Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

I can always tell when something is going to be a hit. I see it or hear it, and get a good feeling. I did not get a good feeling watching the preview. I was not at all enthusiastic about this film, and I am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. I was in fact proved right.<br /><br />The first thing that threw me off was the title. Not that I have a problem with ebonics(I am black by the way), but for a movie they could have used a better title, and for this time use a title that doesn't have bad grammar. I heard the dialog, saw the acting and all I could do was make faces.<br /><br />I also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. At least "You Got Served" was better than this in my opinion. Even the soundtrack didn't thrill me.

Some martial-arts purists think that comedy was the worst thing that could have happened to the old-school kung-fu flick; and it is true that the introduction of comedy into the genre signaled the end of the "chop-socky" period in Hong Kong film. But the fact is, one can only carry-on a primarily physical exhibition of prowess for just so long, then everyone gets bored with it. And that's really why the chop-socky died and how the Hong Kong "New Wave" action film was born: the producers, the actors, the directors all just got bored with hitting people for ninety-minutes straight.<br /><br />Given that, and given the fact that Liu Chia Liang is a professional director with a considerable list of films in his resume, this film has to be seen as something other than just another kung-fu comedy. Rather, it is a comic film within the martial-arts genre, and in fact one of the best ever made.<br /><br />What Liu has done with this film is really a pleasant surprise: he has taken a martial-arts plot and re-constructed it along the lines of a Hollywood-style musical! Complete with episodes of singing and dancing! It was around the time of the making of this film that some film-makers and film fans began to recognize that the cinematic performance of martial-arts (really derived from the acrobatics of the Chinese opera) has more in common with dance than with fighting. (I will continue to point out this connection until most Americans realize what they are actually supposed to look for when watching a martial arts film - well-choreographed body movements, using the plot of an action film as an excuse for their performance.) At any rate, quite clearly Liu Chia Liang made this connection and decided he would explore it close to its limits.<br /><br />The result is an incredibly charming entertainment, filled with marvelously human characters attempting miraculous kung-fu (and tripping over their own shoelaces as often as not when they do so). and the film being set at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, allows Liu the opportunity to explore the nature of the Westernization and Modernization of China that contributed so greatly to the making of the China we know today. So the film has considerable historical import as well.<br /><br />Also, fans of Stephen Chow's recent Kung Fu Hustle should really watch this movie carefully, as Chow clearly learned from it before the making of his own film.<br /><br />A very amusing, well-made film. Oh, yes, and the kung fu in it is really, really good.<br /><br />Purists won't admit it, but this is probably director Liu's best film.

How do you know if a movie is good or not? It is the impact it has on you that makes the difference. "Dead Man Walking" upset me a great deal. I watched it twice. I don't know if I will be strong enough to watch it again. No, I did not feel good at all after watching it, but the film was as successful as it can be.<br /><br />Robbins did a great job in incorporating all aspects of this controversial topic. He avoided making an argument that could easily be seen as biased or subjective. I hope that many people get to see "Dead Man Walking". I believe that anyone who supports or opposes the death penalty so enthusiastically should see the movie.<br /><br />I don't know what else it could take to finally convince everyone that this relic from ancient times does not have a place in modern society anymore.<br /><br />The movie itself does not make an argument for or against death penalty. It describes reality. The reality is the best argument against the death penalty.<br /><br />A 10/10 for great performances, good filmmaking, and for the most important film made in years<br /><br />Thank you, Tim Robbins!<br /><br />

Unlike Bond and other detective movies, Alfred Hitchcock's hero used to be a common man who would get into trouble and then with his acumen and courage (and luck) would get out of it. Jewel Thief is based on the same principle and so in a way it is Vijay Anand's tribute to the master of suspense. The tribute as it may be but it stands its own grounds and establishes Vijay Anand as a great director himself.<br /><br />It is the story of a common man Vinay who one day realizes that he has a double called Amar who in fact is a Jewel Thief. Suddenly Vinay finds himself in the middle of a hatching scheme and to save himself goes on a wild goose chase to find this Amar who remains one step ahead of him. The suspense is almost killing throughout the movie and as the plot unravels you are hit by the brilliance of the scheme. Just like Hitchcock's movies, Jewel Thief can boast of a grand climax shot inside the grand palace of Sikkim.<br /><br />Everyone and I mean everyone; Dev Anand, Vijay Anand, Ashok Kumar, Vajyanti Mala, Tanuja, SD Burman, Kishore Kumar, Majrooh Sultanpuri etc. etc. are in their top forms. This is one of the best thrillers ever made in India.

No, it's not the horror movie...This one is actually a love story.<br /><br />The Ring is a silent film from 1927 that stars two boxers and the woman that comes between them. She loves the boxer known as "One Round" Jack. She loves him until the champion comes along, that is. Even though she marries One Round, she starts overtly flirting with the champion until the climactic final boxing fight between One Round and the champion. She comes back to One Round's corner, just when things look their bleakest, and he miraculously finds the inner strength to win the fight and win his wife love back.<br /><br />This film was very early in Hitch's career, but the limitations of the time must not have made him make a lasting film. Although there are special film tricks, and some comedy relief, this film just does not hold up to any of his later work. It must have been extremely risqué for the time period though, with the shameless adulterous wife. That may have been the draw back in 1927. While looking through all of these old films, it is amazing how I think that they could be redone on today's screen and really come off. Maybe I should be the one....<br /><br />Skip this movie unless you are planning on watching all of Hitchcock's films. You could fall asleep in the middle.

First saw this gem from Joe Sarno way back when, and I must say that after seeing it, I could never forget Jennifer Welles. At first I thought the film was moving a bit slower than i would expect for a Sarno film, but when Jennifer made her entrance, the first time I ever saw her anywhere, I was sat up and took notice. Her presence in this film is hard to avoid, and spices up every scene she's involved in. I've seen most of the rest of Sarno's films, and the other films starring or featuring Jennifer Welles, and I must say that this was both Sarno and Jennifer at their collective best. Sarno's direction in this film of domestic adult drama is superb, and Jennifer showed (figuratively and literally) an acting prowess that make this a must see. Co-stars Rebecca Brooke (aka Mary Mendum) and Chris Jordan, both frequent co-stars of Ms. Welles, and also frequent stars of Sarno's work, turn in believable performances as a pair of adventurous, yet normal housewives. This film is Sarno classic.

This is definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.

Religious bigotry is rampant everywhere. Australia is not immune to it.<br /><br />A dingo snatched a baby and the mother was tried and sent to prison for having "killed" her own baby. I don't mean to spoil the story for you, but you need to know the basics before getting knee-deep in what caused this woman to find herself inside a prison.<br /><br />Buy or rent the movie and discover how deep-seated human hatred of those who are different continues to thrive around the globe.<br /><br />This is a very moving motion picture with a terrific cast of actors.<br /><br />Both Meryl Streep (with her famous Aussie accent) and Sam Neill, whose accent is his native-born pronunciation, are outstanding. Those with supporting roles are also quite good.<br /><br />You will remember this movie for many years.<br /><br />See it!

Everyone wants Duvall and Jones back, come on! Viewers are saying things like, Zahn and Urban aren't as deep...Puhlease! Were you as deep when you were young? That's the whole point: They have a lot to learn. Zahn and Urban pull off the shallow innocence they were directed to act, and with superb commitment to preserving the nuances of Duvall and Jones' input into the characters. Zahn is flagrantly perfect as the early Gus, and Urban is subtly perfect as the early Woodrow. What a bold move it must have been for them to take on such a position in the entertainment industry. They must have known they would have everyone coming down on them for not actually being the beloved originals, yet they clearly put the best effort forward. I gave it a 7 because the editing was choppy in places, and time-lines were sketchy, but the acting was a joy to watch. Val Kilmer was absolutely great. One more thing: I expect audiences would have been more accepting of the mysticism implied by the appearances of a jaguar and blue and gold macaw if more effort had been put into the way they appear and are so simply accepted by the characters.

This story has held a special place in my heart for the last thirty-one years. As a boy, I enjoyed stories of mountain men and the wilderness. Books like "Call of the Wild", "White Fang", "The Frontiersman" and "My Side Of the Mountain", influenced me tremendously. I wanted so much to live like a mountain man, but nothing inspired me more to do so, than when I saw this movie on television in 1975. I wanted to be just like "Trapper". However, as I got older I found I was just too domesticated to live like that. Nonetheless, I still romanticize about living that kind of life. I agree with some other reviews of this movie that the storyline has the simplicity that is quite prevalent in "Disneyisque" type movies, but if you can look past the mechanics in which it was made and see the heart of the story, the true themes, then I think you find yourself pleasantly touched. I make it a point to watch this movie once a year. After thirty-one years, I still get a chill running through me when I see torrent of snow rushing down the mountainside and hear the echoing, haunting laugh of the Trapper.<br /><br />-Good luck old-timer and stay free-<br /><br />PS If you want to read more about the true story, I found this link on the Mad Trapper of Rat River:<br /><br />http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/NWT/madtrapper.htm

I really liked the first part of this film in Africa for about an hour or so until the animal cruelty by civilized humans in Scotland got to me in the second half and made me so sad I couldn't watch some of it. However, this was done by the filmmaker to make a point that early natural scientists ruined everything alive they didn't understand by "studying" it literally to death without considering the rights and comfort of the animals studied, which we know now shouldn't be studied anywhere but in the natural world they inhabit, and as unobtrusively as possible. I do recommend this film as it was a mostly serious and honest story of Tarzan and made a point of showing the gross animal cruelty that was rampant in the 19th century scientific world as well as the pure and simple, beautifully primitive life Tarzan lived as a young man who was found as a baby and raised by chimps after the violent death of his parents in the African jungle.<br /><br />Christopher Lambert was wonderful and very soulful in his life of Tarzan role, as was Ralph Richardson in his last film role as Tarzan's ultra-rich, nobility-reeking gramps in Scotland. Andy MacDowell was pretty and pretty good as Tarzan's gussied-up and civilized "Jane" in her first movie role. From his charismatic work in this film and his very haunting eyes, I cannot understand why Lambert did not later become a big star, but his really bad movie choices later may have done him in. The terrific Ian Holm, as a wounded Frenchman in Africa helped by Tarzan and who then escorted Tarzan back to his previously unknown, ancestral home in Scotland, was great as always.<br /><br />I am so glad Tarzan got sick of and didn't stay in the animal-cruel civilized world at that time and went home to Africa in the end to live out his life with his gentle and loving ape "relatives" who raised him instead of staying in Scotland and living like royalty, which would have ruined him if it didn't kill him first.

Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb.

From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.<br /><br />Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!

My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.

Very bad. Very, very bad. As a fellow who aspires to make, be in or - at least - sniff the catering table at a movie set, I find it hard to criticize independents who actually got a movie of any sort made. However, this movie ... oh dear.<br /><br />Realizing Frightworld doesn't aspire to anything more than crude exploitation (an honorable thing in itself) and to try to make it conform to more mainstream standards is a mistake. And to be fair, it is more entertaining than - say - Red Zone Cuba ... but not by much. So I won't try to critique, just let me ask throw out some observations.<br /><br />1) If gore is the point of the movie, shouldn't you be able to see it?<br /><br />2) If you have hire three sound men make sure at least one knows how to operate the equipment.<br /><br />3) In a horror movie your lead maniac must be scarier than a smurf doll. Difficult I know but really...<br /><br />4) There is a lot of talented videographers in the Buffalo/Rochester area, most you can hire really cheap. Get one who knows how to frame a scene.<br /><br />5) Just because you have someone who knows how to use After Effects and other cool programs doesn't mean he should do so every two seconds.<br /><br />6) Kudos for getting the girls to take off their tops but next time, get girls who's tops we want to see taken off.<br /><br />7) Editing should help tell the story or set a mood. At the least in this sort of movie editing should sell the gore gags. A chainsaw suddenly appearing in a characters stomach is not scary, it's sloppy.<br /><br />Some good things. Not all the acting was bad. Jack was pretty good and I liked Acid once she started fighting back. There was some neat imagery, unfortunately it was thrown up on the screen without rhyme or reason. "Acid Poptart" is a name that deserves a better movie. I like the moxie of Frightworld too. Next time, now that they have a movie of sorts under their belts, I hope all involve aspire to something better than Colman Francis. Upgrade at least Ed Wood.

I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. They had a pretty good storyline to go on, but than the messed it up so badly. First of all the cast is all wrong, where did that van peeble(crap actor btw) and puff daddy come from??? It looks like Carlito has come from the hood, and used to hang about with some real idiots. This film doesn't do "Carlitos Way" any justice. Im so happy that the sequel "Carlito's Way" came out first, if I had seen this rubbish first, I would have never given the pacino version a chance. And anyway, pacino is supposed to have read this story, thought it's crap and did the sequel instead. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power - 1 out of 10. Carlito's Way - 9 out of 10.

You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.<br /><br />The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.<br /><br />Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.<br /><br />Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.<br /><br />It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.<br /><br />It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.<br /><br />The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.<br /><br />This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.<br /><br />Recommended. Complete success.

Eddie Fischer was simply bad. Possibly the worst scene came early in the movie when he broke into a spontaneous song and dance number centered around a piano and some conveniently placed employees. The song was totally stupid... I think I could drunkenly offer a few lines on a sheet of paper that would far exceed it and probably win a Grammy. Then, as if the writers could come up with no better way to escape the ridiculousness of the scene, Fischer says something to the effect of, "Don't tell (insert the guy's name). He doesn't like music" and smiles. I can't describe how bad this is, I felt a little embarrassed. And that guy Debbie Reynolds works with and who's always hitting on her is so annoying too. I can't even imagine someone like her wasting a fraction of time on him. The jokes were delivered without any sort of chemistry between characters which made the movie crawl by. At least the baby had cute hair. The two stars are for Reynolds, who was like a swan among ugly ducklings.<br /><br />See Bachelor Mother instead.

Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.<br /><br />The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.<br /><br />Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.

I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.<br /><br />Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema.

This production of Oliver is masterful in showing layers of evil in the human soul. What makes the story remarkable is a brilliantly bright Unseen Character, who pierces this darkness as he leads an innocent boy through the gravest dangers safely into the hands of his own relative. Yea, though Oliver walks through the valley of the shadow of death, he fears no evil. A rod and staff are there to comfort him. In the end, he is saved from the dregs of humanity. At the bottom is Fagin, the most wicked of the lot. Fagin contemplates repenting of his ways not once, but twice, yet declines because he is unwilling to pay the price. Fagin is worse than Bill Sikes, because he raises little pickpockets who become murderers. In the middle is Oliver. His innocence is unsullied, but untried as well. The best is Nancy. Lacking in judgment, she ignores Bill Sikes' violent nature out of her deep need for love. Yet unlike Fagin, at the probable cost of her own life, she does repent of her sins by saving Oliver from Bill. Things are not as they seem. In my opinion, this quality is what makes art worthwhile - unpredictability. I would give this film a "10," but its '70's made-for-TV soundtrack and ambiance were distracting. Overall, a fine parable and a thoroughly appropriate story for all audiences.

I just watched this movie last night, and I HAD to put a warning out for anybody else considering to see this film. In a word - don't. I seriously feel like this is something that a screenwriting student would have written in a Quentin Tarantino/Eddie Murphy phase, i.e. every other word was a curse word. I don't have a problem with profuse cursing, as in "Good Will Hunting", provided it helps to delve more into the characters. In this case it was just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional *gasp* or laughter from the audience. The three lead characters are all their own unique stereotype, the wall street jerk, the coffee house jerk, and the "I'm-Not-Gay-Just-In-Touch-With-My-Feminine-Side" slightly-less-of-a-jerk. You just don't give a damn about any of them! They are all shallow, unredemable losers who you WANT to see lose. For those who dare, this film does have a couple funny moments, the very beginning, and the very end. The toilet/vibrator scene is funny in a sick kinda "Uh, yeah" way. Really though, I would only recommend this film to my worst of enemies.

Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna, and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught. Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore at him. <br /><br />Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from none other than Joanna! They met in a corner café. At first they have a pleasant conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And that's IF they win. <br /><br />Ted was also able to find a new job. It was actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980, arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody!<br /><br />This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents? Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe, Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in 1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!!<br /><br />-

I really enjoyed this film. All aspects of the film were top notch including the most important, for me anyway, the screenplay and the acting. This is definitely one of Richard Widmark's strongest roles. He is totally convincing in his performance. Just out of curiosity, imagine how Humphrey Bogart or Robert Mitchum might have tackled this role. This is my first exposure to Jean Peter's work that I can remember. She impressed so much here that I will definitely be on the lookout for her other work. Thelma Ritter, in an unglamourous role, deserved the Oscar nomination she received for playing the informant. This film works on every level. The black and white photography is perfectly appropriate and the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. Widmark and Peters have great chemistry in their difficult romance. Strongly recommended, 9/10.

Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK

I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was awful; it was pointless and just plain stupid. the supposed plot concerned a prospective bridegroom too caught up in the problems of the world to relate to his bride and the other people in his life. He disappears on his wedding day (in a tux no less) and hooks up with an assortment of weirdos.<br /><br />We saw it with a bus-load of people on the way down to Atlantic City and everyone agreed that it was a terrible movie. It was trying to be profound but it wasn't; it was stupid and offensive. If I wasn't on a bus I would have walked out on the movie. Anyone considering seeing the movie or renting or buying the video you have been forewarned.

I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.<br /><br /> It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.

This agonizing comedy-drama got surprisingly sterling reviews upon its release in 1979. I remember opening the movie-section of the L.A. Times and looking at a 2-page advertisement for "Chapter Two" filled with glowing captions like: "Better than 'The Goodbye Girl'!" and "Neil Simon does it again!" What does Neil Simon do? He takes an autobiographical situation (remarrying too soon after the death of a beloved spouse) and makes it rusty, unpleasant and--worst of all--unfunny. James Caan plays Neil--er..that is, George--a writer who can't seem to get back into life after losing his wife; enter spirited Marsha Mason (real-life Mrs. Simon...soon to be ex-Mrs. Simon) who attempts to love George despite his moods and general melancholy. Mason is very appealing here and might've saved the day were it not for Caan's indifference (not to mention a sub-plot concerning painfully-thin, blonde Valerie Harper which brings the proceedings to a screeching halt). I liked Mason's outburst at the end ("I am wonderful! I am NUTS about me!"), but I saw no happy ending for these two people...and time proved me right. ** from ****

In Cinema Retro magazine #2,it is revealed that Mark Lester's voice was actually dubbed by a 20 year old female, Kathe Green. Although Leste was considered perfect for the title role, director Carol Reed was not at all pleased with his singing abilities. The secret was revealed by on a 2004 UK documentary titled "Oliver! After They Were Famous". Greene was paid 400 pounds for her work and she had to agree to keep her participation secret, as did Mark Lester. They kept their word and only revealed this fact as part of the TV show decades after release of the film. For the record, Mark Lester retired from acting and is a practicing osteopath in England.

It's a strange, yet somehow impressive story, about love. Personnaly, I never run over such a twist-off story in real life. But, I can image there is.<br /><br />It's a story that promises to be "sick" from the title. But, after I watch it, I didn't get this feeling of "sickness" which I would surely have regarding society rules. It's something beautiful in this movie... something impressive...which I cannot contradict using any moral or society rules.<br /><br />The movie focuses mostly on relation between Kiki and Alex. You can see how this relation starts, evolves and finally ends. You feel the moment when this love blossoms, the first whispers, touchings. You feel the connection. And no moment I though this is immoral. You even hope it will not break in the end....it cannot break...it's not right. You feel the pain of being hart broken in the end...<br /><br />But,I need also to add a negative spin to this comment...I don't know if the story is not somehow *showed* to give the feeling that these relations are sick only in form, but not in content. You don't have the total story, but only fragments. When movie has started, the relation between Kiki and Sandu was already in place. So, no clue about the nature of the relation. You feel only a tension between them...a fight between the need for love and desire to break this relation. I think this line of Kiki to Sandu says all: "I want to stop...and if you love me, you will do as I ask you".<br /><br />This movie will probably stir some questions about what is love and what is to be moral...and where's the limit between them. I don't know if the idea of this movie is "love conquers all...even social and moral standards" or "love is beautiful...no matter how or where". But in my opinion, this movie is already a success for the simple reason that it makes you think...

Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner.

In his 1966 film "Blow Up", Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of "Blow Up", they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.<br /><br />With "Zabriskie Point" Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of "Blow Up" and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly? <br /><br />The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in "The Passenger", Mark just wants to be free.<br /><br />As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.<br /><br />In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.<br /><br />The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!<br /><br />Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised "Zabriskie Point" as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.<br /><br />Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of "Fight Club", nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?<br /><br />3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, "Blow Up". As such, "Zabrinskie Point" comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say "Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!"<br /><br />There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight "the system", but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like "Network", "Cool Hand Luke", "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Spartacus". These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the "spirit of revolution" survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.<br /><br />Then you have films like "Fight Club", "Zabriskie Point" and "Falling Down", which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.<br /><br />Then you have the "flight rather than fight" category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like "The Passenger", "Red Desert" and "Badlands" show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.<br /><br />Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's "The Lives of Others", Ashby's "Bound For Glory" and Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange", treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm.

This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher, who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher (played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter. The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison.<br /><br />This film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can.

I have to admit that for the first half hour or so of this movie I was basically lost. There had been some mildly amusing humour, but at best a barebones plot and a general sense of pointlessness that was on the verge of making me think that I was wasting my time. Then - for no apparent reason - I suddenly realized that I was enjoying this. There was no blinding moment of realization and no suddenly dramatic scene that grabbed me. In fact nothing very exciting happens in the entire movie. It was as if I just all of a sudden realized that the movie was meant to be largely pointless - and that in its very pointlessness was its charm.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman starred as an unnamed actor who finds a “little project” to jumpstart his career. He's going to play a supermarket manager, and spends the day in a neighbourhood supermarket to research the role. While there he meets and bonds with Scarlet (played by Paz Vega) - a cashier who wants more out of life. He helps her prepare for a job interview as if she's auditioning for a role, while she introduces him to real life. It's truly funny watching “him” (for that's how the character is identified in the credits) be overwhelmed by a visit to the local Target store.<br /><br />Freeman and Vega were great together, with a strange but completely believable sort of combined romantic but father-daughter chemistry. If you feel lost at the beginning, stick with this. In the end, it turns out to be a delightfully charming movie. 7/10

One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****

If you like CB4, you have no idea what you're missing if you haven't seen this film yet. This movie is crazy hilarious, and incorporates a lot more about the hip hop industry than any other parody movie... It is unfortunate that this movie has not been released on dvd because it is one movie that everybody I've ever watched it with has loved and wanted a copy. If you really want a good laugh and you like hip hop and are a little familiar with some old-school performers, definitley rent this movie. There aren't that many video rental places that have copies of it, but if you happen to come across one you will not be disappointed.

Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.<br /><br />After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.<br /><br />There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).<br /><br />All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO.

Compared to the acclaimed Hollywood remake, this film is less flashy but much stronger at providing an overall picture of the drug problem. The remake loses the most interesting of the three plot threads, that of a farmer whose meager livelihood depends on drugs as a paying cash crop and whose increased involvement with the drug trade in an effort to better himself destroys himself and his family. Additionally, the story of the daughter's addiction goes into the problems not only of withdrawal but the high likelihood of relapse. This original miniseries makes good use of the additional time to go into the issues more thoroughly and remains stronger meat on this controversial subject.

Directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, "Scarface" is a movie that will not be forgotten. A Cuban refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) comes to America for the American Dream. Montana then becomes the "king" in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his empire of crime in Miami, Florida. This gangster movie is very violent, and some scenes are unpleasant to watch. This movie has around 180+ F-words and is almost three hours long. This movie is entertaining and you will never get bored. You cheer for the Drug-lord, and in some scenes you find out that Montana isn't as evil as some other Crime Lords. This is a masterpiece and i recommend that you see this. You will not be disappointed. 9/10

LORD PROTECTOR is kiddie fare, but for whose kids? Obviously shot for television or STV, this amateurish rehash KRULL has several stock characters -- a magician, an assassin, a warrior, a scientist -- on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the Dark Forces about to be unleashed on their planet. Badly written, acted and staged in available California locations like municipal parks and a ranch, LORD PROTECTOR has nothing to recommend it, not even as a time waster. Jay Underwood is the only "name" actor, and most people, especially the intended audience of five year olds, are not likely to remember him from such ancient Disney fare as NOT QUITE HUMAN. A no-name actor playing a magician in an ill-fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of KING LEAR. I was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. Alas, the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted-over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks, like Bert Gordon's THE MAGIC SWORD. The filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. Often, such cheap Hollywood back-lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. I kept myself occupied during the film's seemingly interminable running time, trying to figure which was which in this one. I didn't have much luck.

Eisenstein wasn't just one of the greatest soviet,russian, films'directors, but one of the great masters of the cinema, among Griffith, Murnau, Ford, Hitchcock, Welles, and others. One of the greatest things in all his films was the edition, very personal, and in this movie is exceptional. This was his first sound movie and the use of the musical score by great russian composer Serge Prokofiev in the sequence of the battle is a perfect contrast between music and image. Watching this film is like taking a class or lesson in Cinema, something that no many film directors can afford. I never get tired of watch REAL CLASSICS like this film. I hope that in near future more people will recognize a great work of art.

I saw this movie at the theaters when I was about 6 or 7 years old. I loved it then, and have recently come to own a VHS version. <br /><br />My 4 and 6 year old children love this movie and have been asking again and again to watch it. <br /><br />I have enjoyed watching it again too. Though I have to admit it is not as good on a little TV.<br /><br />I do not have older children so I do not know what they would think of it. <br /><br />The songs are very cute. My daughter keeps singing them over and over.<br /><br />Hope this helps.

From the director of Oldboy comes this slick vampire flick. Kang-ho Song stars as a priest who is accidentally changed into a vampire while being cured of a deadly, mysterious virus. His vampirism and priesthood are quite at conflict, but he is able to survive by robbing the hospital's blood bank and unconscious patients who might not mind some siphoned blood. Because of his supposedly miraculous survival, he comes into the lives of Ha-kyun Shin's family. Shin has cancer, and his mother believes that Song can cure it. Unfortunately, Song's vampirism raises his levels of lust to a height where he can't help but fall for Shin's young wife, OK-vin Kim. Kim is intensely interested in the world of vampirism, and the two become lovers. The film from there goes in weird directions that I think one should experience for themselves. What really should be mentioned is Chan-wook Park's mastery of the medium of cinema. My God, I've rarely seen such a masterful visual artist at the peak of his powers. The major flaw of the film is that it's a little incoherent, especially near the beginning. Park is interested in telling his stories mostly in the visuals, which can be difficult to follow at times. But when it works, man, does it fly. The film is also perversely hilarious. The final sequence, easily one of the best of the decade, is simultaneously heartbreaking and delightfully ridiculous. OK-vin Kim should become a worldwide star after this film. She gives one of the best performances of the year.

Oh, those sneaky Italians. It's not the first time they based a movie on source material without the permission or knowledge of the, in this case, author of the novel. Of course this is not something that is typically Italian but got done quite a lot in the early days of cinema, mostly because they often thought they would be able to get away with it. James M. Cain's publishers managed to keep this movie off American screens until 1976 but nevertheless the movie itself has grown a bit into a well known classic.<br /><br />The movie is not as great to watch as the 1946 American version but it's a great movie nevertheless. This of course not in the least is due to the movie it's great strong story, that is an intriguing one and provides the movie with some great characters and realism. It follows the novel quite closely and is therefore mostly the same as other movie versions of its story, with of course as a difference that it got set in an Italian environment.<br /><br />Leave it up to the Italians to make a movie about life and the real people in it. These early drama's always have a very realistic feeling over it and are therefore also quite involving to watch. Unfortunately the movie lost some of its power toward the end, when the movie started to feel a bit overlong and dragging in parts. The movie could had easily ended 15 minutes earlier.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't really have much else negative to say about this movie. It's simply a greatly made one, based on some equally great and strong source material. Quite an impressive directorial debut for Luchino Visconti, who continued to direct some many more great and memorable Italian dramatic movies.<br /><br />8/10

I used to review videos for Joe Bob Briggs' legendary "We Are The Weird" newsletter. I saw a lot of stinkers, but this by far was the worst, and the years have not been kind - it remains the most indecent crime against cinema I have ever witnessed. Don't get me wrong - CAGED TERROR is nominally more technically competent than, say, MONSTER-A-GO-GO or THE GUY FROM HARLEM or something of that ilk. What solidifies its claim as Worst Movie Of All Time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. Is it a Vietnam commentary? An ecological protest? An incitement to race riot? A study of man's inhumanity to man? A novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length? In short: a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile Asian-American associate into camping in the woods with him. After brow-beating her with quasi-philosophical clap for the better part of an hour, they run across two wandering veterans, the unforgettable Jarvis (a righteous brother) and the Troubadour (guitar-toting Manson Family reject). Hey, a plot twist! Tension! Action! Suspense! Well, no, just a climactic getting-locked-in-a-makeshift-wire-chicken-coop-and-lightly-belittled scene. The victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters, "No... no... please... don't..." Meanwhile, Jarvis addresses the Troubadour as "Trouby" once every two minutes, bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of Juan Picquer's POD PEOPLE. That's about all that happens in CAGED TERROR, and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. But trust me, I've seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one has remained, for the past eight years since I first saw it, the absolute worst. (I pop it in the old VCR once every two years or so just to reassure myself, and reassure myself I certainly do.) I think the element which makes CAGED TERROR so particularly hateful is this: very little happens, and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly, what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers REALLY, REALLY WANT to shove some kind of message down your throat. But because CAGED TERROR is so incompetent and ineffectual, what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. This film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. It's terrible, truly truly terrible. Folks, trust me, I saw GHOSTS THAT STILL WALK and this one is worse. Go see it! You'll thank me. And curse me. Just for the record, my favorite line: (In CAGED TERROR but perhaps EVER) "Yeah, well, you probably think the Song of Solomon was an allegory for Christ's love for the church...!" (NOTE: Must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension.)

Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.<br /><br />"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.<br /><br />This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".

Suffice to say that - despite the odd ludicrous panegyric to his soi disant "abilities" posted here - the director of this inept, odious tosh hasn't made a film since. Well that is excellent news as far as I'm concerned.<br /><br />Dead Babies has all of the bile of its creator, but lacks the wit and technical proficiency that make Martin Amis the novelist readable.<br /><br />When will the British film industry wake up and realise that if it wants to regain the status it once had it should stop producing rubbish like this and make something real people will actually want to watch?<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.

A stupid show in the vein of the rest of them with terrible music and a laugh track that must be from I Love Lucy. I got rid of TV because of shows like this, but picked up the 1st season at big lots for $3.00. Should bought the Van Damme movie instead.<br /><br />If I was a conspiracy theorist, who believed that a small group of people are working against real families and keep coming up with this drivel/propaganda in order to undermine family values I would point to this show, Married With Children, Family Guy etc. but I'm not so I won't.<br /><br />BTW I'm not Christian, love the Simpsons and Peep show. I watched two episodes and thought that if shows like this are popular, who are they popular with? Then I remembered all those fotos of the people of Walmart that have been circulating around the web and thought ah ha!. It is no wonder our culture is a joke around the world when this is prime time.

This time, the lovable dimwit gets summoned for jury duty, where a corrupt attorney notices that he looks like a jailbird who wants to break out, so the two get switched. Of course, most of the movie is a series of gags; in "Ernest Goes to Jail", most of the gags relate to electricity. I really liked the whole vacuum cleaner sequence early on. Overall, the point of the movie is just to have fun, and I'm sure that you will. This is possibly the ultimate movie that you watch with a bud. It's quite safe to say that Jim Varney will truly be missed. Knowwhaddamean? FYI: the only other cast member whom I recognized was Randall "Tex" Cobb, who played Lyle. You've surely seen him somewhere.

On 24 October 1955, the hard-work geologist of the Hadley Oil Company Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson) meets the executive secretary Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall) in the office of her boss Bill Ryan in New York and invites her to go to a conference with the alcoholic playboy and son of a tycoon Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). On the way of the meeting, he confesses that they had traveled from Houston to New York to satisfy the wish of the reckless Kyle, who is his best friend since their childhood, of eating a sandwich from club 21 and the meeting was just a pretext to Kyle's father Jasper Hadley (Robert Keith). Mitch and Kyle immediately fall in love for Lucy, and Kyle unsuccessfully uses his money to impress Lucy; then he opens his heart and proposes Lucy. They get married and travel to Acapulco and the insecure Kyle stops drinking. Meanwhile, Kyle's sister Marylee (Dorothy Malone) is an easy woman and has a non- corresponded crush on Mitch that sees her as a sister. One year later, Kyle discovers that he has a problem and might be sterile and starts drinking again. The jealous Marylee poisons Kyle telling that his wife and Mitch are having a love affair. When Lucy finds that she is pregnant, Kyle believes that the baby belongs to Mitch and his mistrust leads to a tragedy. <br /><br />"Written on the Wind" is an overrated melodramatic soap opera, with artificial characters and situations. There are at least two great movies with characters with drinking problem: "The Lost Weekend" (1945) with stunning performance of Ray Milland and "Days of Wine and Roses" (1962) with awesome performance of Jack Lemmon. Robert Stack has a reasonable performance and his character's motives for drinking are shallow and clichés. In the end, the forgettable "Written on the Wind" is entertaining only and never a feature to be nominated to the Oscar. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Palavras ao Vento" ("Words in the Wind")

In the same tune as his Americana Drums Along the Mohawk, John Ford captures American history in a way that is fictional yet very believable. Henry Fonda made three consecutive films in this era with Ford and all three are about a certain time and place with emphasis on the setting and the cultural surroundings. In Mohawk, pioneer America is in full bloom with Americans fending for themselves against Indians and other forces. Here, Ford shows us 19th century America; a time when invention and creativity were beginning to blossom and this nation truly was becoming great. Amongst it all was a tall, lanky, young lawyer from Illinois named Abe Lincoln and this film fictionalizes his life as a lawyer, foreshadowing the greatness he would later accomplish.<br /><br />Fonda is superb in this movie, capturing the essence of what is considered to be the persona of Lincoln, although no one knows exactly what he was like then. The sets and supporting cast also work well together and give a unique balance in Ford's picturesque of the American dream and its many forms. This is not a film to be taken literally but rather symbolically, showing that Lincoln was indeed warming up for the events in his life that were to creates his legacy. We even get some scenes between him and a young Mary Todd; and it is hard to see how they did end up together but that is not the point. I believe this is simply a tribute to the greatness of Lincoln, widely regarded as the greatest American president. His quiet and straightforward demeanor was rare then and would be today. Indeed, our government surely needs more men like him.

Missed it at the cinema, but was always slightly compelled. Found it in the throw-out bin at my local video shop for a measly two bucks! Will I now give it away to anyone who wants it? Probably! No purposeful plot, one dimensional characters, plastic world ripped off from many far better films, no decent dialogue to speak of. You know that empty feeling when you come down off ecstasy? Its that feeling right here. Sad thing is, the Australia I know is heading in this direction, minus the melodrama and simple answers. Interesting only to see the older Aussie actors (who had to ACT back in their day to get by) vs the newer Aussie actors (who have to LOOK GOOD to get by). Like some horribly garish narrative introduction to a film clip that never actually starts... Poor Kylie, started her career as an actress as well...

i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.<br /><br />the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.

Let me begin by saying that there is no bigger fan of the original "Lonesome Dove" than I. Both the Pulitzer Prize-winning book and the towering mini-series adapted from it stand alone in my experience as moving, dramatic, believable, and engrossing works. There is no comparison between "Lonesome Dove" and any Western film- at least not since the legendary collaborations of John Ford and John Wayne. It was with real reservations that I sat down to watch this new mini-series, what with McMurtry's non-participation, and the missing original cast members. After watching the first episode it was clear that this is no "Lonesome Dove". In almost every measurable way this sequel falls short of the original. But so what? I wasn't expecting it to measure up. Taken as an effort of it's own this film is engaging, entertaining and of a very good quality. If it were done as a new story, not as a sequel to "Lonesome Dove", there is no question in my mind that it would not have received as many negative ratings. Jon Voight did a creditable job as Call, Barbara Hershey was a terrific Clara, and the new characters like Gideon Walker and Agostina Vega were well rendered and believable. Louis Gossett jr. deserves special mention as the horse wrangler Isom Pickett. The film made me care about the characters, and I don't ask any more than that from an actor. it is unfortunate that this worthy effort stands in the shadow of it's predecessor- it is worth viewing in it's own right.

In this swimming pool, this pond, there are water lilies and there are frogs. Frogs sit on water lilies. The frog and water lily have a parasitic relationship. Marie(Pauline Acquart) is a water lily, a synchronized swimming groupie with a crush on Floraine(Adele Haenel), a frog, the captain of her team. Floraine's teammates shun their leader because the preternaturally curvy and well-proportioned blonde conveys a loose persona that betrays the syncrhronized swimmer's mindset of conformity and discipline. But Floraine has a secret; the bombshell has a bombshell, which "Naissance des pieuvres" reveals to the audience, visually, before she confides in Marie.<br /><br />Floraine has never gone, as they say, all the way, with a boy.<br /><br />At a party, we see a double-image of the burgeoning sex bomb checking her make-up in a bathroom mirror. "Lolita" is a fata morgana. Marie gets to know Floraine's double while her imitation breaks the water lily's heart. While the frog goes through the motions of catching flies for appearance's sake, she gets chummy with the water lily when no one's looking. In the film's most startling scene, the water lily agrees to give the frog a hand in losing her virginity through the mechanical act of oral stimulation. Floraine wants boys to like her, but she doesn't like boys, seemingly, but it's more important to the frog that she's popular. When the water lily finally kisses the frog, the frog remains a frog. The frog can't transform into a water lily, or a princess, because the water lily lost the frog's respect. After their lips unlock, Floraine tells Marie, "See, it's easy," which is the frog's way of equating their kiss with the orgasm that her friend gave her as nothing more than a rite-of-passage without any strings attached. Floraine's beauty is a burden. She carries the weight of meeting boy's expectations. Florence uses Marie to have one final fling before her fata morgana subjugates its imitation into the closet.<br /><br />The other water lily, the other frog, Marie's best friend Anne(Louise Blachere) and Floraine's frustrated boy-toy Francois(Warren Jacobs), just like any water lily and frog, have a parasitic relationship, too. While Floraine uses Marie for love, Francois uses Anne for sex. But that's life; that's the treachery of growing up, in which even a friend will turn on a good friend if the opportunity to move up the food chain presents itself. At a McDonalds, the water lily chastises the other water lily after bathing extensively in the frog's afterglow. Physical beauty is a currency. Marie gets to call the shots because Anne, although far from being ugly, is overweight and has an unflattering hairdo. Anne tries to fight back by using her breasts as ample retaliation(the magnifying glass from her Happy Meal incidentally comments on Marie's flat chest), but the tadpole(Marie thinks she's better than Anne, better than a water lily) points out that her breasts are a byproduct of fat. <br /><br />Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other.<br /><br />Later, in the final shot, "Naissance des pieuvres" suggests that Marie has a double, too, and this symbiosis among water lilies has the potential to turn parasitic in the near-future, if it not already has. Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other in a way that no boy could match.

I'm all about the walking dead, but my mind is still unsure of the walking, frozen dead. Sadly, THE CHILLING didn't help me make up my mind. This is really slow with nothing happening for the first 45 minutes, making me hit the "film enhancement" button several times. By the time the well designed zombies show up, it is too late and the director (two are rumored to have filmed this) has no idea how to shoot them. Haggerty, Blair and Donahue all look tired/embarrassed/recovering in some fashion. I will give the film credit as it predates the T2 ending with villains being frozen by liquid nitrogen. The Shriek Show DVD offers an extended promo reel from back in the day that runs 8 minutes long and I would actually recommend that over watching the flick in its entirety.

This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.

First of all, 'St. Ives' the film is only fairly loosely based on the Robert Louis Stevenson story of the same name, but for once, this is not a criticism. The original novel was a work-in-progress, unfinished at the author's death, and in freely adapting it and giving it an ending, the film-makers have brought to life some endearing characters who, although different from Stevenson's originals, would, I am sure, have charmed and amused him.<br /><br />It is 1813: Capitaine Jacques de Kéroual de Saint-Yves is a Breton aristocrat, orphaned by the Revolution's guillotine, now serving as a hussar in Napoleon's army. We meet him going out for the evening, claiming that since a hussar who is not dead by 30 is "a blackguard", he, at 34, is now "on borrowed time"! Certainly, as he faces a string of challenges to duels, our dashing hero seems in danger, but a surreal prank on his Colonel provides him a way out of the duels and into the bed of a beautiful courtesan/singer. Unfortunately, it also results in losing his commission... Further misadventures result in him being taken prisoner by the British, and sent to a POW camp in a Scottish castle.<br /><br />While carving toys and boxes, Jacques catches the attention of Flora, the young niece of Miss Susan Gilchrist, a well-travelled woman of the world who lives at Swanston Cottage. They fall in love, and most of the story concerns Flora helping Jacques to escape and to find his emigré grandfather, the old Comte. Of course, there is a problem. Jacques' older brother, Alain, a dissolute alcoholic, is - perhaps understandably - far from pleased when Grandfather disinherits him in front of the whole household, the very instant that Jacques has appeared... Cue treachery! There is also an entertaining subplot of the romance between the awkward, naïf but good-hearted Major Farquhar Chevening and Aunt Susan, who has travelled through most of the Ottoman Empire and been a prisoner of the Turks.<br /><br />Even allowing for a natural prejudice in favour of any film in which the heroines share my surname, 'St. Ives' is magic! It combines splendidly swashbuckling swordfights, a balloon-flight, comedy and romantic adventure. I would recommend it to anyone who loves 'the kind of film they don't make anymore' - Fairbanks, Colman, Flynn, & co. The acting is splendid. Anna Friel makes Flora a spirited and appealing heroine, and Jean-Marc Barr is delightful as Jacques, a genuinely lovable hero. Miranda Richardson and Richard E. Grant are already great favourites of mine, and have great fun as Susan and Farquhar, whose relationship runs as a comic counterpoint to that of the leads. As the rakish, scheming, but ultimately tragic Alain, Jason Isaacs shows, as he did more recently in 'The Patriot', that he has the classic swashbuckling style, besides the dashing good looks! Please, please will someone cast him as a *hero* in the genre?!!!<br /><br />My main quibbles with the film concern settings and costumes. In the book, the castle in which Jacques is a prisoner is clearly Edinburgh, but the film, shot in Ireland, Germany and France has 'Highlandised' the setting, making the retention of place names such as Swanston, Inveresk and Queensferry decidedly incongruous. The costumes too are a real hotch-potch, from 1780s through to the period in which it is set. While this would not be implausible with more down-market characters "making do", it seems odd for well-to-do ladies such as the heroines to be wearing 1780s gowns in 1813. Clearly, the costuming decision was æsthetic: these earlier styles are visually far more appealing and elegant than Regency fashions, and they work in the idealised world of the film. As a whole, 'St. Ives' is 90 minutes of pure delight.

Many of us find art agreeable only when the masterpiece itself touches something deep inside us. That is, the completed creation can only be accepted and appreciated if we can somehow personally relate to it. It was winter, here in Australia 1992 when I had seen Batman Returns at the cinemas and it blew me away. Both "me's". I was supposed to belong to an ideal, a standard, but at the same time I was living another life. Tim Burton was the first film maker to say its OK for a comic movie to be dark and to confess that darkness can happen to us all. After Tim Burton's Batman interpretations, many other dark comic book heroes and anti-heroes flooded the cinemas. Comic book folklore for decades had told of friendly, likable heroes with dashingly handsome smiles and magical superpowers who fly in the sky, and spun powerful webs from their wrists and wore red boots and had the strength of a locomotive. But what happens when you are only ten years old and you see your parents coldly executed in front of your very eyes? You snap. Somewhere in your psyche,your young tender psychological make up breaks apart. The only way such pain and hurt can be managed is to create an alternate persona.You make a promise. Your other self will be stronger, harness all the anger all the rage to use whatever means available to avenge the innocence of your parents onto that criminal, those criminals, any criminal. This is life seen through Bruce Wayne's eyes. Both pairs. The world he sees is dark, gloomy, and cold. Although he patrols the streets and people hear him cruise by, they don't rush out to get his autograph. He is their Saviour, not the winner of a personality contest. Batman Returns is about losers. Batman, for yet another Christmas, remains "the only lonely man beast in town". Bruce Wayne never gets to lawfully arrest the vile Max Shreck. The Penguin never gets to unleash his pain of being discarded by his parents onto the citizens of Gotham, and Selina Kyle is forever lost to being mentally fragmented and traumatized. And the hero doesn't get the girl- or cat.This movie delves into the desire in all of us to want so desperately to belong, to have a home, as expressed by Bruce Wayne and Oswald Cobblepot.The film brings out a need in all of us to be heard, respected and not ignored as desired by Selina Kyle , Oswald and of course Bruce Wayne. But sometimes we are all suppressed in one way or another, we are told to be an ideal, to behave to a certain standard. That is until we finally snap. Only hope remains at the end of the movie as we see Catwoman rise towards the night sky. But come what may we all must wish good will towards all men and women. As for me , I cant say that I will reach a point where I will believe my problem with duality will be reconciled. But thats OK. We all have a dark side. Batman Returns is not only the best of the Batman films ,it is truly a stand out exceptionally fine masterpiece of storytelling.

The subject matter of this film is potentially depressing: a man about thirty, with no job, little education, three kids from a failed relationship, living in his parents' house, but with a dream of directing feature films. But about a half-hour into the movie you realize that Mark Borchardt has a bottomless supply of drive and ambition--it's just that it's all channeled into his need to direct movies, and nothing else will make him happy. The movie jumps all over the emotional spectrum, but in the end you come away feeling happy, because you've just gotten to know some wonderful people. Go to see this--you'll end up wishing it was longer.

1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.

Oppenheimer was a GREAT series (it was the first thing I saw Waterston in) and it is too bad copies aren't available. A similar situation exists for "Glory Enough for All", a British series from around the same time, about the discovery of insulin. I would pay a good price for both of these on DVD. Is it really so difficult to get Oppenheimer on a DVD that is able to be played in the US? Another very enjoyable series, again from about the same time, was "Danger UXB". A series about defusing UneXploded Bombs, hence the name. That one you can get from your local library.<br /><br />Pete

I have to admit that when I first heard about the Apocalypse film it was a worry.<br /><br />I mean, they have a lot to live up to, don't they? When they first did a stage show they won the Perrier award and when they did radio they won a Sony award. When they ventured onto our telly's they won a Bafta award, a Royal Television Society Award and the Golden Rose of Montreux.<br /><br />When the first series aired in January 1999 it was mind-blowing! A real breath of fresh air in British Comedy, and when the second series aired a year later it built on that foundation and sealed the shows cult status around the world, our web stats show that we have received visitors from every single country on the planet! The 'Local show for Local People' showcased the Gents talent for live performance and opened doors for the gents to do more live performing such as 'Art' in the west end.<br /><br />The fans favourite has always been the Christmas Special, less of a sketch show and more a tribute to classic horror films yet still wrapped up in the delicious League style.<br /><br />And then of course there was the 'difficult' third series, still a hit with the loyal hardcore fans of course, but maybe a little bit ahead of its time for a mainstream TV audience.<br /><br />As I say, a lot to live up to.<br /><br />So now we have the film and...Well a film is different isn't it? It will be seen by much larger numbers than the radio or TV shows and with the third series in mind I was worried.<br /><br />Well as you know I was lucky enough to get to see the film yesterday at a press screening in London and all my doubts were blown away (literally) in the first few minutes! I am not going to give plot lines away as some reviewers have done, nor am I going to tell you the catch phrases (although there is really only one) but I will try to tell you what they have managed to achieve with this film! Leaving the cinema on Monday night I could only imagine writing 'Oh my god, it's brilliant, its amazing, its the best thing they have ever done, better than the first, second and specials all rolled into one!' Of course I owe my visitors a much better explanation than that! So, why is it brilliant? This is a film for everyone, the casual fan, the obsessive fan the occasional fan and even for someone who is sat in the wrong cinema! You don't have to have watched the series to enjoy this film; it works on so many levels.<br /><br />This film reminded me why I am a League of Gentlemen Fan! You can tell that filming was a true labour of love too; the attention to detail is incredible. The sets for the TV show were always detailed but I am going to have to watch the film again just to look at the background! The story moves at a swift pace, the action carrying us from Royston Vasey to the real world where we meet the 'Creators' who are of course the League themselves! Along the way we manage to bump into favourite characters from the show but always within the central story unlike the TV sketch show.<br /><br />I was glad that the film was dark in places, a little scary and a little strange...only fitting for The League of Gentlemen. The Gents also managed to get their revenge on the BBC censors, not as much slipping in the word 'Mongoloid' as screaming it from the roof tops! Some may think the Gents portrayal of themselves a little indulgent but that's the joke and with that comes my only worry, the in jokes I mention below may puzzle some viewers and they might come over a little too clever...but I shouldn't worry, there is always a poo joke waiting just around the corner and speaking of jokes, they come thick and fast, and in a mixture of clever references, wig jokes, bum jokes, visual jokes and cock gags! I haven't laughed out loud in a cinema since...well, I can't remember! The fans that have been 'with' the League since the beginning are rewarded with loads of 'in' jokes, some that work on two levels, a mainstream audience may laugh at a reference to a compact disc for one reason whilst fans of the Local show will laugh for another reason altogether! The cameos are genius! Peter Kay and Simon Pegg form the strangest double act you have ever seen, Simon getting one of the films biggest laughs just by making a noise! I was a little worried about the 1690's aspect of the film when I first heard about it but as a story within a story I was just getting into it when...but that would be telling! All I need to say is that it fits wonderfully and adds to the overall feel of the film! I am not a professional reviewer of films, so I am finding it difficult to put into words how much I enjoyed this film but for now I will just say that if the supposed benchmark for British Comedy films in recent years was the excellent 'Shaun of the Dead' then I am sorry but a new benchmark has just been set by the inventive, hilarious and sometimes a little scary...The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse.<br /><br />Jason Kenny 2005

kite runner is undoubtedly one of the most amazing books i have read in the recent past. i perhaps had very high expectations from the film, but none the less the movie was good, the entire setting seemed realistic. nothing was made to fancy. the dialogs were not very attractive or powerful, they were just right. The movie was not a bad experience at all, especially at the last 15mins ,where it got real emotional and even the hardest man would probably cry.but my imagination was far better than the movie...i cried more upon reading the novel than seeing the movie. but overall a good movie to see for those of u who are not readers. but the readers- the novel would be a better experience,so if at all u want to see the movie, read the novel first and then compare it to the movie.

Terrific acting by the 5 stars makes this one a must see.<br /><br />Based on a stage play, THE SILVER CORD is about "mother love" at its worst. The film was very controversial for its implied homosexuality of the younger son and the mother's unnatural "romantic" feelings for both sons.<br /><br />Irene Dunne stars as the new bride (and biologist) who travels with husband (Joel McCrea) to visit the family before heading off to New York City for their new jobs. But something seems wrong.<br /><br />The mother, Laura Hope Crews, seems rude to the younger son's (Eric Linden) fiancée (Frances Dee). But Dunne puts such thoughts aside and ignores a few of the strange things the mother says. Then she finds out "her" room is down the hall from McCrea's, and his room adjoins mother's room.<br /><br />Later she walks in as "mummy" is tucking in McCrea and kissing him (on the lips) good night. Mummy has also been working on Linden and getting him to doubt his feelings for Dee. Everything blows up and with Dee running into the snowy night toward the frozen pond. As the boys run after her, mummy shouts from the window for boys to come back and get their coats! Dee falls through the ice and is rescued.<br /><br />As the girls leave the house the following morning, Dunne lets mummy know what she thinks of her and her attachment to the boys. But mummy has a tight hold, faking illness and forever boasting of her sacrifices. The girls leave but the boys stay behind.......<br /><br />Crews is magnificent as the voracious mother (repeating her stage role); it's a part few actresses would dare play. The sexual overtones are incredible for a 1933 film and Crews take advantage of her best film role. Dunne is also excellent as she tries to maneuver the course without losing McCrea. Dee has some excellent scenes after she gets dumped by bewildered Linden. All 5 stars are terrific in this drama that is bizarrely underrated and unknown.<br /><br />A neglected gem for anyone who likes great acting......

I was fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top it.

Good lord! This movie needs to have a new classification on its cover "watch only if you have absolutely nothing else to do!". I am disappointed. I was looking forward to a good horror movie over the weekend...needed an adrenalin rush and that awesome tingling sensation going down my spine. But this movie didn't do it. A reasonably good story but pretty awful acting, dialogue, and filming. It was disjointed and sometimes outright silly. We had actors looking at the wrong direction of the camera, people talking out loud (by themselves) and narrating what they feel and what is going to happen, shadows of equipment in some shots, silly clichés like "I just need you to hold me" in the totally wrong places and situations. Thank you for allowing me to offload and sorry if I'd offended anybody but it was a waste of time and money.

"Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is a sort of "Harper Valley P.T.A." with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle "Vinnie" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of "Grease.") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!

It sounds a bit awkward to call a film about war and holocaust shocking since many of us will know only too well of the horrors that war and violence brings. By using the adjective 'shocking' I do not intend to imply that I am surprised about the things told about in this film or that I was formerly unaware of them, it is just that I am very much impressed by the way in which this film shows how crazy and incomprehensibly horrific it is to kill each other off, either with or without a 'reason'.<br /><br />The first part of the film focuses on Hanna's successful participation in the Hungarian resistance. Maruschka Detmers would never have won an Oscar for this performance, due to inconsistent directing, but still her acting is solid enough and she has enormous charisma. She is cast very well as Hanna and immediately has our sympathy. Her very beautiful looks help, of course, but that has nothing to do with her being simply a good actress, playing a good part.<br /><br />Certain inconsistencies keep occurring in Hanna's War. I sometimes get the idea director Menahem Golan (often despised for The Gianni Versace Murder) was in a rush and should actually have allowed a few more takes per scene. On the other hand, I am very thankful he made this impressive and thought-provoking film and as I am very positive about it, I think he did a good job.<br /><br />The second half of the film is the most interesting and tragic one. It focuses on Hanna's suffering (beware of Donald Pleasence's scary portrayal of the cruel and sardonic captain Rosza) and intensely shows the injustice and horror that comes with hate and violence and war. I receive Hanna's War, especially the second half, as a strong anti-war film and for that alone Golan deserves credit. It is also this second half in which Maruschka Detmer's talent comes out, creating a character which goes into film history as one of the most speaking, strong and tragic ever portrayed. It is also great to see Ellen Burstyn, whose appearance and acting style always remind me of Romy Schneider, who -had she been alive and cast- would have made a similar effective contribution to Hanna's War.<br /><br />The tragic impact of the second half and the desperate tension which is sometimes replaced by hopeful prospects and good news lead to a number of final scenes which show something so unexpected, so moving and poetic in its tragedy that it hit me like a bomb and left me in tears. And when I realized once more it wasn't even fiction, it all actually happened, I found myself in even more tears. The image of Hanna portrayed by Maruschka Detmers will be in my mind forever.

As if most people didn't already have a jittery outlook on the field of dentistry, this little movie will sure make you paranoid patients squirm. A successful dental hygienist witnesses his wife going down on the pool man (on their anniversary of all days!) and snaps big time into a furious breakdown. After shooting an attack dog's head off, he strolls into work and ends up taking his marital aggression out on the patients as he plans what to do about his "slut" of a wife. There are plenty of up-close shots of mouth-jabbing, tongue-cutting, and beauty queen fondling, as well as a marvelously deranged performance by Corbin Bernsen. The scene in which he ties up and gases his wife before mercilessly yanking her teeth out is definitely hard to watch. A dentist is absolutely the wrong kind of person to go off the deep end and this movie sure explains that in detail. "The Dentist" is incredibly entertaining, fast-paced, and laughably gory at times. Check it out!

When Underdog the cartoon debuted in 1964, at the age of 7 I was hooked immediately. He was Top Dog (pun intended) in my book-(that is, until Batman premiered on ABC a year or so later). Even when it was clear that Disney was going to make a live-action version of the once popular Saturday morning cartoon, it was equally clear to me that it was going to be a piece of crap. Even reading the reviews in the papers seemed to confirm this. However, I made it a point to: a) never attempt to write a review unless I have seen the movie from start to finish; and b) never to spend one red cent on a movie that I'm almost certain I will hate.<br /><br />Thanks to YouTube I: a) am fully qualified to write this review; and b) it only cost me 84 minutes of my hard earned time.<br /><br />It also proves my point, namely, that this movie is not merely a piece of crap. It's a steaming pile of dog droppings. It resembles the TV series in name only, even though they almost got it right with Simon and Cad.<br /><br />All in all, Underdog is a huge waste of time- and money, which thankfully, I didn't have to spend.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of *****

Two things can happen when an ensemble cast is brought together. Either you are left walking out of the theater asking, "Why?' or you receive MANNA FROM HEAVEN, a delightful comedy from the Burton Sisters, whose mother not only provided inspiration but the screenplay itself. Ursula Burton, plays Theresa, a nun whose friend's and family had always believed she was touched by G-d. When money falls from the sky the clan use young Theresa's faith that the money was gift from the heavens to allow all their dreams to come true. Years pass and we find Theresa returned home to her native Buffalo. She comes to the realization that the gift needs to be repaid and calls together her friends and family, (Academy Award winners Shirley Jones, Louise Fletcher and Cloris Leachman) to return the debt before Easter Sunday. The money has long since been spent and all the characters find themselves in financial difficulties. Shirley Jones and Frank Gorshin, are a husband and wife con team that teach the all important lesson's in life, of how to dress for winter in Buffalo and my personal favorite, "they expect you to take the silverware," when visiting a restaurant. The audience can only hope that if Theresa does reach her goal that that someone won't run off with the money. The movie teaches us that it is not money, but ourselves that make our and other's dreams come true. Every action has an outcome not just for you, but the community around you. When looking into the mirror we see ourselves as we'd like to be, MANNA FROM HEAVEN, answers the question of how other's can see the image we'd most like to reflect. The Burtons have done a superb job directing the cast to break out of their shells and create new and inventive characters. In the day of multi-million dollar budgets, this low budget Indy proves it is not the cash in hand, but true talent that will draw the biggest laughs. Wendie Malick (The American President, Just Shoot Me) adds a special flavor to this already talented cast.

I've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.<br /><br />The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.<br /><br />A missed opportunity.

It's a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter/hunted kind of story, but the director and/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity.

One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program. He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. '<br /><br />With TV shows like MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could forget "... the part of town known as "Little Italy"..." with the coliseum in the background.<br /><br />Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then again being in the theater you were a captive audience.<br /><br />Leslie also said the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get the jokes.<br /><br />Well that's just my 2 cents.

Unfortunately a boring flick, and obviously the only way to see it is the butchered bootleg Public Domain version, which is so blurry and dark that at times you have hard time making out where the screen is. The leading actors are a nuisance. The man spends most of his screen time trying to appear nonchalant, charming and sexy, forgetting totally what the film is about and that he is a murder suspect because of some dame who played him for a goose to start with. The dame herself merely walks through the flick, being dignified if she's not busy appearing cute. It's a rather badly written stuff, never interesting or witty. No good camera work, no memorable soundtrack, no glamorous actresses or atmospheric sets. It only scratches the surface of the genre, and nothing happens if you miss this totally missable flick.

This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.<br /><br />I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).<br /><br />Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?<br /><br />Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?<br /><br />Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?<br /><br />

My wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.<br /><br />The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely "over-the-top." One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an "innocent" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.<br /><br />When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.

"The Lady from Shanghai" is well known as one of Hollywood's most troubled productions. Welles' original cut was taken away by the producers and cut to ribbons. This made the already muddled mystery story even more difficult to keep track of. They post dubbed a good amount of his dialog because of the density of the Irish accent, and the dubbing is all too apparent and poorly done. Most disastrous of all, Welles and his on screen and real life leading lady Rita Hayworth were falling apart in their relationship, and their tumultuous chemistry comes through on screen.<br /><br />Fortunately, this is all overcome by just how fantastic Orson Welles' direction is. He makes the film incredibly stylish and atmospheric - every scene just seems to be breathing down your back from the screen. Also, the characters and scenes are so bizarre they border on dreamlike and surreal. This sense of weirdness elevates scenes that are often found in these films, such as the courtroom sequences in the middle. I typically find courtroom dramas a bore, but Welles' direction and quirky touches make them just as fascinating as everything else. The ending at the carnival reminds one of David Lynch almost.<br /><br />The acting here is also very good. Despite their failing relationship, Welles and Hayworth both give decent performances - their interactions however are just a bit lacking. Everyone else is superb and delightful to watch though, especially Everett Sloane and Glenn Anders. "The Lady from Shanghai" obviously has its problems, but its worth watching just to see one of cinema's masters at his finest. (8/10)

Blank Check is a movie that I saw on TV one day and like most movies they air on TV Blank Check wasn't that good. First of all no one I have ever met has seen Blank Check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. Also Blank Check won't be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar's films. I wouldn't call Blank Check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (Or at least it isn't to anyone over the age of 6) Blank Check isn't a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. Everything just makes you go "what haven't I seen this before?" Blank Check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from Richie Rich to Home Alone (Which strangely enough both have Macaulay Culkin in it) Blank Check isn't a bad movie, but it deserves to fade into obscurity.

'Tycus' is almost as bad as a science fiction film can go.<br /><br />I can hardly find something good to say about this film. The premises are completely wrong. A comet is supposed to hit the Moon and cause catastrophic damage to Earth, but nobody believes the scientist who predicts this.A whole underground city plus a launching pad for nuclear armed rockets is build in the California mountains without anybody noticing. When the comet nears Earth the news make it to the TV and newspapers hardly a day before the event. And so on, and so on ...<br /><br />Neither does any kind of emotion make it to the screen. Is the genius who discovers the comet and builds the underground city a savior of humanity or a beast? The director or Dennis Hooper who is playing the role did not seem to decide until the film was done, and actually it does not make any difference because acting and directing is so confusing that you end by wondering what does this film try to say. The special effects are so cheap that not only that they cannot be convincing in the era of computer effects, but they could not have been convincing even in the 50s, four decades before this film was made.<br /><br />A total waste of time.

This has got to be the worst horror movie I have EVER seen.<br /><br />I hated it so much I wanted to come here and complain about how bad it was. Normally bad movies are no big deal, but something about this one if you hated it.. you really hate it.<br /><br />If anyone liked this you probably enjoyed Baby Geniuses, I thought I could never find a movie that was worse then that one.. I guess not.

This ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.<br /><br />Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.<br /><br />I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.<br /><br />This is not one of those movies.<br /><br />You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad "heavy metal" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.<br /><br />Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.<br /><br />Laughable.

Just saw ICE AGE, a very funny and especially nice looking film. The story is simple but effective, the characters lovable and nicely fleshed out but what really shines is the digital set design.<br /><br />More inspired by traditional animated movies than reality, the designs give you a really, really nice looking world in a astounding use of colour. Sometimes the touches of reality shine through (especially the water was impressive), but nonetheless, it's a fantasy-world based on reality. Including loads of vast landscapes especially helps to minimise the costs of rendering.<br /><br />Pixar films shine with technical brilliance, this one shines with effective uses of technical know-how.<br /><br />Enough technical babble, the film's entertaining, family-friendly and sometimes just hilariously funny.

NOTHING (3+ outta 5 stars) Another weird premise from the director of the movie "Cube". This time around there are two main characters who find themselves and their home transported to a mysterious white void. There is literally NOTHING outside of their small two-story house. Intriguing to be sure, but I thought the comedic tone established for this movie from the get-go was extremely ill-conceived. There needs to be some humour, certainly... and I have no problem with the humour that was eventually derived from the plight of our two heroes (their final "showdown" was definitely a hoot)... but I really think the movie would have been a lot better off if it had stayed more rooted in reality in the beginning. After watching the movie I watched the "Making of" feature on the DVD and a short trailer at the end is almost totally devoid of the "sillier" comedic aspects... making it look like a completely different (and slightly better) movie. The last half hour of the movie is where things really start to come together... similar in a way to the recent movie "Primer." The actors are fine when they are not overdoing the comedy shtick. They are really quite believable in their more "normal" moments. I was probably ready to write this movie off as a failed experiment at the midway point... but it won me over by the end. (And keep watching past the credits for the final scene... just don't ask me to explain it.)

Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.

Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did!

I really love this movie. It has a very real feel to it. I believe it was never popular because of the subject matter, however, because of the subject matter, it makes the movie all that much more important.<br /><br />This is an "A" movie and I recommend it highly. If you liked "1984" book or movie, I think you will like this one as well.<br /><br />This is harsh, to say the least, including mental and physical acts of torture, some pretty vile. Not for the week at heart or stomach. No gore, but his movie is so great at projecting the mental anticipation it doesn't need blood and guts.<br /><br />If you are not a realist or a pestimistic person I don't think you will enjoy it. It leaves you with an uneasy feeling about humans, what they're capable of, and the very real possibility that our government(s)does not necessarily have our personal best interest in it's heart.

"How She Moves" springs to life only when its high-energy, talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. Otherwise, this stale strive-suffer-and-succeed story is low on energy, low on originality, and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other, likeminded films that have come before it.<br /><br />Rutina Wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner-city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step-dance competitions, but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. As noted earlier, the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing, but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting.

This film takes place in the 1950s. According to this the dead (called zombies) have arisen to eat the living. However a company has developed a collar that, when put around the zombies neck, makes them docile and perfect servants. The Robinsons mom Helen (Carrie-Anne Moss), dad Bill (Dylan Baker) and son Timmy (K'Sun Ray) hire a zombie because everyone on their block already has one. Tim names the zombie Fido (Billy Connolly) and becomes friends with him. But his dad hates him and Timmy looses control of Fido and things go wrong.<br /><br />As you can see this is--among many other things--a takeoff on the "Lassie" series with Fido being a stand in for Lassie. Timmy was named that for a reason! Every single of the famous Lassie episodes are spun here. My favorite is when Timmy sends Fido off to get help before the zombies eat him! Also it's a satire of those 1950s Douglas Sirk films where everything is bright and colorful--but dark secrets are tearing people apart. The characters wear VERY bright 1950s clothes (Moss is always in a dress)--the furnishings, settings and cars especially are all 1950s in hyper bright colors. Even when the script becomes repetitious there's always something to look at. The script is good--but there are only so many Lassie jokes you can make. The melodramatics are kind of silly but the cast pulls it off. Everyone here is excellent and right on target. Even Connolly as an emotionless zombie does a good job. Moss is the best--playing each line for all its worth---but never going overboard.<br /><br />This isn't for everybody (of course). The satire may be lost on most people and the gore is pretty tame. The gore is done so casually and with happy music playing over it it's hard to take it seriously. So, for some people, this will really work. I give it an 8.

I am speechless. Matty Simmons has managed to do something I thought impossible. He has made "The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan's Island" look like "Citizen Kane." Painful cannot even begin to describe this piece of... I don't know. Mind you, the premise sounded funny, but now that I've seen it, it's funny in the way that dropping an anvil on your scrotum is funny.<br /><br />I won't bother to describe the premise, as the title says it all, if only to say I don't think there was literally one funny thing in this film, not one, not even the monkey bite. How could one of the funniest characters in the "Vacation" franchise, the sleazy white trash Eddie (Randy Quaid), be made so horrifically unfunny ? I never felt so much sympathy for an actor in my life. I equally pitied the other actors participating in this "comedic" atrocity, Miriam Flynn (Catherine, Eddie's long suffering, but sunny-dispositioned wife), Dana Barron (the original Audrey Griswold), Fred Willard, and the stunning Sung Hi Lee (perhaps the only reason to watch the film, if only with the sound off), save for that old Commie, Ed Asner (Uncle Nick), he had it coming. Alas, the audience didn't. I only say "thank heavens" that Chevy Chase, who has been in a slump for years, steered clear of this diarrhea splatter, it's the smartest career move he ever made.<br /><br />I don't know if you folks are religious like I am, but I know I'll be praying to the Lord tonight to add 2 hours (if not 2 years) to my life to make up for the time I spent in front of the television that I'll never get back otherwise.<br /><br />Hot Water Burn Baby says ZERO out of 10 Stars (If you take a few hits off the bong AND drink the water, maybe 1/10th of a star out of 10)

With rapid intercutting of scenes of insane people in an asylum, and montage/superimposition of images, and vague, interwoven narratives, this is a very hard movie to follow. Apparently a man (Masue Inoue) takes a job as a porter or janitor in an asylum so he can be near his imprisoned wife, and maybe to rescue her. But she's clearly mad, huddled on the floor, with a vacant expression much of the time and fear, misery, and confusion written on her face the rest of the time. The film-maker switches to her point of view sometimes, and we see vague images of her at the side of a pond drowning a baby, or clutching at a drowned child. She's tormented by something. When the point of view shifts to her or other mad folks, the filmmaker uses distorting lenses and such things, showing us what mad people see and then how they react. And the place is swarming with mad folks, laughing, hiding, and in one case dancing frenetically night and day. At one point the man tries to take his wife outside, but the night outside the door terrifies her and she runs back to her cell. Gradually the man slips into a nightmare in which he's interrupted in another attempt to steal her away, and he kills the doctor and many attendants, and all the while the mad folk laugh and applaud. When he wakes he is relieved, and mops the floor. Some fascinating shots of Japanes life, streets, buildings in the 1920s.

Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ("Lovely & Amazing") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ("Mulholland Drive") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller "The Ring."<br /><br />On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ("Frida") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming "Spider-Man 2" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.<br /><br />But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ("Catch Me if You Can") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.<br /><br />That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting "Harold and Maude," the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day.

Checking the spoiler alert just in case.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most horrendous movies I have ever seen, Mazes and Monsters felt like I wasted 101 minutes of my life. The only redeeming quality of the movie were scenes that tried to be serious, but just ended up being funny since they were so bad. Evil Dead anyone? Unfortunately for M&M (fortunately for us) it did not develop a cult following and result in a trilogy. This movie tried to address a series of problems that the main character, Robbie (played by Hanks) encountered throughout the film. It ended up being a fear mongering video about stereotypes that helped fuel the D&D is the Devil movement in the 80s.<br /><br />If you want to avoid wasting your time and money, steer clear of this junk.<br /><br />P.S. - Even though the cover looks kinda interesting, which is why I guess my brother bought it, it in no way takes place in a fantasy realm, unless you consider New England or New York City to be such a place.

My personal feeling is that you cannot divorce this movie from its political/historical underpinnings like so many (American) reviewers tend to do. This is not about growing up on Main Street, USA. It is about growing up in Yugoslavia at a time when it was torn between the East and the West. Just like the guys are torn between Esther and everybody else, and Esther is torn between the "Tovarish Joe" and the guys. There is shame in certain situations that is lost on an audience that has never lived under Tito. I feel the movie is under-rated and it is too bad we have lost the director. Movies like this make freedom feel more important. It is not just "another Eastern European coming of age film"...it is a sensitive portrayal of teenagers walking a fine line that might eventually lead them to real freedom.

This was one of the worst Columbo episodes that I have seen, However, I am only in the second season.<br /><br />The typical Columbo activities are both amusing and irritating. His cigar ashes causing him trouble have been seen before, And the bit where he always identifies in some way with the murderer--in this case cooking ,Tho the scene on the TV cooking show distracted from the main theme.<br /><br />Also not explained was why the brother at the beginning of the show was cutting part of the wires of the mixer. The reason was never explained ,nor did it serve any purpose. But the part I disliked the most was the death of the bride to be . This was never explained and it is the main reason why I give this episode such a low grade.

What you bring to the movie influences your view of it. I brought 30 years in the Air Force to this, and every time I see it I am moved by the ending. Would a youngster of 15 who's spent their life flying in jets feel the same way? Yet, I can only just its impact on me. <br /><br />Jimmy Stewart gives a wonderful turn as--Jimmy Stewart. Considering he was a pilot, and an Air Force Reserve General, he probably comes as close to being an expert on how a pilot would act as any man alive. One can't fault his delivery, or his acting. He IS a pilot BEING a pilot, that's enough.<br /><br />---Spoilers---<br /><br />It's the final minutes of the film that continue to grip my heart. Lindbergh has been flying without radio communication and has no idea if anyone is even expecting him. When he flies into the Paris airport, the uncertainty of the landing field draws you in. What is it below? Those shifting circles that look like cobblestones or a field of corn, must make you wonder, is he in the right place? They go on and on, streaming past his vision until he gets low enough and see that in the Paris night, what he was seeing was the light of the city reflecting off the upturned faces of the THOUSANDS of people waiting for him to land.

Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.<br /><br />I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.<br /><br />GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.<br /><br />BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.

ABC has done more for this show by allowing television veterans James Garner and David Spade to join the cast of this show. At first, the show was watchable and even predictable with John Ritter and Katey Sagal. John's loss shocked the world. Katey and the three kids are really a solid professional cast. The hour lesson after John's death in real-life struck home to me. I lost my father at 17 years old and could sympathize and understand their pain and agony. ABC should be proud to maintain this show and even preserve this as John's final wish. This show has matured and developed because of such impossible circumstances. They should be rewarded with Emmys.

Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.