking in pro/antagonist chemistry; the potential for suspense is thwarted at every turn- except during the last five minutes- by poor directing and anticipatory editing; the script is riddled with incongruities like: early reveals of the heroine as a university lacrosse star are called into question when she later battles the antagonist with a field hockey stick; and the plot holes are wider than First Class (while character development is strictly Coach).<br /><br />And then there are the moments of extreme ridiculousness, like when the daughter of a high level public servant does NOT head straight for airport security, at her first opportunity, to warn them of an assassination plot against the both the head of Homeland Security and her father. Or when that same woman runs hell-bent-for-leather along slick airport linoleum, arms pistoning and veins in her neck bulging, while wearing 4 inch stiletto heels. Or when her pursuer chases likewise with a sucking wound in his trachea. Or when terrorists use a fishing pole to bring up their weapon from the freaking harbor bottom. I'm always willing to suspend disbelief, but I'm not going to leap from 30,00 feet without a parachute.<br /><br />The one good thing I can say of this movie is that it portrays women who are capable (even in bimbo form) of handling the most extreme emergencies- the kind of gender imaging sorely lacking in American movies. Other than that, this movie never really takes off, and is no more thrilling than the red eye flight from Boston to NY. Remember the last time you got suckered by deceptive trailers and glowing tributes- in this forum or elsewhere? This is one of those times. Wait for the Red Eye video, and don't watch it then, either.

negative

I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text.<br /><br />One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare.<br /><br />Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph.D to understand and enjoy it.

positive

Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.<br /><br />She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.<br /><br />she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.<br /><br />Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.<br /><br />Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937.

positive

Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.<br /><br />The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.<br /><br />Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.<br /><br />However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.<br /><br />2/5

negative

Seriously crappy movie.<br /><br />First off, the movie starts with a cop and his partner parked outside of a warehouse/furniture store. The "bad" cop takes a girl, which they had pulled over, into the warehouse's attic, while the newbie cop sits outside and ponders what could be happening up there. The "bad" cop eventually returns with a heavy duffel bag, and the newbie cop doesn't think there are any problems, but he still wonders what was in the bag, so he asks, gets a bullshit response, and then he thinks everything is OK (for now).<br /><br />The "bad" cop repeats this process, and even once with a tit scene (made it slightly better). But eventually people start to catch on, which took awhile considering how f***ing obvious it was. One girl gets a voodoo curse placed on her just in case she dies, like ya do. Now, the "bad" cop eventually kills this magically protected bitch, and then he gets rid of the duffel-bagged body.<br /><br />Since she had the oogey-boogey magic put on her, she comes back with lots of eye-shadow on, which is supposed to indicate that she may be a zombie... also, the magic curse causes all of the other girls to become "eye-shadow monsters". Some of the girls meet up with a dude, who is apparently a currency specialist, and he offers them a ride (they look normal to him apparently). But when the girls see other people, such as the one girls husband, he freaks out because she is hideous (some people freak out, but others don't even notice).... massive plot hole.<br /><br />So, to wrap it up, the eye-shadow monsters kill the "bad" cop, who in turn ends up becoming a zombie in the last scene. It was as though they were trying to prep us for a sequel! Like anyone would want to see part 2 of this cow dropping.

negative

For the first three seasons, Sabrina was a gem hidden away on TGIF (and later, early school-day afternoon reruns). Each episode had a maniac, zany energy and rapid-fire pacing that overcame the occasional awkward joke. Melissa Joan Hart exuded a keen talent for physical comedy, particularly in her facial expressions. Her two aunts, playing the "straight men," or as straight as two witches could be, had great comic timing and general chemistry with Hart. Salem, as a talking cat, was free to dabble in whatever mad scheme he was interested in, and one could laugh and take it all in stride because he was, after all, a talking cat. Sabrina's friends rounded out the social experience at school, in which also housed the typical "evil cheerleader" and "totalitarian principal." Perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of the show was the ability to merge pop culture (e.g., bands of the era, Jerry Springer), archetypal human condition/morality (e.g., the importance of friendship, the spirit of Christmas), and the literal representation of such related metaphors in the Magical Realm. Unfortunately, like so many other shows throughout the age of television, the show hit its peak during the first three years, which coincided with Sabrina attending high school. Starting in season four, the move to college marked what would become a precipitous decline in the general quality of the show, particularly when the writers chose to introduce Josh as Harvey's rival, and concocting thin excuses for Aunts Hilda and Zelda to remain on-screen as key players. The final season, where Sabrina works at a pop culture magazine, was unequivocally disappointing. Still, in the end, Sabrina (particularly the high school years) remains a unique entry as a hybrid situational comedy with magical elements that elevates it above the tiresome fare that is produced in this genre every year.

positive

If you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100.000 year old Chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100.000 year old popular name brand LCD T.V. sets. It also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, I think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. As fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as BSG was and it is a poor pre sequel to it….

negative

Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.<br /><br />In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there.

positive

This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. The Footage is extraordinary, mesmerizing at times. It also received an Oscar for best photography, and deservedly so. I have many movies in my film collection and several more I've seen besides them, and not many of them are more beautifully or even equally as beautifully shot as this one.<br /><br />It's unique and an overall great movie. The cast is terrific and do a great job in portraying their characters. We follow their destinies with devotion, and get very emotionally attached to them. Along the way, we also learn things about ourselves and our lives. I think much of this film for what it represent, and how it present it. I warmly recommend it

positive

"Girlfight" follows a project dwelling New York high school girl from a sense of futility into the world of amateur boxing where she finds self esteem, purpose, and much more. Although the film is not about boxing, boxing is all about the film. So much so you can almost smell the sweat. Technically and artistically a good shoot with an sense of honesty and reality about it, "Girlfight" is no chick flick and no "Rocky". It is, rather, a very human drama which even viewers who don't know boxing will be able to connect with.

positive

Firstly, I really enjoyed this movie and its message, which is about daring to live life to the fullest. Very poetic, with heartwarming and funny and sad scenes, very lively, it was a pleasure to watch. Here are my "exceptions" though: The movie was way too long and at some point, it kept adding more and more additional conflicts so that it started to lose the main story line. I disagree though with another comment that its unrealistic to have so many people with "strange" problems in such a small village. I think this was absolutely realistic! There are incredible dramas going on everywhere, we just don't know this about people we meet only superficially. I disliked the ending, which was so loaded with symbolism and extremely forced. It left a bad taste as it was just too much. I did not like it that so many big issues were dramatically mentioned in the group (when some accused others in front of everyone else of major things, people would just be more "ashamed" to voice everything so personal in front of everybody, even if those people are a group one is closely working with). And: defending oneself is a human-beings strongest instinct. So why on earth would Daniel let himself be beaten and never fight back, not even to defend himself? I mean he was not weak, he could at least try to defend himself when attacked but it just drove me mad to see him do nothing. It was as if the storyteller tried to forcefully bring across a message like "violence is not needed", but the way he chose to do this was not good. I am also against violence but the character loses credibility when he stays unmoved despite all the attacks. And: Gabriella...why on earth would a woman, who has spent years with a man beating her up, go to that man when he gets arrested and say "I do not wish you any harm. You have just done your best, like all of us". Oh really, this spoiled so much! Was she going to be a saint or what? It would be normal for her to be bitter but not so almost "holy" and therefore not human. Was her work with Daniel and the music so great that it made her forget all of the s**t that happened to her? Oh, please. So, these were the spoiling moments. Nevertheless, I still think this is a delightful movie all in all, which is amazing enough, given my discomfort with quite a few things. Watch it!! ;-)"

positive

A reasonable effort is summary for this film. A good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. Maggie Smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given, other actors were just dreadful! A terrible portrayal. It wasn't very funny and so it didn't really achieve its genres as it wasn't particularly funny and it wasn't dramatic. The only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. Target Audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. A very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn't as good and who the target audiences were etc. However Maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability.<br /><br />4.

negative

Small SPOILERS alert !!!<br /><br />Good movie...VERY good movie. And I'm surprised to say that myself, because I'm not a big fan of vampires and the sound of the director's name Deran Serafian usually means bad news. Most of his films are below average action movies like Death Warrant and Gunmen. This was one of his first films and maybe he should have continued making horror movies instead of action. This movie really fascinated me. Good accomplishment, seeing no famous actors or big budget was involved. It really is the story that keeps you focused. Especially fans of the original Dracula myth will be satisfied. Sarafian lights up another aspect of the famous Bram Stoker story and remains rather loyal and true to the truth. It explains the life of the Roemenian Count Dracula and how he scared the Turkish army away by spearing dead corpses in front of his castle. Of course, that's where the reality and the "based on a true story" stops. The blood drinking and stuff all was invented by Bram Stoker.<br /><br />In this movie, the count ( Vlad Teppish) emigrates to the USA and seduces tons of woman. And they're all pretty girls, I'll give him that. Overall, good acting by unknown faces, enough blood and gore to satisfy the more morbid horror fans and an interesting storyline. This film is really unknown and it was hidden on the darkest shelf at my local videostore. But it certainly is worth cleaning up the dust on the cover and put it in the VCR. Heck, it's a lot better than the famous Nicole Kidman movie with the same title. These two films have nothing else in common, but I blame that movie for stealing the attention away from this nice little picture. Check it out...my humble opinion on To Die For = 8.5/10

positive

I really looked forward to seeing Nana after seeing Renoir amazing debut work, Whirlpool of Fate. I had read that Nana was generally considered his best silent film so I had high hopes. Sadly this felt like a huge step backwards.<br /><br />Catherine Hessling is the main problem with this film. Her acting is over the top, even for a silent film. Her acting is more like what one would expect in a film from the early teens, not the late 20s. She usually has the same face, which reminds me (sorry to say) of someone with constipation pains. It was also very difficult to believe that any man would fall for this femme fatale. There was nothing charming about her at all.<br /><br />The film was also quite long drawn, the camera work was uninteresting (aside from a shot of a horse race) and the editing was dull. The story reminded me of Pabst's Pandora's Box. It is interesting to compare the two because there are only 3 years between these films. Pandora's Box simply scores on every level where Nana fails.<br /><br />This film is only for Renoir completists or very serious silent films buffs.

negative

It was simple and yet so nice. I think the whole sense of sex segregation in society, which can be bitter, was shown very delicately. It had a bitter kind of hummer in it. The fact that most of the actors were not professionals, made the movie more tangible and more realistic. There was a "documentary" side to the movie too. The best scenes were those that all the girls, banned from watching, were listening passionately to the soldier, who is supposed to keep an eye on them, broadcasting the game. If you are an Iranian, the familiar cheering and dancing in the streets after a game won, fills you up with National pride!! If you are not Iranian, you'll still love it all the same!

positive

William Powell is Philo Vance in "The Kennel Murder Case," a 1933 film also starring Mary Astor, Paul Cavanagh, Eugene Palette, Helen Vinson and Ralph Morgan. A dog show in which Philo has entered his Scottish terrier Captain serves as the background for a locked room mystery with too many suspects. The mystery is very clever and the denouement both complicated and interesting. Since the talkies are still quite young, the camera work is a little static, but Michael Curtiz does a good job directing the action.<br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent; the entire cast brings the film up a notch. Lots of actors have played Philo Vance, including Paul Lukas, Basil Rathbone, Wilford Hyde-White, Edmund Lowe, James Stephenson, Alan Curtis, Warren William and others. Powell played it the most (five times) and is the best fit for the role - very relaxed but serious at the same time. This was made before "The Thin Man" catapulted him to big stardom - he had spent about 12 years in film by then, beginning his career on stage in 1912 at the age of 20. A remarkable man, a remarkable screen presence and a remarkable actor who lived to be nearly 92. We're so lucky to have his films available on DVD and on TCM today. "The Kennel Murder Case" is a great story and a fun film - don't miss it.

positive

I first read the book, when I was a young teenager, then saw the film late one night. About a year ago I checked it out on IMDb and discovered no copies available. I then hit the web and found a site that offers War Films, soooo glad that I did, ordered a copy and sat back and was able to confirm why I wanted to see it again.<br /><br />In my opinion to really enjoy the film I suggest you read get a copy of the book and then watch the film. The book is no longer in print but I did track a copy down via E-bay, the Author Alan White was a commando/paratrooper during the 2nd world war taking part in disparate clandestine operations and this was his first book. It is written by someone who knows and this fact I believe gives the book and film authenticity. I have not given the film a ten only because of the nature of the ending of the film, not as good as the book. There are a couple of plot lines that differ from the book also, which is strange as the book is not about the large scale nature of war but about the individual in war. The film illustrates this exceptionally well. I have the copy of the book to let my son read and then the film to let him watch, in that order.<br /><br />If you can track it down the book and the film then it is definitely worth it and I only wish that it was more readily available for more to read and see, one of my all best war films, ever!

positive

I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.<br /><br />It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.<br /><br />Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10<br /><br />Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity

negative

Adolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.<br /><br />In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.<br /><br />It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.<br /><br />The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!

positive

Well after three times through I still have no idea what this movie is about because, quite honestly, it failed to generate any real interest or concern. But here it goes: A bunch of too old to be teen Teen Actors dressed in horrifying latter 1980's fashions (did WE look like that too??) decide it would be a really good idea to get in a motorboat and go visit the abandoned Alcatraz after one of them has nightmares of people being slaughtered in various horrifying ways that manage to rip off POLTERGEIST, THE EVIL DEAD, and Freddy Kreuger in one fell swoop. The dimwit even envisions himself being roasted over an open fire with some deformed freak slicing off strips of tenderloin. Good thing it was only a dream or it might have hurt, and good thing his dreams had a decent special effects budget. Mine are usually pretty lame: Girls, model space ships, blowing things up with a bazooka, etc.<br /><br />Once on the Alcatraz island they find themselves in a Slasher movie, and meet up with Tony Basil, who cannot help but break into a couple dance poses at times and had her own lighting crew (complete with a smoke machine for that 1980's smoky haze infused light look, which I kind of miss). And such reminded me that Ms. Basil helped choreograph David Byrne of the Talking Heads for some of his videos and performances. This of course has nothing at all to do with the film but kept popping into mind as the movie posed very little to actually think about. It sort of happens, and you can either watch or keep working on your page markup with it on the TV set off to the side. But since the film isn't really interesting, you'll keep deciding to finish one last thing instead of wasting time, the movie will keep ending, and you'll find yourself wondering what you missed every time you realize the end credits are starting to roll again, dammit ...<br /><br />*SOME* 1980's Teen Horror movies can survive such specialized viewing: Umberto Lenzi's GHOSTHOUSE, CHOPPING MALL & it's Killbots, the hard to ignore NIGHT OF THE CREEPS and the over-the-top SLEEPAWAY CAMP all come to mind. They are films that, like them or not, demand your attention and usually pay off with some good gore or T&A, and typos in your work as evidence that you were watching the TV instead of your keyboard. I am sure that HELL ISLAND (as the British version I glommed onto is titled) does indeed have some good stuff in there, but frankly I don't care. And nothing is more annoying that encountering art of any genre that doesn't inspire admiration, some decent dislike or even good old honest hatred for it. The film is content with simpering away 80-whatever minutes of time and never really accomplishing anything more than being a sometimes distraction in spite of my best efforts to try and give it a chance, but no dice.<br /><br />There is some offbeat production design going on, the use of lighting is striking at times, and the occasional outburst of mayhem will probably keep fans of 1980's Teen Horror interested. The rest of you be warned though: YOU WILL WONDER IF YOU DRESSED LIKE THAT IN 1987, and the answer is probably more hideous than anything which happens on screen. Try to watch it as a free rental if possible so that if disappointed you aren't stuck with the damn thing: Movies like this take up valuable shelf space that is often at a commodity these days, what with the world coming to an end & all ...

negative

It could have been a better film. It does drag at points, and the central story shifts from Boyer completing his mission to Boyer avenging Wanda Hendrix's death, but Graham Greene is an author who is really hard to spoil. His stories are all morality tales, due to his own considerations of Catholicism, guilt and innocence (very relative terms in his world view), and the human condition.<br /><br />Boyer is Luis Denard, a well-known concert pianist, who has sided with the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. He has been sent to England to try to carry through an arms purchase deal that is desperately needed. Unfortunately for Denard he is literally on his own - everyone of his contacts turns out to be a willing turncoat for the Falagists of Spain. In particular Katina Paxinou (Mrs. Melendez) a grim boarding house keeper, and Peter Lorre (Mr. Contreras) a teacher of an "esperanto" type international language. Wanda Hendrix is the drudge of a girl (Else) who works for Mrs. Melendez. The local diplomat, Licata (Victor Francken) is already a willing associate of the Falangists.<br /><br />The Brits (Holmes Herbert, Miles Mander, and best - if not worst - of the lot, George Coulouris) don't give much hope to Boyer's cause (which he soon grasps may be Britain's before long). Herbert and Mander just retreat behind the official policy of neutrality ordered by the Ramsay MacDonald's and Stanley Baldwin's governments during the Civil War. Coulouris here is a typical Col. Blimp type - always impeccable in his native English diction, he is sharp in showing his dislike for foreigners in general.<br /><br />The one ray of hope is Lauren Bacall (Rose Cullen), here trying to play her role as well as she can - but she can't really. She's an aristocrat - the daughter of a Press lord. It was Bacall's second film, and (sad to say) almost sank her long career. She does act well, but the spark she showed in her first film was due to the dual effect of starring with Humphrey Bogart and being directed by Howard Hawks. Boyer is a fine actor, but he's not Bogie, and Herman Shumlin is not Hawks. Her next film returned her to Bogie and Hawks again, and her star resumed it's ascendancy.<br /><br />It's a bleak film (as was the novel). Boyer's mission never succeeds, as he has too many hidden foes all over the place. But the villains are likewise also losers - frequently with their lives.<br /><br />With Dan Seymour as a suspicious foreign tenant of Katina Paxinou (and the man who destroys her). It is well worth watching to catch the Warner's lot of character actors doing their best given the weakness in direction.

positive

I usually comment only on movies that I like, figuring "everyone to his/her own taste," but here I want to make an exception. The premise of this movie, which somehow seems to get lost in the shuffle, is that these two self-centered adults have a perfect right to go off to Las Vegas, get drunk, get married, and inflict incalculable suffering upon their respective broods of children. Even allowing for the culturally sanctioned inebriation, they have neither the courage nor the sense of responsibility to wake up the next morning and undo what they have set in motion. After all, "love" is all that's important, isn't it? To hell with everybody else. Whether or not things "work out in the end" is really not the point; in fact it's quite irrelevant. The point is that disrespect for others, especially if they are young persons, and especially if they are in a position of dependency, is made light of and thereby reinforced by this movie. There are far more innocuous behaviors these "parents" could have performed that would have brought down an army of social workers on their heads in a heartbeat.

negative

This is an incredible comeback from movie director mastermind, Tsui Hark. It is one of a few movies that deserves to come a face to face match to Steven Chow's Shaolin Soccer. From the moment the movie started,there was astronishing backdrops at every edge which were<br /><br />deplicted with superb style. If you are a science fiction or chinese martial arts "geek", you'll love the excessive amounts of many 3D effects and realistic computer generated weapons. There, comes a fine performance(as always) from Ekin Cheung who plays "Sky King". He teams up with Louis Koo(Red) who i was very impressed by his flexible "wing" which deflected incoming attacks. The fighting movements of these actors were proficient in every way. Not only is the action superb but the has a somewhat complex storyline. Many Criticisers of this movie complain of the lack of story/theme or just "shoved in random bits of debrise" and even describe as "The Legend of Poo". However, the viewer cannot rely on watching Dragon Ballz and other similar Manga Cartoons to understand this movie. Others who are famarialy with "Wu Xia" movies will have a better appoach. In due respect. there can be one weakness that could be foreseen. The blow that was deliveried to the enemy at the very last fight scene could of been more substantially and devastiingly made.In spite of all this, its a must see.

positive

JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night.

positive

With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith.

negative

Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.<br /><br />It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars!

positive

In the sea of crap that Hollywood (and others) continue to put out, this is one of those diamonds in the rough. A small, simple movie that is very entertaining and leaves you with the feeling that you didn't just waste an hour and a half of your life.<br /><br />Ashley Judd is really quite amazing in this movie. I had never really been a fan or had noticed her before but going back and seeing this early performance of hers convinced me she's extremely talented.<br /><br />Watching this film was an assignment in a college course for me so I was skeptical I would even care. I thought, "Oh boy, some dumb chic flick or feminist male-bashing indie crap..." I was pleasantly surprised. Without analyzing the many relevant themes, I'll just say, if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and check it out. Sometimes the down-to-earth, slice-of-life movies are the best, and this is a great one.

positive

<br /><br />Robot jox is a great little film ok some of the sets are bad and the acting is not that great but the special effects are very good for a film of this size and age. You have to remember that this film is over 10 years old now and was made very cheaply in the 1st place so you cant moan to much about the bad parts. So just sit back and watch a cool film with great big robots in it.

positive

Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.

negative

Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement.

negative

I hired out Hybrid on the weekend. What a disappointment! A stupid lame attempt at a tele-movie. The guy they got for the lead was totally weak and when running {he did a lot} looked like he was eating those minty sweets...with his backside! The wolf contacts he wore were great, though I feel the actor relied on them too much, as there was nothing menacing about his acting at all. The wise native American Indian chick has to be one of the most stony hard faced hags ever seen. Talk about a sour cow! She smiled about once for the entire film, and I think that is because she had sex. The sex scene was lame too. They may as well have shown blowing curtains, if you can dig that.<br /><br />Last of all, and this is a big pet hate of mine, on the cover and the DVD menu, the losers digitally drew in cool sharp teeth on the guy. They were nowhere to be seen in the film. :(

negative

I would have left the movie halfway through if I hadn't been with people who liked it. The movie is based on real incidents, but it's so over the top it didn't feel real at all. I have some psychological background, hang out with a lot of psychotherapists, and have known seriously crazy people, so it's not that I think people like this don't exist. But in the film, the only characters who seemed consistently human were Augusten's father (Alec Baldwin) and the young Augusten (Jack Kaedin). (Although Evan Rachel Wood was an intriguing diversion - very sexy with a wicked sense of fun). There were a few amusing moments, but the overall tone of the movie was grim, bizarre, and nasty. What a waste of an outstanding cast! As I watched them go through their turns, I just felt like I was watching an acting class. This was brought home during the credits, when a couple of people were shown just sitting there, not acting, not talking. Those few moments were more entertaining than the previous 2 hours.

negative

Made me think about it for days after seeing it. That to me is the mark of a great movie. Eyes Wide Shut had the same effect on me. I am tired of these people requiring these happy Hollywood cookie-cutter endings. I am planning on going to see it again tonight to understand the plot a little better - but regardless, the emotional messages of the movie were totally felt.

positive

Watching CBS's "Surrender, Dorothy", I kept wondering why Diane Keaton would want to be in it (not because it's a television movie--with the dearth of enticing roles for slightly older actresses, it isn't any wonder why Academy Award winning performers such as Keaton turn to TV--but because it offers no opportunities for Keaton to shine). A single mother, grieving the sudden death of her twenty-something daughter, imposes upon--and gradually becomes friends with--the group of young people her daughter was close to at the time of her accident. Adapted from the novel, this teleplay gives us a group of self-absorbed characters one would cross the street to avoid. Aside from being coarse and dim, these phony people are incredibly unconvincing, as is the tidy scenario and the bungalow near the beach where the kids reside (one young man, who wears muscle shirts to tell us he's gay, hears Diane Keaton say, "Surrender, Dorothy" and actually asks, "That's from "The Wizard of Oz", right?"...no, genius, it's from "Citizen Kane"!). Keaton may have wanted to do this material based on the subject matter of confronting death. She tries turning this distinctly unlikable woman into a shadow of her own personage (lots of kooky outfits), but it doesn't sit well with the viewer since Keaton has always been warmly likable and flexible in a flaky way. Here, she's a crazed harpy who doesn't learn many lessons on her journey of self-discovery (the movie quickly forgets it's about a dead young woman and becomes an odyssey for the nervous wreck of a mom, who appears to be an overage hippie who has never lost anyone close to her). This is the kind of film actors promote on talk shows with the caveat, "It should help a lot of grieving mothers out there". I can't imagine it helping anyone since it is intrinsically a downer, muddled and baffling. It's deranged.

negative

this was one of those $.50 cent deals of yore---and far more complex than most realize---and it was in color! not only are the effects extraordinary, vs. crap like 'earth vs. the flying saucers'---the real 'killer' is the 'universality of plot'---everything hinges on two principles---the ancient concept of a hidden incestuous-thinking father's desire for his daughter, and the idea of what would happen should a world's tech reach the point where all citizen's desires become manifest.<br /><br />needless to say if everyone we wished dead gets dead, not many, if any left---and that became the fate of the 'forbidden' planet's populace---rather modern, actually. unfortunately the 'gear' of 'The Krell'---wasted by ignorance, remains, and 'Morpheus', the incestuous father, knows how to access such tech---and does so, to prevent losing his daughter to another. ancient plot, beautifully rendered.<br /><br />and considering its age, it remains a stunning suspense, action, human-emotion classic---and visually very modern---don't pass this one up---it presages all modern sci-fi---and its pscychological content elevates it, beyond any genre---a timeless work---<br /><br />and the soundtract! you will see/hear no pure 'synth' and perfectly syched Moog background---a 'not miss'---

positive