Datasets:

dipanjanS

/

imdb_sentiment_finetune_dataset

like 0

The movie with its single set, minimal cast, and straightforward photography (except for a couple of brief special effects) reminds me of one of those old 60 minute playhouse dramas so popular during TV's early years. Nonetheless, the suspense hangs heavy over poor war widow Ida Lupino as she tries to deal with her semi-psychotic handyman Robert Ryan before one of his mood-swings kills her. And who better to play the troubled part than that great actor Ryan. He wasn't very versatile-- watching him essay comedy is almost painful. But no one was better at wounded idealism (On Dangerous Ground) or the psychic pain of this movie. Few actors could express as much with their eyes as this lean and towering figure.<br /><br />Lupino's problem is that she's locked up in her house with a man who is kind and gentle one moment and raging the next. The suspense comes from her various ploys to keep him happy while trying to escape. It's a nail-biter all the way. This is not one of Lupino's many fine "soulful" parts that she was so good at. Instead, it's a role many lesser actresses could have handled well enough. My favorite scene is with Ryan and bratty teenager Margaret Whiting. Ryan's already having difficulty with his masculinity and what others are saying about him. Then when Whiting walks in and finds the attractive-looking Ryan scrubbing the floor, she starts getting coy, flirting with her budding sexuality. Sensing trouble, Ryan abruptly fends her off-- finesse is not his strong suit. Insulted, Whiting attacks his masculinity by calling his work "women's work". That does it. Up to that point he's been courteous and professional with Lupino, trying to set himself on a normal path. But Whiting has hit his raw nerve. Now there's heck to pay as Whiting bounces out the door, leaving Lupino to pay the price. It's a riveting scene, expertly done.<br /><br />Anyway, this is one of the dozen or so films produced by Lupino and her husband at a time when audiences were moving away from these little black-and-whites in favor of wide-screen spectacles. Too bad. What a hugely talented figure she was both behind the camera and in front. She deserves at least an honorary Oscar from a movie industry to which she contributed so much.

This movie suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but "The Protector" is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada "Rumble in the Bronx" that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie.

The premise sucked me in, but it was clear about 30 seconds in that this was either David Lynch or something seriously terrible. Interesting to watch just to run through the fundamentalist laundry list. I can be a sucker for a stirring spiritual piece (Romero comes to mind), but there was nothing spiritual whatsoever about this one. The message seems to be that we must all pretend we have an iq of 80 (or simply get a lobotomy - Jennifer what happened to ya?) and blindly follow the Bible without any sort of self-examination whatsoever or we'll trigger the second coming. It's the kind of attitude that makes people fly jumbo jets into 110 story buildings (I work around the corner from the site of the former WTC). I like to think that God is a little greater than that.

There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, "I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother..." Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.

Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.

Yes, this review may contain spoilers, but you'll thank me for it. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time. I came to this board expecting to see the same response I had, but inexplicably, there are several people who love this film and Spacey's performance in particular.<br /><br />Some will chastise me for saying it, but I find Kevin Spacey's acting quite limited despite the world's admiration for him. I felt like I was watching a meaner version of Kevin's "American Beauty" role. His character in this film is ridiculously overacted, all the way down to his laughable insults he throws at his assistant.<br /><br />There are all-world trite and boring scenes like when Spacey is tearing into Whaley about bringing him Equal instead of Sweat and Low. Somehow, I suspected this particular scene was supposed to be funny, but by this time I was ready to hit the stop button (this is approximately 20 minutes into the film).<br /><br />What about the faux-homage to "Resevoir Dogs"? Whaley proclaims, "I think I saw this in a movie once," as if he's going to cut off Spacey's ear. But what does he use to cut him? An envelope! That's right, he's going to give him paper cuts! That has to be one of Hollywood's all-time worst scenes, and the fact that the actors and director tried to carry it out with a straight face makes it even more appalling.<br /><br />I will admit that I didn't see the end of this film (my DVD mercifully locked up about a half hour before the end), but anyone who wishes to say so could spare me the line that I missed a great twist and everything would have made sense. Well, I don't care what happened in the end, because it could never make up for all that bad acting and relentlessly over-the-top dialogue. I even got the feeling that the actors themselves wanted to get out of this film as bad as I did.

Ordinarily, Anthony Mann made westerns with 'the big guys' - James Stewart, Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda . . . the A list cowboy stars. But in this B+ film, he tackled something notably different and had quite a bit of success with what turned out to be a truly one of a kind western. The main character, played by Victor Mature, is a trapper/ mountain man, and ordinarily they are romanticized in films - Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson, that sort of thing, where the hero is not in fact a typical mountain man but a clean cut heroic figure who hangs out with real mountain men. Not here. For once, a true mountain man - vulgar, crude, animalistic - is the central figure, and it's something to see, giving Mature one of his better later roles. The real acting chops are provided by Robert Preston, excellent as a self-absorbed Custer type cavalry commander, and James Whitmore, the poor man's Spencer Tracy, as another of those old timers who feel themselves trapped between ever more hostile Indians on the one side and the oncoming force of civilization on the other. Even more impressive is a very young Anne Bancroft as the officer's wife, who is initially repulsed by the very sight of Mature's grisly character, then finds her own veneer of civilization slipping away as she begins to realize, to her own shock, that she's attracted to him. Rarely if ever has a remote frontier fort been so accurately realized on screen, without the romantic allure that John Ford gave such a place in his masterful Fort Apache. The battle sequences are big scale and notably violent, and particularly impressive if you seen them in widescreen format. Good show, and underrated movie, all around.

The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.<br /><br />The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.<br /><br />Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.<br /><br />Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.<br /><br />When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.<br /><br />In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed.

The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind "patriot", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.<br /><br />The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.<br /><br />Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles.

Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.

On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.<br /><br />I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.<br /><br />Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:<br /><br />1. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />2. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it. <br /><br />4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.<br /><br />5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.<br /><br />6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.<br /><br />7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.<br /><br />8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.<br /><br />9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!<br /><br />10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.

i completely agree with jamrom4.. this was the single most horrible movie i have ever seen.. holy crap it was terrible.. i was warned not to see it..and foolishly i watched it anyway.. about 10 minutes into the painful experience i completely gave up on watching the atrocity..but sat through until the end..just to see if i could.. well i did and now i wish i had not..it was disgusting..nothing happened and the ending was all preachy..no movie that bad has the right to survive..i implore all of you to spare yourself the terror of fatty drives the bus..if only i had heeded the same warning..please save yourself from this movie..i have a feeling those who rated it highly were involved in the making of the movie..and should all be wiped off the face of the planet..

JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!<br /><br />A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.<br /><br />Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.<br /><br />The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.<br /><br />Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!<br /><br />The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.<br /><br />I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!

I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four "mini" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.<br /><br />The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.<br /><br />The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.

I got encouraged to watch this film because I've heard good word of it: it was supposed to be this thrilling true crime milestone, disturbing, shocking... all that jazz. Well, I am disturbed because I spent money on it, and I am shocked that something so God-awful actually got released. That's about it.<br /><br />This is a supposed "new look" at Charles Manson's family of insane loser junkies and their murders. But if this is a "new look" then it's probably "new" as in "fresh and totally inept": just watching it gave me a headache and I had to give up trying to make any sense of it or even understand just what the director intended it to be.<br /><br />I suppose I should say something about the plot but fact is, it was so stupid and incoherent that I barely remember if there even WAS a plot at all. There was something about a "Manson tape" delivered to a radio DJ (or a TV producer?), then an hour of pointless random footage of "the family" in '69, then the Polanski murders (looking like a bad school play) and finally some idiotic part about a bunch of skinheads getting drunk and beating the hell out of one another in an alley (I kid you not), and then it ended (thank God) (Don't ask me to make any sense of that, I'm just recalling what I saw!) The performances were terrible, too. And how difficult is it to make a convincing "Manson"? Get a short skinny scrawny bloke, put a dirty wig and a shaggy beard on him. There's your Manson. But this "Manson" doesn't even look right. He just looks like, uh, a bloke in a cheap wig and a glued on Santa beard painted black.<br /><br />Or maybe that's what this film is actually about: Manson's family didn't make any sense, so this film doesn't make any sense, either. It's symbolic! (Yeah, right) I'm still so angry at spending money on this I stopped my normal lurking on this site and registered just to vote 1 for this film and post this warning that will hopefully prevent others from spending their money on this garbage. Stay away from it, it's not even worth renting.<br /><br />PS. The recent US TV production "Helter Skelter" got bad reviews here but I saw it last month (I saw the 1976 original too) and let me tell you, compared to "Manson Family", that new Helter Skelter is BRILLIANT and FLAWLESS. And I was disappointed in it! That's how bad "Manson Family" is: it makes a flawed and mostly disappointing TV movie look perfect.

Just two comments....SEVEN years apart? Hardly evidence of the film's relentless pulling-power! As has been mentioned, the low-budget telemovie status of 13 GANTRY ROW is a mitigating factor in its limited appeal. Having said that however the thing is not without merit - either as entertainment or as a fright outing per se.<br /><br />True, the plot at its most basic is a re-working of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - only without much horror. More a case of intrigue! Gibney might have made a more worthwhile impression if she had played Halifax -investigating a couple of seemingly unconnected murders with the "house" as the main suspect. The script is better than average and the production overall of a high standard. It just fails to engage the viewer particularly at key moments.<br /><br />Having picked the DVD up for a mere $3.95 last week at my regular video store, I cannot begrudge the expenditure. $10.95 would be an acceptable price for the film. Just don't expect fireworks!

This Filmfour funded Sci-Fi movie is most definitely a must see. While it takes huge influence from The Manchurian Candidate and offers nothing new or original plot wise; it's handled with the utmost skill that it comes off as being fresh and inventive, despite it being basically a re-run of an earlier film. It's good to know that films like this are still being made (even if they aren't getting wide releases), and Cypher is refreshing for that reason. The plot twists and turns, which gives it an element of paranoia and also serves in keeping the audience on the edge of their seat while trying to figure out the meaning of Cypher's mystery. The plot follows Morgan Sullivan; a bored suburban man that decides to take a job with Digicorp that involves him listening to speeches from several rival companies and recording them for reasons, to him, unknown. However, his job is interrupted when he meets a mysterious young lady known as Rita...<br /><br />This film features a number of stark white backgrounds that give it a very surreal edge and blend well with it's apocalyptic imaging of the future. This gives the film a very odd look that sets it apart from the majority of other films of the same type, with it's only real close affiliate being Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. The plot is also very efficient and ditches character development in favour of the more stylish - and more thrilling - plot developing. You never quite know where you are with the plot, which serves in making it all the more intriguing. The acting is largely good with a largely unknown cast backing up the team of stars; Jeremy Northam and Lucy Lui. Northam very much looks the part of the quiet and disheartened man at the centre of the tale, and does well with his role. Lucy Lui is an actress that has a resume that doesn't quite fit her talent, but she has a look about her that just fits this movie.<br /><br />Cypher is far from perfect as some of the sequences are illogical and at times it can be inconsistent; but on the whole, if you want an inventive recent Sci-Fi film; Cypher is the way to go.

Any one who has seen Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ and was bothered by the gory violence would want to see this film instead. Though it wasn't a success in th box office or TV ratings, The Fox Movie Channel still finds a real good motive to show this anually. I liked the way that they trained Chris Sarandon and the men who portrayed his disciples to sing in Hebrew.Though Sarandon didn't have long hair like any other Jesus would in other films, his looks are pretty close to what a Jewish man would appear. What surprised me or startled me was the scene where Caiaphas told Jesus about Pilate "And don't ever forget, that you are a Jew!" Though that may have not been a racist remark,Colin Blakely was trying to make Chris Sarandon look like garbage in the eyes of the prominent men of those days.Keith Michell's portrayal of Pilate was hulking, comparing with his previous performances in "The Story of Jacob and Joseph" and "The Story of David". But if you compare his portrayal of Pilate with Telly Savala's or Hurd Hatfield, you can say that he really painted well the impression of a Roman procurator.

When I was young, I was a big fan of the Naked Gun movies but just recently I watched the show Police Sqaud! and I think its great! Leslie Nielson's awesome, Alan North is cool, and who the heck is Rex Hamilton? But anyways, it's one goofy show.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of this show when they do the freeze frame scene during the end credits. I think my favorite one is when Norberg (not O.J.) walks in during the scene and he tries to fit in with the freeze frame. Classic!<br /><br />The only problem to me is the cigarette gag gets very old (when Drebin shows a cigarette to someone and asks, "Cigarette?" and the person replies, "Yes. I know.") I think they used it too many times by whatever.<br /><br />Good acting, good gags, great show!<br /><br />7/10

within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw "before watching this" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is "wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like"<br /><br />films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there

I must say that I really had no idea that I was going to sit down and watch this movie. I guess it was the fact that I had nothing better to do between class. But, for once a TV movie caught my interest. More importantly Helen Hunt caught my eye. I really wasn't a big fan of hers prior to this film. Sure I liked Twister and As Good As It Gets. But, something about this movie really did it for me. I would now see myself as a huge fan. This movie comes with high marks from...me. Give it a chance, it won't let you down.

My mother worked with Dennis L. Raider for eleven years, not to mention shared an office with him. When it was announced he was BTK, she was shocked. The whole day was just her telling stories about how she never would have seen him as the Wichita Killer. I've heard her re-tell them many times. I've inquired her about a lot of things, and gone to all the interviews that she was asked to go to. I've read the entire book written about Raider, Wichita is my hometown and I was surprised that such a thing could happen in Kansas.<br /><br />There was another BTK movie on TV not too long ago, and I thought this one would have been better at portraying Dennis' killings, maybe even have some intelligent touches to his motives.<br /><br />I'm going to be very blunt with the flaws in this movie. This is based on my mom's portrayal of him, all my readings on him, and the video tapes I've seen of him talking.<br /><br />First of all, the camera angles were horrible. It looked as though it had been shot on a home video camera. The acting was terrible and I couldn't even bear to watch it.<br /><br />Dennis Raider never had long hair. Dennis Raider was a "very anal man" and was a "follow the rule book" kind of guy. He wasn't as nice as the movie made him look, he was very polite and abrupt, business like. Same goes for his killings, as far as we all know. If you've seen his confession in court, you can already guess.<br /><br />And as for the obsession with the slaughter house? No. Never have I read or has Dennis Raider confessed to having a problem with animal cruelty or people squishing bugs. In fact, he practiced on cats and dogs for choking methods. Yet through-out the whole movie he was putting animals in his victim's faces and acting like he cared about the well-being of them.<br /><br />Dennis Raider never killed the people that he knew, he confessed this, but in the movie in his first killing he tells the lady he knows her also.<br /><br />I really don't even want to go in to this movie, and I'm already ranting. This is NOT what you want to watch if you are interested in the actual happenings of BTK. This is NOT what you want to watch if you want a good horror movie. If you want a badly shot half-porno with some slaughter scenes served the side, then this is your kind of movie.

If you thought that the original from 83 was bad then try out this modern day masterpiece. How could it be worse more you ask? Well...at least in the first one you had Ally Sheedy jogging in a sports bra. Other than updated graphics, modern day themes (such as terrorists), modern weapons and a sexy new voice for Ripley unfortunately this is the same sad tired story. Anyone that saw the first one could see exactly where the next scene / line in the story was going. And for anyone that didn't see the first one...well consider yourself lucky that you only watched it once. Maybe in another 23 years Hollywood will try again.

Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.<br /><br />However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.<br /><br />Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.<br /><br />This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V.

I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."<br /><br />First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.<br /><br />Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.<br /><br />I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.

I watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.

I must say: out of all modern korean martial arts movies this one is worth checking out. It wasn't as epic as Musa-The Warriors and didn't develop the characters as well, but it had many nice ideas. Simple story: a elite soldier thought dead, returns after years to end the reign of the Japanese in Korea in medieval days. His counterpart was formerly the best friend he had and now he is out to stop him. The fight scenes are all with sword or different weapons and very entertaining to watch. The motives of the figures are discovered first near to the end. You might need to watch it again to get all the connections right. And me personally...I loved the end. I could watch it over and over again. Maybe a little pathetic, but a real freedom fighter story.... People can be killed, but not the ideas they stand for....

This is a movie that plays to everyone's emotions. We all want a second chance at things. Jim Morris got one, followed his heart and got a chance to live his dream. What a great message and what a great delivery by this movie.

"Zu:The warriors from magic mountain" was and is an impressive classic! You never would have guessed it was made in 1983. Tsui Hark's use of special effects was very creative and inventive. (He continued doing this in the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and later productions.) Even now it can measure up to other movies in this genre. "Legend of Zu" is connected to "Zu"warriors from magic mountain"! It is not necessary to have seen this movie to understand the plot of this one. The plot is a bit hard to follow. But to be honest it doesn't matter. It is all about the action and adventure! I always was wondering what Tsui Hark would do if he got his hands on CGI. Now we know,he made this movie. Maybe it sometimes is too much but the overall result is so beautiful that I am not going to be critical about that. There is so much happening on the screen,you simply won't believe! I think it is a big shame that this movie wasn't shown in theaters here in Holland. Because this movie is screaming for screen time in cinemas! This movie easily can beat big budget Hollywood productions like "Superman Returns" or Xmen 3. The only thing I do have to mention is the lack of humor! In most of Tsui Harks's movies he combines drama,fantasy,martial arts and humor. Somehow it is missing in this movie. Again I am not going to be picky about these small matters. "Legend of Zu" delivers on the action front with the most beautiful special effects you will see. A true classic!

One of my favorite shows in the 80's. After the first season, it started going downhill when they decided to add Jean Bruce Scott to the cast. Deborah Pratt was wonderful and it was fun watching her and Ernest Borgnine's character go at it with each other. The last episode she appeared in was one of my favorites for in the second season. Unfortunately during those days, blacks did not last long on television shows. Some of the episodes in the second season where okay but the third season it was more about the human characters than Airwolf and it was not shown until almost at the end of the show. When it went to USA, it was disgusting!!!

I picked up this movie with the intention of getting a bad zombie movie. But I had no Idea what I was getting myself into.<br /><br />I started the movie and soon I had been pulled into a world of pain and visual torture.<br /><br />I finally know what hell is like. It's this movie. For eternity. This movie has no value. It didn't even really have a plot. There was stuff going on in each scene but no overall explanation why anything happens.<br /><br />Instead of watching this movie I suggest that you line the nearest blender with oil and try and stuff as many bullets in it as you can. You will find that the outcome to be far more pleasant than this movie.<br /><br />Don't even watch it. Not even to see how bad it is. I beg you. If you watch it, then it means they win.

After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. <br /><br />We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.<br /><br />The main character did have a cool bike.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.

A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.

this movie is not porn, it was not meant to be porn, and unless my uncle runs for president of the world it should never be considered porn.<br /><br />now that that issue was sorted out, i can say i thoroughly recommend this film, as it's issues are still widely available. it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.<br /><br />i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us. Lena is the true pioneer of the modern riot-grrrl movement, confusion, curiosity and wit are her main attributes, she is occasionally angry, but aren't we all?

Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.<br /><br />Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.

THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! The Decline of Western Civilization......what a great title eh? And of coarse a great movie. This is the best concert film I have ever seen. A close second being the Talking Heads movie "Stop Making Sense". I first heard of this movie when Waynes World came out in 1992. I looked at the director's name Penelope Spheeris and thought cool name, what else has he directed? I thought the first name was pronounced like envelope. After some time looking in movie guides I came across the critically acclaimed Decline and realized Penelope was a woman.....my Mom corrected me. I spent 8 years of my life trying to track this down. I finally saw it on VHS in Vancouver, where I currently reside. It was worth the wait. This captures the LA punk movement very well. This is teen angst at it's best folks. My favourite is the band the Germs who need subtitles for the lyrics because Darby Crash sings so crazy, you cannot understand it. I laughed when I saw this. The band Black Flag live in an abandoned church and the band X are a very intelligent bunch. Also laughed at the letter some idiot writes in to Slash Magazine about how we do not need to save the whales, there are countless miles of ocean for us to pour toxins in! I became a huge Penelope Spheeris fan after this, and saw all her punk movies-Dudes was OK, and Suburbia is a cult classic! I own both of these on VHS. She is a true underground film maker and I love her stuff. I would have loved to have seen this movie in 1994 when grunge was so popular. I was a big Nirvana fan then, but alas I saw this in 2002 and by that point I had grown out of grunge and now I listen to Crystal Method/Fatboy Slim. Quite a change of pace, I know, but what can you do? But if you want a true depiction of the punk movement this captures it better than anything. Much better than 1991: The Year Punk Broke. This is a tough movie to track down, but if you get your hands on it, rent it, even if you don't like the music it is an excellent piece of work. Now days it might be easier to find with DVD's being so popular. By the way Penelope produced a little known Albert Brooks movie called "Real Life" which I also own. Very funny stuff in todays reality TV craptacular! Rent Decline......Highly recommended! Thanks!

I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.<br /><br />The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.<br /><br />I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.<br /><br />Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?

Remember the wooden, undramatic literary adaptations of the 1970s at their worst? You will when you see this broadly acted, unintentionally hilarious piece of chocolate-box adaptation. Most culpable of all is Catherine Z-J who, while undeniably easy on the eye, substitutes swishing a big dress and looking sultry for actually turning in a performance. Played po-faced like a melodrama, or Cold Comfort Farm without the jokes, this effort is not helped by a scriptwriter with a tin ear for dialogue who misses entirely the novel's sense of irony or tragedy. A shame, given the quality of the acting talent on offer - Joan Plowright, Claire Skinner, Steven Macintosh all deserve better than this.

Obviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc. <br /><br />Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.

best movie ever!!!!! this movie broke my ribs just by the force of laughter, but it was well worth it. i don't intend to do a summary of this excellent movie, just go see it if you have the chance. i think you will either love it, or hate it. that's the qualities of a real cult movie.

Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.<br /><br />Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime – this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no – what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.<br /><br />I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin – one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.<br /><br />So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it – that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (alá The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.<br /><br />The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with – maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs – the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late – anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it – AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here.

The original movie ( dated 19??)did not show any "monster" , it just SUGGESTED scary "things" , .<br /><br />This version however shows every aspect of a "sick minded ghost" , including unnecessary special effects . <br /><br />The "mystery " ,as presented in the original movie , was the most scary part : one simply did not know what was causing the weird things that happened. By showing the face of the "old man" , this Mister has completely disappeared. Even worse : the special effects ( crying wooden children faces) is ridiculous. This is a stupid remake , too obviously spectacular to even be close as scary as the original

"Hero and the Terror" is a fairly dull thriller - a la: no real character substance, predictable plot, and... Boring. For a thriller I found this movie slow in working up to its pitiful climax, as it just seemed to drag along until Chuck's wife's baby is born... and then it drags on from there until it reaches the end - which I can hardly remember already even though I only saw the film 10 minutes ago.<br /><br />I give this film 3 out of 10 - for the first 10-20 minutes.

Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8/10

An angry boy who has tragically lost his parents is looked after by his grandfather. Together they find common ground in the Gaelic folk tales which have been passed down orally from generation to generation of islanders. Although tragic episodes, such as the Highland clearances, feature in the stories, there is a surprising amount of humour and gaiety in them. It's all filmed in Skye, so there is a double dose of beauty. The mountain scenery is breathtaking, and it's a rare chance to hear Scottish Gaelic spoken. I'm English, so I had to read the subtitles, but the sound of spoken Gaelic is nonetheless wonderful. The performances are just what you would expect from carefully chosen non-actors - in other words, you are watching the real thing - people who care deeply about Gaelic folklore and history. The Gaelic community, especially on Skye, worked innumerable minor miracles to make this film. Anyone who has the slightest interest in Gaelic, folk history, folk music, oral culture, Scotland, British history, multi-culturalism or social justice should go and see this film.

There is absolutely NO reason to waste your time with this "film". The original said it all and still holds up. Either read the book or do some research about the story, and you'll realize this remake is ludicrous. Eric Roberts as Perry Smith? His sister could have done a better job! Having been to Holcomb & Edgerton, KS where the story takes place, the sets and locations looked NOTHING like Kansas. The original is riveting, from the location filming to the use of the actual participants, weapons and victims belongings. Unforgettable performances by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake. Soundtrack by Quincy Jones and cinematography by Conrad Hall...The original is available on DVD in widescreen now. Let this turkey die a quick death.

As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a "good-bad" movie but wasn't good enough to be "good" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.

My favourite police series of all time turns to a TV-film. Does it work? Yes. Gee runs for mayor and gets shot. The Homicide "hall of fame" turns up. Pembleton and nearly all of the cops who ever played in this series. A lot of flashbacks helps you who hasn´t seen the TV-series but it amuses the fans too. The last five minutes solves another murder and at the very end even two of the dead cops turn up. And a short appearance from my favourite coroner Juliana Cox. This is a good film.

Ok, maybe Posse can't compare to other popular cowboy/western movies. But that's because it didn't have the FUNDING those movies had. Obviously, whenever you want to produce a story such as this one, focusing on African American historical involvement (and NO, servants and 'mammies' are not historical involvement), Hollywood isn't going to be too supportive. And believe me they weren't. The producers and actors sacrificed a lot of 'out of pocket' expenses to make "Posse", just so that the story could be told. I think that alone is commendable. Posse may not be Oscar material (and they don't like Black media too much either), but it is a start. It is entertaining, and it introduces us to the black cowboy, a character most of us are unfamiliar with.

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

I truly enjoyed this film. It's rare to find a star who can pull off the physical aspects of any sports/dance themed film convincingly and do a first rate acting job as well. In this film you find two stars who rise to the occasion. Both women deliver warm, touching and at times humorous performances. The film also touched on a number of topics, from racial issues to sexual identity. And yet the approach wasn't heavy handed. The production values were also top notch for a small budget film. I saw this at the Philadelphia Gay & Lesbian film festival and went back to see it a second time. It was a real crowd pleaser. Everyone I spoke to seemed to enjoy this film.

Lucio Fulci made a lot of great films throughout his career and the way that many of them featured a bucket load of gore lead to him earning the title 'The Godfather of Gore'. While Don't Torture a Duckling was made before Fulci became well known amongst gorehounds, and isn't all that gory; it's certainly a gritty and nasty little thriller, and for my money - the best film that Fulci ever made! Don't Torture a Duckling really is head and shoulders above a lot of the Giallo genre in terms of production values and unlike many of Fulci's later films, everything about this Giallo is great. The plot focuses on a small rustic community where dead bodies have began turning up. The murders are even more shocking because the victims are just young boys. Shortly after the police convict an innocent man of the crimes, a reporter named Andrea Martelli arrives in the village and decides to start investigating the murders on his own. Martelli soon encounters various suspects, including a sexy young lady named Patricia, a sinister priest and a local witch who enjoys making wax effigies and sticking pins into them.<br /><br />While this film may not feature loads of gore, it does have two of Fulci's nastiest sequences to make up for it. The nastiest involves a woman being brutally slaughtered by a group of men in a cemetery, while the image of a man falling from a cliff and hitting any number of rocks on the way down is liable to turn some stomachs. Don't Torture a Duckling features an absolutely great Italian cast. Barbara Bouchet (a personal favourite of mine) is incredibly sexy in her role as Patricia, and gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in many later films. Tomas Millian is excellent as usual while the rest of the cast is well fleshed out by likes of Irene Pappas, Florinda Bolkan and Marc Porel. The cinematography on display is stunning and Fulci really gives the viewer the impression that he puts a lot of care and effort into every scene. The story plays out slowly, and it's always interesting as Fulci never allows the film to stray too much from the central plot line. There isn't a great deal of mystery towards the identity of the murderer; but Fulci almost manages to keep us guessing right up until the end and Don't Torture a Duckling does climax on a high. Overall, it's a shame that Fulci didn't make more films like this. Don't Torture a Duckling is his out and out best work and I insist that every Giallo fans sees it!

This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!

The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.<br /><br />The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad.

If the makers of Atlantis had something to say in this film, its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on "special effects" over characterization. Almost as if in an attempt to "keep up" with the rest of the summer action blockbusters, Disney has ditched the character-driven, movie-with-a-message approach in favor of a Star Wars "shoot-'em-up" with stereotype heroes and villains.<br /><br />The art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (CGI) of flying fish-craft and submarines to fill the gap. They are wrong, and the days of beautiful, handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly-line CGI.<br /><br />This movie is all spectacle with no heart. At times the film comes close to being a good, worthwhile movie, but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz.<br /><br />Another problem with the movie is the pacing. It starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. The viewer is rushed out of the door along with Milo Thatch (voiced well by Michael J. Fox) and is left thinking "Gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that's going to happen once we get to Atlantis". Unfortunately, not much happens. The secret of Atlantis remains a secret with the story-tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island/continent. They are afraid to commit to saying where Atlantis is, even in a fictional story. Is it in the Atlantic? Is it in the Mediterranean Sea? Who knows? Nothing is hypothesized, even from a purely fantasy-based point of view. The viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves "Now what was that all about? What was the point of the movie? Why couldn't the surviving Atlantean's remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the "present" day? And WHY did Atlantis sink?" and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. There is nothing left to think about or mill over... except the loss of money in their wallets.<br /><br />The characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. From the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914, to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters Kida and VOLUNTARILY deserts its people!?! The crew are a collection of quirky, 2-dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) P.C. race and gender. The demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a Warner Brothers' Bugs Bunny short. Most of the jokes are gross one-liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons: They are delivered at lightning-speed pacing and usually mumbled. The way these supporting players do a moral turn-around near the end of the movie is hard to believe.<br /><br />While we applaud Disney for trying to create animated movies for adults - and this is the first Disney not to have cute, talking animals or objects - it fails to make the transition. Younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak Atlantean). In the first five minutes of the expedition, approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. Obviously Disney thinks that if you didn't know who those people were, then why should you care? Again, the movie has no feelings on any level.<br /><br />Mulan and Tarzan were the last animated movies produced by Disney that were done extremely well. Sadly, Atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the Black Cauldron and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Disney needs to get back to their roots. A sequel to Peter Pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. And now that Disney has discovered Science Fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. We also hope that the upcoming "Treasure Planet", a sci-fi adaptation of Robert L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", will have more heart to it than the unfathomable "Atlantis: The Lost Empire".

Bruce Almighty is the story of Bruce Nolan, an average man who feels God is messing up his life. God confronts him and show Bruce the error of his ways. Of course, giving someone God's powers could take a turn for the worse. Bruce Almighty is a good comedy, Jim Carrey is good, as always Morgan Freeman is first-rate and seems right at home as God and the cast brings the plot together well. The jokes are almost always on target, although sometimes they resort a bit too much on Carrey's facial expressions. I liked the fact that the movie actually portrayed God, not only that but also as a black man. I thought this quite well, especially with the brilliant Freeman. There are some hilarious scenes, the opening cookie scene for instance, others miss the target slightly but still a good film. 6/7 out of 10

This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing.

I just watched this film this morning and I found it to be a great showing of the richness of faith. Babette gave them another way to look at life; not a replacement, but an enhancement. She shared all that she had with those who gave what little they had to her. I see the story of God in here. He sent his only son to man. Man could not possibly give anything that would equal that. So, for our small sacrifice, we are given an ultimate treasure and are transformed because of it. In this film the bickering townspeople have so consumed themselves with a small interpretation of God. Babette showed them that life and God can indeed be beautiful in it's fullest sense. The love that God's son showed to man is the love we should show to one another and our lives will be the richer for it. Even the film is a metaphor. It seems slow in the beginning, but the investment of time and attention to detail is rewarded in the end. It was truly a feast.

with this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.<br /><br />i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.<br /><br />this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robbery<br /><br />i'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3/10...........j.d Seaton

Funny. Sad. Charming. These are all words that floated through my head while I was watching this beautiful, simple film.<br /><br />It is rare that a movie truly moves me, but "Shall We Dance?" accomplished that with grace to spare. Gentle humor mixed in with occasional subtle agony made this easily one of the best experiences of my movie-viewing history. It left me with a quiet sense of exultation, but with a small touch of sadness mixed in.<br /><br />And the dancing, oh yes, the dancing. Even if you are not a lover of the art, or can't put one foot in front of another, the steps displayed here will take your breath away, and make you want to sign up for classes as fast as you can. It was absolutely enchanting, even the parts that show Sugiyama's (touchingly portrayed by Koji Yakusho) stilted steps when he was first learning to dance were lovely in a humorous, child-like way. And yet, this film was not entirely about dancing, but more about the subtleties of human behavior and feelings. We witness a shy man learning to express his repressed feelings through dance, a beautiful dance instructor rediscovering her love for the art, and the personal growth of every member of the wonderful supporting cast.<br /><br />Beauty. Pain. Emotion. All the love and little agonies of life are here, expressed with the delicate feeling of a fine Japanese watercolor painting combined with the emotional strength and grace of the culture.<br /><br />

Justin goes home to live with his strict, hard-nosed police detective father, but it seems daddy has turned the upstairs into three makeshift apartments each with bizarre tenants residing in them. Straight-laced idealist Justin is thrust into the world of the occult, murder, under-aged drinking and other dastardly things. Ho-hum <br /><br />Wow, have I seen the same film that nearly all the other reviewers on here saw??? Clever, compelling, original, intense, clever, genius????!!? I witnessed none of those things. What I DID see was an uninteresting, bland, trite, extremely clichéd low-budget thriller that was ripe with implausibilities and no tension in the least bit as the killer is telegraphed as soon into the film as he gives his monologue/debate/discussion. And where are these humorous laugh-out-loud moments? I never so much as chuckled, perhaps because i was too busy struggling not to be put to sleep by the film.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />DVD Extras: Audio commentary with director Dave Campfield; Second commentary with various contributers as well as isolated music tracks; 4 featurettes (Making of, on the set, turning 1 room into 4, & Inside the black circle); Interviews with Felissa Rose, Desiree Gould, & Raine Brown; Alternate scenes; bloopers; a music video for 'Addiction'; A trailer for this movie; And trailers for "Shock-o-rama", "Chainsaw Sally", "Skin Crawl", "Sinful", "Bacterium", "Creature from the Hillbilly Lagoon", & "Millennium Crises"

The above line sums it up pretty good. The best assets of the comics are it's visual gags and word-jokes (the latter of which are almost impossible to translate, which is why the comics are at their best in their original language).<br /><br />Both are quite hard to capture in film, which is why those will never be as good as the comics. Movies are simply a different medium than comics. With that in mind, this movie does surprisingly well in capturing the fun of the comic.<br /><br />The word gags are bearable, and sometimes even funny (Debouze does an Amelie reference!). I have to mention that I watched the french version. If you don't watch the french version or your lack of understanding of the french language limits you to the subtitles, the word jokes will probably suck.<br /><br />The slapstick is okay as well; it's a very simple form of humor, and not really funny when you're older than twelve, but it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. The other visual jokes are the movie's saving grace for the older audience, as their often quite funny.<br /><br />The acting is totally over the top, but again, that's not annoying at all as it captures the spirit of the comicbooks. Only Depardieu and Clavier don't really overact, which might be the reason some people think they didn't enjoy their roles (I didn't notice a thing). On the other hand Jamel Debouze and especially Claude Rich turn overacting into an artform. It's actually fun to watch. Again, I fear it wouldn't be nearly as funny when the voices are dubbed.<br /><br />Overall not a bad movie at all, much better than the previous one. It's not a classic and it doesn't dethrone The Twelve Tasks of Asterix as my favourite Asterix movie, but it's still worth seeing. The french version, that is. 7/10

I would label this show as horrendous if it weren't for the fact that it's on the same network as Arrested Development. Because it is on FOX and getting renewed while AD got cancelled. <br /><br />It is absolutely beyond words how atrocious this show actually is. But let me try and describe it. Take an extremely low rate Archie Bunker and have him spout out humor that would have been out of date if it were on Married with Children. Then take great plot lines from AD (son has an ugly, boring girlfriend) and dumb them down so the idiots who watch sitcoms can understand them. <br /><br />If you watch this, I will have completely lost respect for you, as should your family. However, if you are a fan, you should love FOX's new comedy 'Til Death. Looks like real funny, cutting-edge stuff. I mean, married couples not getting along ... brilliant.

Robert Mitchum stars as Clint Tollinger in this short but tough western: Man With The Gun. Tollinger is a professional town tamer - as in, when a town needs someone to save itself; he is the one who is brought in to do it. Tollinger's latest gig comes by as an accident: strolling into town looking for his former fling, he stumbles into a town being played like a puppet by a local western gangster. But many townspeople begin to rue the day they hired Tollinger, as his way of cleaning up the town becomes very taxing (suddenly High Plains Drifter seems less original). <br /><br />Man With The Gun starts off as an average western tough-guy film but begins to surprise you more and more as the film progresses. What starts off as forgettable and run-of-the-mill ends up dark and character-centered. The entire film is very well shot and the cast is very enjoyable. Mitchum is his usual excellent self here in Man With The Gun - not one of his very best performances, Mitchum still has his classic and effective tough-guy screen presence in high gear and he knocks the action-packed, meaningful, and shocking scenes of the film right out of the park. Man With The Gun is a nice Mitchum western and is easily worth one's time.

My favorite film this year. Great characters and plot, and the direction and editing was smooth, visually beautiful, and interesting. <br /><br />Set in Barcelona, the film follows a year in the lives of six foreign graduate students and assorted others. Cultures and languages clash but hearts and lives intertwine. The leading role would never have been cast in Hollywood, but he carried the part perfectly. The characters were nicely developed and their interplay was honest and accurate. There were two especially noteworthy scenes, the climax was truly inspired. The film is sentimental, and the last ten minutes could have been cut, but it was wonderfully entertaining. <br /><br />I nearly didn't watch it, but did just to see Audrey Tautou. Her role although billed second or third was minor, and was outshined by several other characters. I wish more films like this were made. It brought to mind The Big Chill or The Breakfast Club. Don't start this movie late if you plan to go to bed 1/2 way through.

the film itself is absolutely brilliant, its that buzz, that rush that makes you just want to go out, blow your wages and loose yourself. It's what the weekend is all about, its our sanitation where we can come together as one and be ourselves without a care in the world. The film is layered in depth and the dialogue in places is just spot on, especially with Jip. The characters themselves are instantly likable, one in particular is obviously dyers character and his views on what "Star Wars" is really about, genius.<br /><br />If ever you've got an hour to kill before going out, stick on this, you'll immediately feel yourself growing in confidence, definitely recommend it.

I didn't expect much when I first saw the DVD cover. I mean, Pierce Brosnan as Grey Owl??<br /><br />Ah...but then the story got underway, unfolded in a beautifully photographed and paced film. I was surprised and delighted at this (basically) true story. Made me want to read more about this fascinating character, which means, the director fulfilled his purpose, and the film was a success!

this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best "super hero" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting

I have to say this is the worst movie that I have ever watched in my life, I cannot believe that I wasted $10 at blockbuster ; this movie should be burned and who ever thought of it has issues. Who ever actually spent money to make this movie was insane =D This movie has TERRIBLE actors and some of the scenes make absolutely no sense. Well, the whole movie doesn't make sense. Also the part where those "men" come into the diner ( department of national securities )that happened to be the worst part of the film. How dare they say Frank Sinatra's name in vain? Also, what is up with those glasses? When the guy and girl are in the car and she "drinks" water, you can totally tell that she isn't even drinking! Also, what is up with the freaky dinner guy. And everyone knows that you don't stab tires, you slash them.

This is the best of Shelley Duvall's high-quality "Faerie Tale Theatre" series. The ugly stepsisters are broadway-quality comedy relief, and Eve Arden is the personification of wicked stepmotherhood. Jennifer Beals does an excellent job as a straight Cinderella, especially in the garden scene with Matthew Broderick's Prince Charming. Jean Stapleton plays the fairy godmother well, although I'm not sure I liked the "southern lady" characterization with some of the lines. Steve Martin's comedy relief as the Royal Orchestra Conductor is quintessential Martin, but a tiny bit misplaced in the show's flow.<br /><br />As is customary with the series, there are several wry comments thrown in for the older children (ages 15 and up). With a couple of small bumps, the show flows well, and they live happily ever after. Children up to age 8 will continue to watch it after the parents finally get tired of it -- I found 3 times in one day to be a little too much.

I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?

Let me say from the outset I'm not a particular fan of this kind of film, but Nightbreed holds a certain fascination for me with a message about perspective.<br /><br />Back in the old days, the folks who inhabit Midian would have been called Zombies, the undead. And according to what Clive Barker has given us certain members of human kind, in this Craig Sheffer are born with the potential to become part of that world.<br /><br />Psychiatrist David Cronenberg at first looking like the mild mannered professional has taken unto himself a fanatical mission to rid the world of the Nightbreed. He tricks the police into killing Sheffer, but Sheffer goes to a graveyard named Midian cemetery where the Nightbreed congregate and live underground. <br /><br />Sheffer has also left a girl friend, Anne Bobby, who still has feelings for him even after he's been killed and is now one of the undead. She tries in her own small way to be a bridge to humankind. <br /><br />Clive Barker's creatures are a pretty gruesome looking lot and are not particularly fond of humans. But it's plain to see that if humans left them alone, the Nightbreed in turn not bother with them.<br /><br />Your sympathies are definitely with the Nightbreed especially after seeing a fanatic like Cronenberg and redneck police chief Charles Haid in action.<br /><br />Clive Barker's been an out gay man for some time now and some have suggested to me that the Nightbreed is a metaphor for gay people. I can see where that would come in, especially since there are a whole lot of people who don't even think of gays as anything human because they're taught that way.<br /><br />Granted Nightbreed is pretty bloody with a lot of gratuitous violence, but it also does make you think and I do like the way Clive Barker does turn traditional theology on its head and makes Craig Sheffer a kind of messiah for the Nightbreed creatures.

I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.<br /><br />I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.

This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.<br /><br />The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.

I have to admit I am prejudiced about my vote on this film, but I have strong reasons as I know some of the true history that was given the Hollywood treatment here. Edna Ferber's novel upon which this is based is from an era where real names can't be used. In a way, this film is all smoke & mirrors. Even though it was released in 1946, it was filmed shortly after Casablanca. Ingrid Bergman is at her most radiant in this movie as a brunette. <br /><br />She plays a beautiful woman who is trying to trade on her beauty to get a rich husband. Today that is a gold digger, but in this social era, she is desirable & the kind of woman who makes all the men want her, & all the old snooty society types talk of her & avoid her, while wishing they were her. Ingrid is at her best & plays this role well. <br /><br />Some sympathy for Ingrids character is raised in the New Orleans section of this film as she manages to get a decent belated tomb for her scandalized mother as part of the settlement by her relatives to get her to leave New Orleans. The snooty family of relatives there are so scandalized by her that they will do almost anything she asks to get her to leave town. <br /><br />Gary Cooper is good in this film though he already appears to be aging a bit to play a dashing Texan Bachelor/Gambler. He pulls it off well considering that handicap which he appeared older than he was due to his real life chain smoking. Flora Robison as Ingrid's Maid got nominated for an Oscar as supporting actress in this film. Jerry Austin as Cupidor was over-looked in many ways for his role but is the only comic relief in the film & does it well.<br /><br />When the film moves to Saratoga, it depicts accurately how important Saratoga was in that era. I like the sequence when Bergman walks to the Saratoge Spring to get some of the "sulfur" water which everyone considered so healthy then. When she drinks some she forces herself not to make a face and comments how good it is & that she must have more. <br /><br />The real history is the railroad battle which really occurred on the rail line in Tunnel, New York- which is the actual Saratoga Trunk the film title is derived from. This battle actually happened in 1869 between agents for Andrew Carnagie & J. P. Morgan. The line was the economic key to the country in 1869 connecting coal country & the east coast. The references to it are throughout the film are very real. There is even some dialog describing Carnagie as a "Scot" though the reference is vague & unfamiliar to anyone not knowing the history around the battle.<br /><br />The railroad line & the railroad tunnel in Tunnel, New York (zip code 13848) still exist although the film was shot in California. The real tunnel is about 1 mile long. It is still part of a key freight line today, years after this occurred. I grew up there. Gary Cooper's line in the film while he is riding the train into the tunnel is right, it is still "mighty pretty country".

This movie isn't even good enough for the $1 bin at the grocery store.<br /><br />I only purchased it because Terrence Howard was in it. Guess he couldn't be too choosy about his roles during this time. <br /><br />The movie in itself was hard to sit through. It seemed they were grasping at straws with a storyline. The "guys night out" had to be the most boring I've ever seen. One minute they are talking and the next reciting poetry? Even the arguments were hard to follow. Most of the acting lacked any depth.<br /><br />I have no idea what they were going for with this one but they certainly missed the mark.

This is a spectacular production! I have seen the show live twice in Chicago and my only problem with the production was the fact that I was able to perceive only fragments of what was going on. The stage consisted of three giant catwalks and the platform and as the action moves from one part of the stage to the next sometime you loose track of what is going on no matter where you are located. As always, this is a thought-provoking sensory overload, skillfully captured in high definition with 15 cameras! The footage was Masterfully edited, one of the best concert DVDs of all times in my opinion! I only hope and wish that they will release this on Blu-Ray of HD-DVD so that we can re-live this extravaganza over and over again.

I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.<br /><br />Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.<br /><br />The "crew", as well as the "real" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.<br /><br />I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.

This film was adapted from the well known sutra on Journey to the West where a monk with his three students seek out to find a long lost book with regards to the teaching of Buddha.<br /><br />Though this movie is not as solemn as the previous films made according to the legend, it did however, managed to bring in romance and fun-filled humorous scene.<br /><br />This real objective of this movie revolves around more on the monk who were primarily saved from being eaten by demonic flying creatures. One of his student, the Monkey God managed to get him out from the battle in the nick of time, but were in turn captured by the demons and cast into the deep throat of a dragon, locked up in that particular dungeon.<br /><br />The monk awoke in a small village where he found Mei Yan (the so called ugly serpent daughter) who fell in love over him at first sight. Though ugly, she did not let her appearance be casted aside from getting to him. However, a quest for rescuing his three students soon turn out to be filled with obstacles and each of which turned out to get worse with Mei Yan following the monk. Problems crept deeper and this is where conflicts between the relationship gets worse.<br /><br />The rest of the tale would be left at your own disposal, but suffice to say, this film does not depict the typical storyline of the book, it is more for those who wants to seek out for a funny and light picture of what Journey to the West and the love obstacles really mean.<br /><br />Towards the very end, the whole summary could be described with only one word, and that is love. The monk went to show the Heavenly Gates, the Celestial Palace and Buddha himself how love can overcome even the worst fear of all and deemed fit as the most powerful weapon that can be used against any enemy of superior powers.<br /><br />A wonderfully created and funny acts awaits those who buys this ticket. There would be of course, no regrets, at least from my side and those who were with me at the cinema that day watching the same film.

Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.

Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.

When, oh when, will Hollyweird write a decent movie based around computers? I cannot believe people actually consider this movie to be a credible story.<br /><br />No computer operating system could ever survive wit that sort of annoying scrolling interface. It may look good on a movie screen but if you actually tried using it for any length of time you would go nuts.<br /><br />As for "tracing" people the way she did it simply cannot be done that way. Network security alone would prevent that from happening. The key stroke logging was laughable to say the least.<br /><br />Regarding the software that was supposedly being installed, no system administrator would allow such a critical piece of software to be installed on a production system until it has been tested, retested and tested again on a sandbagged system.<br /><br />But probably the worst possible part of the movie was the "virus". There is no way that a virus that works on one operating system will work on any other system. And as for a virus that could take out a mainframe is a couple of seconds, that just beggars belief. There is no way that an open remote connection would have the required superuser access that would allow deletion of system files.<br /><br />I could go on but I can't be bothered.<br /><br />A porno has a better thought out plot that this pile of garbage.

This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie

This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?<br /><br />Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.<br /><br />Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.

The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed. <br /><br />If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory.

Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.<br /><br />Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.<br /><br />The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.<br /><br />The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.<br /><br />We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.<br /><br />The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change.

Beware, My Lovely is an experimental studio film from the early fifties and was directed by a man, Harry Horner, better known for his set designs. Robert Ryan plays a handyman who is hired by Ida Lupino to do some housework for her. The problem is that he is a psychopathic murderer and doesn't know it. Miss Lupino is an empathetic soul and tries to win Ryan over, to little avail. He is not the sort of man compassion could help or cure. Thus we have an interesting situation of two people who basically mean well, but one of them can't do well because there is something wrong with him. He suffers periodic blackouts during which he commits acts of violence, which he later forgets. <br /><br />Essentially the effect Ryan has on Lupino is that of the hunter and his prey, or in another sense a sadist. The audience finds out early on that Ryan is a mad killer, but it takes Lupino much longer. Thus we must live with this knowledge as we watch poor Miss Lupino try everything in her power to 'win' Ryan over in order to make things work, get the job done, get on with life. But getting on with things isn't in Ryan's makeup, as he is incapable of any but the most rudimentary forms of normality, and as soon as there is an opening his paranoia asserts itself. <br /><br />As a study in mental illness the movie isn't too impressive. What it's superlative at is showing the effect of major mental illness, with dangerous psychopathology in the mix, and its effect on a normal person. In this regard the film is realistic and compassionate, though relentlessly logical in that we know Lupino can't 'fix' Ryan, yet we want her to. The result is that, if one is willing, one can get extremely involved in this film emotionally if one can put aside, so to speak, its melodramatic structure.<br /><br />Horner shows us, gradually, the layout the Lupino house , a forbidding gothic monstrosity that never feels like a home. We become familiar with staircase, kitchen and pantry; and we come to know which windows Miss Lupino can use for an escape and which ones she can't.

Marie Dressler carries this Depression-era drama about a kindly bank owner, which recently aired on TCM during their April Fools comedy month. If you come with the expectation of big laughs courtesy the Dressler-Polly Moran team, you'll be disappointed, as this is really a very downbeat film. It's also very poorly made, surprisingly so considering it came from MGM. Leonard Smith's bare bones cinematography is strictly from the 'set up the camera and don't move it' school, frequently to the detriment of the cast, who find themselves delivering lines off screen (it's like a pan and scan print before such existed!) or having their heads cut off. The film doesn't even have a credited director, underlying the apparent fly by night nature of the production. Overall, it's an unsatisfying mess, with Dressler frequently over-emoting and only that bizarre, final reel dash to the bathroom to set it apart.

Cyclone is a piece of dreck with little redeeming value, even on the so bad its entertaining front. A friend of mine took the tape from an overflowing St. Vincent DePaul clothes bin. Okay, that may be a little bit dodgy but it was meant to be a clothes bin, not a crappy old VHS bin, something the less fortunate members of our society don't really need to make their lives better. It could be considered a mercy. Watching a movie like Cyclone would really only add to their problems. Anyway the basic premise of a woman with a super-powerful motorcycle that it armed to the teeth with rockets and lasers isn't even properly exploited. The two 'high speed' chase sequences involve vehicles travelling at less than hair raising speeds of around 40 KMPH and a super-fast motorcycle that is in danger of being overtaken by a crappy old station wagon is not that awe inspiring when you get down to it. There is only one scene where the bikes goofy weaponry is used, at the film's climax, and it is laughably ineffectual, or just laughable, when it is. This includes laser beams that look like they should be coming out of the hands of an evil wizard in a cheesy eighties sword and sorcery that produced large bursts of flame which seem to have no noticeable effect on their targets even when they hit directly. The rest of the movie is just tedious hard to watch filler. Lots of bad actors, yes even Combs and Landau suck in this, most of whom seem like they have been lifted from the set of a porno movie stand around exchanging really bad dialogue in a desperate attempt to pus forward the barely coherent plot. There are a few badly staged fight sequences and some excruciatingly unfunny comic relief scenes with some cops and the owner of the motor cycle repair shop. Comedy of the sub Benny Hill horny old man can't stop staring at the female leads chest variety. Basically the 'money' scenes involving the bike actually doing stuff are few and lame and the rest is clunky filler material. Skip it.

"Cinderella" is one of the most beloved of all Disney classics. And it really deserves its status. Based on the classic fairy-tale as told by Charles Perrault, the film follows the trials and tribulations of Cinderella, a good girl who is mistreated by her evil stepmother and equally unlikable stepsisters. When a royal ball is held and all eligible young women are invited (read: the King wants to get the Prince to marry), Cinderella is left at home whilst her stepmother takes her awful daughters with her. But there is a Fairy Godmother on hand...<br /><br />The story of "Cinderella" on its own wouldn't be able to pad out a feature, so whilst generally staying true to the story otherwise, the fairly incidental characters of the animals whom the Fairy Godmother uses to help get the title character to the ball become Cinderella's true sidekicks. The mice Jaq and Gus are the main sidekicks, and their own nemesis being the stepmother's cat Lucifer. Their antics intertwine generally with the main fairy-tale plot, and are for the most part wonderful. Admittedly, the film does slow down a bit between the main introduction of the characters and shortly before the stepsisters depart for the ball, but after this slowdown, the film really gets going again and surprisingly (since "Cinderella" is the most worn down story of all time, probably) ends up as one of the most involving Disney stories.<br /><br />The animation and art direction is lovely. All of the legendary Nine Old Men animated on this picture, and Mary Blair's colour styling and concept art (she also did concept art and colour styling for "Alice in Wonderland", "Peter Pan", "The Three Caballeros" and many many others) manage to wiggle their way on screen. The colours and designs are lovely, especially in the Fairy Godmother and ball scenes, as well as in those pretty little moments here and there.<br /><br />Overall, "Cinderella" ranks as one of the best Disney fairy-tales and comes recommended to young and all that embodies the Disney philosophy that dreams really can come true.

**Might contain spoilers**<br /><br />Ok, lets conclude this movie in one word: bad. Two words? Really bad. Now why do I think that? Let me explain. <br /><br />Guttenberg leads a special-ops team consisting of four persons that get assigned to retake an lethal virus after some arms-dealer stole it from a lab. They do this by attacking the arm-dealers in mid-flight and somehow gets back the virus after some fighting. However, suspicions arise about Guttenberg because one of the terrorist knew his name. After debriefing the team-members get attacked by unknown persons and everyone starts to suspect everyone else is involved. After deciding they cant trust their bosses, they decide to, once again, steal the virus and try to lure out the possible attackers.<br /><br />In theory this is a plot that could have worked in a low-budget movie that just aims to be aired on TV. However, the plot is compromised and the movie ruined in several accounts. Firstly, the plot is totally predictable and it is not fun to know how the movie is going to end after three minutes. Second. The acting is really bad, or the actors are directed to act as dummys. There aren't many emotions, change of facial expressions at all etc. I was especially disappointed in Guttenberg that I believe can do so much more, but fails completely in an attempt to be a rough action-hero. In addition, though I am not by any means any expert on the subject, I totally believe I could assemble a better covert-ops team by picking up five strangers and train them for a week. This seems to be a theme in the movie to do things as stupid and unprofessionally as possible. This go for good guys, bad guys and bystanders as well. Then I sincerely doubt the scientific and technical consultants, if any, of the film. For example, I have poured liquid nitrogen over my hand and I didn't break instantly.<br /><br />Don't know how to conclude this really, but lets say that this movie has a predictable plot, bad acting and they seem to be amateurs in whatever the do. Sorry, can't be any nicer than that. Do not watch this movie, it is not even so bad it is funny. 2/10

The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.

It was evident until the final credits that this film was made in 1989, as all the elements of its production were made to look 1960's - the acting, the characterisations, the sets and the props all had an aesthetic from an earlier time.<br /><br />The film opens to the moments prior to the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and how this tragic incident affects one family: a young woman, Yasuko, who lives with her aunt and uncle. Even in black and white, and using special effects that are quite primitive by modern standards but emotive and effective nonetheless, the depictions of the immediate aftermath of the bomb are quite horrific. Family members become unrecognisable to each other, others resemble zombies as they wander the streets bedraggled and in shock.<br /><br />The title refers to rainfall that fell soon after the bomb, which was mixed with radioactive ash, and in which Yasuko is caught. Rumors of Yasuko's being in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing affect her marriage prospects and it is later learnt that the black rain is indeed causing sicknesses. The film is concerned not just with the physical effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but on the social and psychological damage that was wrought.<br /><br />I found the film compassionate and a fascinating journey into a unique culture. While the film is primarily concerned with the pain felt by one family, the film's gentle political message is relevant today and probably for all time - wars have horrific consequences, and should not be entered into unless absolutely necessary. It is said that history repeats itself, and the current leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' have learned nothing. While atomic warfare has not resurfaced since 1945, other deadly after-effects have. This film is compelling viewing.

I have very few to add to what all the other reviewers already made more than clear! This movie is awful! Beyond awful... In fact, so insufferable that they have yet to come up with a term to describe the awfulness that is "Skeleton Man". In case you expect your movies to feature a minimum of logic and plot, you should stay as far away from this as humanly possible. Sure, loads of people are getting killed by this skeleton-puppet wearing a ridiculous cape, but nobody ever bothers to properly explain what he is, where he comes from or why he's so angry with the world. He looks like a crossover between Skeletor from "Masters of the Universe" and the horseman from "Sleepy Hollow" and runs amok in some godforsaken wilderness. The setting of "Skeleton Man" is another totally retarded aspect! For nearly half an hour, I assumed that the movie took place at a small isolated island, but it simply plays at the mainland where fancy highways cross the forest and power plants are located at the end of the woods! Huh? Why does everybody pretend to be trapped when there are like a million escape routes? Anyway, after a couple of totally random killings, a special commando squad, led by poor washed-up Michael Rooker, arrives to come and hunt a monster they don't know anything about. Really hilarious is how every member of this squad introduces him/herself as the expert in a certain field (we have a sniper-specialist, a tracking genius, a drill instructor...), yet they ALL die before any of them is able to demonstrate their supposedly masterful skills! The horror Gods must really hate Casper Van Dien, as he's present again as well, portraying an heroic soldier who steals a truck for no apparent reason, crashes on the highway, but somehow gets catapulted back to the middle of the woods to die there. Right, that makes sense... Furthermore the characters steal cool one-liners from "Predator", the bonehead's horse constantly changes colors, helicopters are brought down with bow& arrows, ordinary bullets cause trees to explode and completely pointless Vietnam flashbacks haunt Michael Rooker. I say we all combine forces and vote this pathetic flick into the IMDb bottom top 100 ASAP!

This is a very funny movie, easy to watch, that entertains you almost all the time. The work of the Director is recognizable and the type of humor is his trademark. The movie is a typical police partners history like lethal weapon, but the jokes and comedy are of Argentinian sort. The twist is that one of them is a psychologist played by Peretti and has to go with detective Diaz (played by Luque) on his assignments while he also assist him (Diaz is troubled because his wife cheated on him). Some of the dialogs are hilarious worldwide: understandable and laughable anywhere. Is very good overall, it would deserved an 8, but I rated 7 because it gets a little down at the end. On a personal remark I must add that is a "bravo" for Argentinian Filmmakers, considering the little good is coming lately.

I'll give writer/director William Gove credit for finding someone to finance this ill-conceived "thriller." A good argument for not wasting money subscribing to HBO, let alone buying DVDs based on cover art and blurbs. A pedestrian Dennis Hopper and a game Richard Grieco add nothing significant to their resumes, although the art direction is not half bad. The dialogue will leave you grimacing with wonder at its conceit; this is storytelling at its worst. No tension, no suspense, no dread, no fear, no empathy, no catharsis, no nothing. A few attractive and often nude females spice up the boredom, but this is definitely a film best seen as a trailer. I feel sorry for the guy who greenlighted this thing. Good for late-night, zoned-out viewing only. You have been warned.

I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).<br /><br />The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.<br /><br />Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.<br /><br />However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).<br /><br />Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?

"Laugh, Clown Laugh" released in 1928, stars the legendary Lon Chaney as a circus clown named Tito. Tito has raised a foundling (a young and beautiful Loretta Young) to adulthood and names her Simonetta. Tito has raised the girl in the circus life, and she has become an accomplished ballerina. While Chaney gives his usual great performance, I could not get past the fact that Tito, now well into middle age, has the hots for the young Simonetta. Although he is not her biological father, he has raised her like a daughter. That kind of "ick" factor permeates throughout the film. Tito competes for Simonetta's affections with a young and handsome 'Count' Luigi (Nils Asther). Simonetta clearly falls for the young man, but feels guilt about abandoning Tito (out of loyalty, not romantic love). The whole premise of the film is ridiculous, and I find it amazing that no one in the film tells Tito what a stupid old fool he is being (until he reveals it himself at the end). The film is noteworthy only because of Loretta Young, who would go on to have a great career. While I adore Chaney's brilliance as an actor, this whole film seems off to me and just downright creepy.

I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.<br /><br />The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.<br /><br />In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.