Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only "actors" that seem "real" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. GRADE: D

I'm Czech and soldiers (not only pilots) who escaped Czechoslovakia after Nazi's invasion in 1939 and fought against them abroad are true heroes and bravest men in our history for me. This movie from director of Academy Award winner "Kolya" (1996) is a tribute to these men. It's first big-screen movie about Czechoslovak WWII soldiers since "Nebesti jezdci" (1968). I think "Dark Blue World" is a good movie - good acting, good special effects, nice music etc. Movie is half in English and some actors are Britons. But greatest thing about this movie is it's pure existence. It's great chance to show people all around the world (and to many people in Czech Republic too...) that Czechoslovak role in WWII was not only as occupied country but as an active member of allied campaign.<br /><br />Leading characters are older and wiser Frantisek and young Karel. They escaped together from Czechoslovakia, they are flying in the same squadron and they fell in love with the same woman... Maybe it's a cliché but fortunately this storyline is not so aggressive and is in good balance with other scenes (including great dogfights). I don't want to compare "Dark Blue World" with "Pearl Harbor", someone will like PH more and someone will like DBW. But if you like happy ends, DBW is not for you. So, I think it's very good movie for everyone who likes this type of stories and very good movie who wants to get to know something about this chapter of Czechoslovak history.<br /><br />BTW, main theme "Dark Blue World" is from Czech 30's and 40's composer Jaroslav Jezek. He wrote this theme when he lost his eyes...

FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines. FAIL. I'd love to give this crap a 0. Yes, I registered just to rate this garbage. I want to go back in time and cut my wrist. Heres some copy and paste to take up 10 lines.

Easily the greatest low budget horror film of all time. I first saw this movie when I was around nine years of age, and I have to say that it scared the hell out of me. Now that I'm all growed up, however, I see this movie for what it really is... a work of genius. Everyone, or at least everyone with any taste, has dreamed of seeing a snowman going around killing people, even if they won't admit it. I have always found something genuinely frightening about snowmen, so naturally, for a horror junkie such as myself, thismovie was a dream come true. Some people say that this movie is silly, or otherwise void of any intelligence... it's a movie about a serial killer snowman, what the hell did you expect? Anyone who gave this film a low score is obviously too uptight to sit back and have a good laugh at stupid one-liners and cheap gore. I love this movie for what it is, a comedy, and until the movie industry wises up and makes a serious horror flick about a killer snowman (which seems impossible, unfortunately) I will forever hold this great piece of indie horror close to my heart.

Leon was fantastic as always, this time playing Little Richard in his early years. The movie showed a fully fleshed out Little Richard without neglecting to fill the show with lots of great music. My only complaint is that the ending was a little abrupt - I was hoping for a 2-parter!

Bell Book and Candle was released in December 1958 and features James Stewart, Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon. and Ernie Kovaks. This film had James Stewart and Kim Novak in their second on-screen pairing (after the Alfred Hitchcock classic Vertigo, released earlier the same year). This was Stewart's last film as a romantic lead as he was deemed too old at age 50 to play that sort of part anymore. The movie is about a witch played by Kim Novak who is attracted to a mortal played by James Stewart. She puts a spell on him and he falls head over heels in love with her. I enjoyed the movie and its cast. This movie at the time was a moderate success which was nominated for a Golden Globe for best Movie Comedy. GimmeClassics

Unfortunately, SpaceCamp came out about the same time as the Challenger Explosion. Which really put a crimp on when to bring it out or even if they should, bring it out. I'm glad they did. I first watched SpaceCamp at a drive-in movie. Which really enhanced the viewing a lot.<br /><br />While I had heard of Lea Thompson and Tom Skerritt. I had never heard of the others in the movie. So, it came as a big shock to me to find all those youngsters acting, and acting real good! Of course, Kate Capshaw was excellent too.<br /><br />I especially liked the scenes, where those kids were being shown how to act, as a team. The scenes of the kids being prepared for a trip they could only hope for. The actual launch of a spacecraft, is of course, old news to us. However, this one was different.<br /><br />All in all, this is one of my most treasured films. Escapist maybe, but it was fantastic for a space nut like me. After probably renting it for 30 - 40 times. I finally found it available in a certain store and bought it. Now, if it only comes out on DVD. I will probably have it forever. This movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me.

I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.

This movie has always been a favorite of mine since first seeing it as a 12 year old kid in 1962 when it was shown on a Los Angeles television station's "late show". The characters are very engaging from the start of the picture, and it is too bad that the movie has never been released for video tape, nor is it ever shown on television (apparently due to a prohibition by the Estate of Moss Hart, the playwright/producer/director who wrote the story and first presented it on the New York stage during WWII -- the reason for denying its showing is hard to fathom more than 50 years after it was made). I did not see the movie again for over 30 years, when someone who had actually been a major cast member of the movie was able to get me a "bootlegged" copy on VHS (poor video quality, but good audio). My memory of it was correct: it was still an engaging and fascinating movie to watch. An amazing aspect of this film is just how many of its stars, just starting out in their careers at the time 1944), went on to became either major motion picture stars or at least well-known and fully-employed actors (e.g. Judy Holliday, Edmond O'Brien, Jeanne Crain, Barry Nelson, Don Taylor, Karl Malden, Peter Lind Hayes, George "Superman") Reeves, Red Buttons, Lee J. Cobb, Kevin McCarthy, and Gary Merrill). The scenes with the B-24 Liberators are terrific, especially the close-up shots where the details of the giant (for those times) 4-engine bomber (then 18,000+ manufactured, now nearly extinct) can be seen. Good insight into the different levels of training that a pilot-cadet went through on his way to being assigned to a bomber crew (of course, VERY gender-biased as was the trend of the day: only the MEN became pilots, the women just supported them in their roles -- hardly acceptable in today's world). I hope someday it will be released onto video for a new generation to enjoy.

If you take the Huxtable parents and blend them with the Kyle parents you get a perfect blend of over the top and under the edge parenting that you can wish for your own family child-rearing skills. The best part about each show is that the parents do not come off as pompous self-righteous upper class know it alls but at the same time they are not the stereotypical under-educated parents who are constantly being bamboozled and disrespected by their children. My kids are 20, 16 and 6; just about the same ages as the Kyle kids and I see so much of their situations mirroring my own experiences with my family. The silliness that they indulge in only goes to show that when you have love in your family you do not have to take yourself too seriously to keep your household together and have fun with your kids.

I can't remember the worst film I have watched.Total waste of actors and audience time.If you prefer sitting by your TV and think when will be this film over,then this is the right film for you.Maybe this film is recorded to make people believe that Moscow has some mystique past. But I must say I have not expect anything else from Rade Serbedzija,but I have expected more from Vincent Gallo.The film lacks a plot, character,development,denouement.Entire movie is about underground tunnels and how they are mystique.I must be fair there is some camera effect but even that is too poor.Over and over are the same pictures.Total waste of time.

The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.<br /><br />Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.<br /><br />While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!<br /><br />Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.<br /><br />I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Pelišky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema.

Anna Christie (1930)<br /><br />Anna Christie has some terrific parts, and some amazing performances, and yet it should be even better than it is. It has drama. Some of the scenes are really atmospheric, and if the interior shots around the table are a bore, other shots at night and at sea are really pretty exciting. Then there are the nearly historical, lively scenes set in Coney Island (even a brief jittery roller coaster ride), and the episode where two women are behind a netting in separate beds, and visitors to the midway can throw balls to try to tip them over, and the women (scantily dressed) egg the men on is weirdly sexual come-on kind of way. All the while Garbo (at the front of the crowd) watches.<br /><br />Garbo of course is what makes this movie more than just another very good early talkie. She plays all sides of her character. She is coy and skeptical and in some kind of inner anguish. She laughs and cries, withdraws and pushes outward. In some ways it's a forward looking, remarkable movie (directed by Clarence Brown, who has a whole series of significant films from this pre-code sound era).<br /><br />Though based on a successful Eugene O'Neil play, it's the writing that struggles a little as the actors seem to go through the paces at times. Marie Dressler is great in that exaggerated way she almost trademarked. And then there is Greta Garbo, who really does have a natural presence, even if it seems she's overacting, just slightly, at times (but then, so is everyone else). Garbo is of course famous first as a silent actress, and this is her talking film debut. Audiences loved her enough that she made a German language version the following year.

I have seen the movie at the Viennale a few years ago, where the audiences liked it. I liked it as well, Summer Phoenix performance still haunts me, that´s why I decided to write a comment.<br /><br />The story unfolds in London around 1900, where a jewish girl decides to become an actress. She tries desperately to become one, but it isn´t before a man treats her badly that she realizes on stage, that she has talent and that she connects with the audience and emerges as a stronger human being.<br /><br />There were certain reviews, were her performance was smashed, they accused her of being dull, not able to bring life to her character. I think that´s her strong point, that´s exactly what Esther Kahn should be and Phoenix makes a brave decision to make her Esther a rather boring girl. So her transformation at the end is more powerful than it could have been otherwise. <br /><br />The cinematography is great, the images of London around the turn of the century are very dark and sad, you can see how unpleasant life was back then. <br /><br />The only fault in my opinion is the length of the movie, you loose touch with the characters, after all it´s only about finding the actor in yourself, so there are no dramatic actions in the film. It´s Phoenix credit that we don´t loose the interest in the movie after the first hour.

Unfortunately, this film is typical of the watering down of a good film by numerous sequels. Universal made several serial monster films in the 1940s, which were pale imitations of the original. The intelligent Egyptologist Imhotep has been replaced by a leg-dragging Frankenstein in mummy wrappings, who exhibits no signs of intelligent life. This film is entertaining in spots but if you have seen The Mummy (1932), you will be disappointed.

If I only had one camera that was accidentally glued to the floor, enough film for only one take of each shot, and then lost all that film and had to scrounge up some bucks to buy a few digital video tapes, and was forced to make an over-2-hour movie about the French Revolution, and also didn't have any sets and had to have my 4-year-old autistic son paint the backgrounds, and also the only actors I could find were the people who didn't make the auditions of that year's soap opera, and I was also forced to not use any music in the entire film, and also the zoom function on the camera didn't work except for one time when it accidentally started zooming in and couldn't stop, oh and if I hated my audience, then I might make something kind of like this awful, yet mistakenly hilarious, Hell-worthy waste of time. The almost grand looking but completely fake looking backdrops reminded me of some of George Lucas' latest creations, which made it so much more disappointing because through the whole movie, there was that little glimmer of hope in the back of my mind that the film would climax in a lightsaber duel/space laser battle. I don't mean to spoil the movie for those who haven't seen it, but that's not how it ends. The only thing I can think of that wasted more time than watching this movie was writing this review. Peace.

This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10.

This show has shown it's true colors now that Democrats are in power. It never did lead the world in IQ as anyone who thought it has intelligence has been programmed to think one way (which is a scary thing).<br /><br />Comedy Central moved this & it's spin off back to an earlier time once the Democrats took power for a reason- because now when the Democrats screw up - which is just as often as Republicans do - Stewart no longer takes pot shots at them. That is why the ratings for both this & the spin are dropping.<br /><br />Basically, most of the humor now is either lame, or lame Sarah Palin jokes - which all the ratings dropping Comedians are now telling. The facts to back this up speak for themselves. The Jay Leno show which has been doing the same kind of humor is on the verge of being canceled. The ratings for Letterman & Conan & the shows that follow them are down.<br /><br />So Emperor Stewart is not alone. Trouble is if any of them start taking real rips at the bungling Democrats in power, they could raise their ratings in a hurry because the best humor is always at the expense of whose in power. The Bush years proved that because the ratings for this show & Colbert, & Letterman & Leno were higher there.<br /><br />O'Bama has done one thing, proved these shows have to be willing to take chances & rip the folks in power if they are to prosper. Right now, the Daily Show & Stewart are sagging but maybe they can get lucky & have Palin elected as the first woman President in 2012. Then the lame Palin jokes will become ratings grabbers.

I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.<br /><br />Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all the time ;-)

This movie really woke me up, like it wakes up the main male character of this bravely different movie from his life slumber.<br /><br />This guy John (Ben Chaplin) leads his mediocre safe life of a bank teller in a small provincial English town, until the stunningly gorgeous, wild, girl-to-die-for Nadia (Nicole Kidman), ordered by email from Russia, enters his life to become his beloved wife, by Johns plan. However a glitch turns up - Nadia does not speak a word of Johns language. Although calm and emotionless on the outside, John becomes so interested in beautiful Nadia that instead of using the full refund policy of the matching service, he buys her a dictionary to start the communication process.<br /><br />What happens henceforth in the plot really shakes poor John from his slumber of a decently-paid safe-feeling clerk into a decision-making decently thinking action figure, giving the viewer a subliminal message "you would have probably acted likewise".<br /><br />Kidman, Cassel & Kassovitz make a great team acting Russians and they are almost indistinguishable from the real thing, "almost" only due to the slight accent present in their Russian dialogues, however slight enough to amaze a native Russian by the hard work done to get the words sound right. Nicole Kidman proves her talent once again by playing a character quite different from the previous roles, at least from the cultural background.<br /><br />The pace of the film is fast and captivating, and you certainly are not ready to quit watching when the end titles appear, you rather feel that you're in the middle of the plot, and are left with a desire to see the sequel as soon as it comes out.<br /><br />My advice is to go out and get this film immediately and watch it and enjoy. To sum it up, it has an unusual plot, great acting, and ideas below the surface. Like the idea of the "rude awakening" from the artificial safe routine life of a wheel in a Society's machine, the life which members of the Fight Club were so keen to quit and the machine of which Pink Floyd sings ("Welcome to the machine!"). I bet that in the end, John was rather off with Sophia on their way to the unknown than not having met her at all.<br /><br />Thank you, writers, for the great story, and everyone else for this great movie! Please make a sequel! And you can stage it whereever and name the location whatever, because the authenticity of the place is irrelevant to the 99.9999 percent of the potential viewers, I am sure of it.

Absolutely nothing is redeeming about this total piece of trash, and the only thing worse than seeing this film is seeing it in English class. This is literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. It totally ignores and contradicts any themes it may present, so the story is just really really dull. Thank god the 80's are over, and god save whatever man was actually born as "James Bond III".

First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.<br /><br />Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.

I really enjoyed this movie. Typically Ron Howard who seems to like being associated with Michael Keaton. Love the scene when Hunt travels to Japan with his sales pitch. Whoa, how did that get in there ! Cheap laughs but great value

I wasn't going to watch this show. But, I'm glad I did. The critics of this just don't get it! It's one of the funniest and most entertaining thing on T.V at the present moment! Though, when the interviews were done with common folks they probably seemed useless; but, put them in the mouth of animals and insects, and it's a laugh riot. I laughed so hard, I had tears in my eyes. The pig with the babies suckling and her mother is priceless. The husband and wife birds talking about health problems, and the male bird taking a crap after the wife said she was constipated completely broke me up! Creature Comforts is the most imaginative show I've ever seen in awhile! Hopefully, it will be back next summer when this run is over.

This movie serves up every imaginable Greek stereotype. In one particularly galling scene the tycoon says "I'm just an ignorant peasant." As the grandson of Greek peasant immigrants who passed on a legacy of wisdom and love to their children and grandchildren, I found this movie contemptible and odious.

The Caprica episode (S01E01) is well done as a pilot. Really, this episode is the exact same content as the DVD pilot release. That having been said, episode 01 gives a very substantive background of the very popular "Battlestar Galactica" series (both the original and the 2007 remake). It significantly applies most to the 2007 series. As is the trending plots of sci-fi of late, this series explores "Virtual" life or environment. On top of this, we are given much background on the Adama family line as well as their relationship with the unrevealed (in the Battlestar Galactica series) creator of the Cylons. To the most part, this first episode revolves around the popular topic of "Virtual" life and (as is expected) early life of the colonies, and the birth of the Cylons. <br /><br />Over all, I rather enjoyed this episode. Although, it was not new material for myself or anyone that has already seen the DVD release of the Caprica pilot, the series seems very promising. As is the case with many pilots, episode 01 leaves us with a cliff-hanger so to ensure a follow by an audience (sci-fi community). I'm definitely going to keep watching for resolve as well as development. <br /><br />I give this series 8 stars.

Assy McGee is a show that you really have to be a certain age to appreciate. Otherwise, it's likely you'll miss the references to 80's cop films and simply think it's a running gag about a walking rectum. Think it's brainless, infantile poop humor? Go watch the Stallone film 'Cobra' and you'll see what I mean. This show actually has very subtle humor, which says a lot, both for a show that aired on adult swim, and for a show about a walking ass.<br /><br />All the standard genre clichés are in place that made movies like Dirt Harry and Cobra so great and ripe for parody. Sanchez is Assy's partner, who is - as per the genre - level-headed and constantly apologizing for his partner's homicidal behavior. The police chief is, of course, a fire-breathing hard case who lives to scream "I want your badge on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!" The over-the-top, and sometimes completely nonsensical manner in which the 1980's 'Renegade Cop' film is parodied suits the subject matter well. For instance, while breaking up a bus robbery, one of the criminals stops to ask Assy, "Hey, where are you going, asshole!?" To which the title character snaps off the one-liner: "I'm going... to shoot you." <br /><br />Highly recommended for anybody who loves 80's action movies, and has actually viewed enough of them to understand the humor.

It's nice to see Julie Andrews trying a straight dramatic role here--something she hadn't done in awhile--but her character of Judith(wise they didn't try to pass her off as a 'Judy')has the old refined manners and tomboyish hairstyle of yore, and Andrews enacts 'grown-up' as any other actress would interpret frigid. It's a surprisingly bland drama set in Barbados involving Omar Sharif(not the liveliest leading man around--not even in 1974!)hoping to make Andrews a spy while also slowly leading her into the proverbial bedroom. Unmemorable outing does have some camp value: the James Bond-like credits at the beginning are a cheesy hoot. As for Julie: she's quiet and contemplative, but that doesn't do much for the audience, or for the film. Blake Edwards paces the freakin' thing like a funeral. * from ****

You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.<br /><br />Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.<br /><br />This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.<br /><br />Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.

Having first achieved fame with Drunken Master, Jackie Chan was thrust into the spotlight once more with 1983's Project A, a hugely enjoyable pirate flick which re-established him as a major star. By the time Police Story was released two years later, the extraordinary hype surrounding Jackie was reaching its zenith, and crowds flocked to see this frenetic blend of awesome stunts, brutal fight scenes and questionable comedy. It broke numerous box-office records and inspired a 50% rise in police recruits, but, viewed 20 years on - is it any good?<br /><br />As an action movie Police Story unquestionably stands up. There are several terrific fight scenes, some stuntwork that recalls the very best of Chan's hero Buster Keaton, and a compelling if over-violent climactic tussle. Jackie's performance is also very strong, and whilst the frequent forays into laboured comedy dull the film's impact just a little, his charisma carries it through. Furthermore, in presenting our hero as a borderline psychopath whose recklessness puts others in danger, Jackie took a momentous gamble ... though in the event nobody seems to have noticed! By praising Police Story as a simple 'Good vs. Evil' battle critics belittled the film's ambiguity of tone, and whilst it's hardly The Brothers Karamazov, in depicting such uncertainty the film nevertheless represented a notable and praiseworthy shift from conventional ideas.<br /><br />In short, this remains a quality "popcorn" movie* (though you may empty your stomach as numerous villains are thrust against or deposited into glass showcases in the film's final scene) - a potent, boisterously entertaining action movie that ranks with the best of its period.

I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.<br /><br />There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.<br /><br />I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.

This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece "Once Upon a Time in the West" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is "how did it make it that far?".

Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all.

I went in to this thinking another gross movie with gross humor. Telling from my first sentence I don't like that humor and this movie had it's moments but I loved it. Justin Long has really never done comedy like this, where he's sarcastic and clever and I loved it. Lewis Black....enough said. The ending I really did love because It had to take itself seriously I mean how else would you end it? Yes it's another underdog story but not in your typical format and the movie wasn't their ups and downs, it was people coming together for one common goal, To go to college where they were accepted. The cast was amazing and yes I did laugh at loud when I didn't think I would and the laughter lasted longer then I thought to. The parents and sister played their roles well but their characters are put in when necessary. The movie was not focused around them but at the same time they showed up when you expect and not expect them to. They played in to the story very well, and I loved the familiar faces Anthony Heald(Boston Public), Jeremy Howard (I) (Galaxy Quest with Justin Long) Ross Patterson (The New Guy)and Sam Horrigan (Brink). Blake Lively added her certain something to the movie which made it even more enjoyable, as well as B's Friends. I recommend this movie to whoever hated those gross comedies of the last 4 years and really want something with humor and an actually story line!~!

Now really can u call that a movie. I knew some of the movies that Japanese people do are good for nothing but this bad? I mean com'om i fell a sleep three times at this movie. No horror at all, some tiny percent (0.2-0.5) comedy. Action let's just admit that it has some but the scenes are poorly filmed, the actors are pathetic. None of the actors did a good job in it's own role. The were not convincing. The script is also awful. I mean this movie may be great, REALLY, but for the 60's(in not 100% sure.) I recommend NOT to see it, unless you want to get so bored as i did. I can't quite figure hot this movie got it's rating. It's OVER, OVER, OVER RATED!!!. This is a PERSONAL opinion of course. I don want to offend anyone but who could like this crap? So i hope this helps someone NOT to loose some time "enjoying" this movie. Nevertheless it's your choice!

Even if it won't give one more than previous posts here (like Ruby Liang's very good one) i wanted to share my own point of view. Hope my English is understandable.<br /><br />Bon voyage is a rhythmic, light but deep presentation of the French unorganized come-down, but also courage and charm. All along in a brilliantly reconstituted 1940 France with many details (from Bordeaux luxurious hotel occupied by Government HQ and attacked by useless high class French, to Parisian coffees near Le Pantheon / rue Mouffetard and 1930s cars) Gérard Depardieu and Yvan Attal give their second roles a brilliant taste;) Isabelle Adjani and Virgnie Ledoyen are very credible in their drastically different roles, and Grégori Derangère makes an bewitching performance:)<br /><br />Much lighter than average (e.g. American) war times movies, and focused on the civilians, Bon voyage shows a lot of things about french issues (even to a French guy like me), some of them quite deep.

I will admit that I have seen maybe five minutes of "Jerry Springer". I don't consider myself a snob, but I really think that I am above watching what's on his show. You should try to elevate yourself above that too.<br /><br />I saw this movie as part of a social studies event I was conducting. I was told that this movie really had little to do with Springer himself, rather it centered on the lives of those who would appear on "Springer." Handled better, this movie might have actually been a fascinating look at how pathetic these people's lives actually are. I will admit, I felt a twinge of empathy for Connie (Molly Hagan). This is all she has in life. How sad that she feels she must go on Jerry's show in order to resolve this.<br /><br />I really feel sorry for Molly Hagan appearing in this. Have you noticed that after this movie, she has mainly been relegated to "B" roles on TV? I will say this about Hagan. She is an extremely beautiful and intelligent woman. I have no doubt that she is very earnest in her acting and she tries to play her roles with a lot of empathy. The problem is that Hagan can't carry a scene on her own. She just doesn't have what it takes to do a lead role. Her best work will always be Angel on "Herman's Head" (a show that was not great, but its heart was in the right place) and when she guested on "Seinfeld" as Sister Roberta.

Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):<br /><br />4.3 (out of 10)<br /><br />Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.<br /><br />Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.<br /><br />Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.

If you like Sci-Fi, Monsters, and Ancient Legends, then you will love this movie!! <br /><br />The Special Effects are by far the best I have seen since Juarassic Park hit the big screen years ago. While the acting may have been a little less than desirable, the story line and effects adequately compensated for it.<br /><br />I wish now I had seen this at the movies on a theater screen instead of our 42 inch big screen TV.<br /><br />If you like non-stop action, awesome visuals, and taste for myth and lore....you have to see this movie!!

Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.<br /><br />Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.<br /><br />Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?<br /><br />Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period." <br /><br />Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.<br /><br />Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.<br /><br />Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.<br /><br />In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.<br /><br />Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.

Sam Fuller's excellent PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is the pick of the bunch from a number of early 50's Cold War-influenced low-budget noir vehicles. With a running length of under 80 minutes, PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is tough, gritty, explosive and endlessly entertaining.<br /><br />Widmark stars as pickpocket Skip McCoy, who has already been picked up three times. Yet McCoy can't keep his wandering fingers out of trouble- and trouble is exactly what he slides into when he grifts the wallet of gangster's moll Candy (Jean Peters). Candy's wallet contains a roll of microfilm invaluable to the Communist movement, and it's her last job for ex-boyfriend Richard Kiley to make the delivery. However, when Widmark lifts it, Peters must do whatever it takes to re-claim the film she (initially) knows nothing about.<br /><br />It's a tasty set-up, with Widmark's character, while not the psycho of KISS OF DEATH, a real live-wire, unpredictable and tough, yet curiously charming.When Bogart or Mitchum stepped into a film noir role you knew what you were going to get: a lone anti-hero maintaining his moral integrity and winning out in the end (Bogart), or an overly-laconic guy who allows himself to be drawn into a trap (Mitchum). With Widmark you just don't know what you are going to get, and with his incredibly modern acting style (his films always hold up well) he is amazing to watch. Here he is torn between making a big score for himself by selling the film, or handing it over to the police and fighting the "Commies" on the right side of the law. And he still has to pretend he never pickpocketed Peters to avoid the fatal fourth rap on his sheet.<br /><br />Peters gets her best role as the moll-with-a-heart-of-gold Candy. Widmark's unpredictability is perhaps best expressed in his scenes with Peters; the gorgeous tramp quickly (and rather unbelievably- the romance angle is rather rushed)falls under Widmark's spell, yet Widmark alternates between kissing her or slapping her around. Peters hard-edged beauty, yet lack of over-lacquered Hollywood glamour (Lana Turner would never have worked well in this role), is a major asset to the film. Candy is not innocent, yet she's very vulnerable, constantly being passed between and slapped around by men. Widmark knocks her cold on first meeting and wakes her by pouring beer over her face, yet by the final act he's a lot more tender to her (after she cops one hell of a going-over from Kiley). The scene in the hospital with Peters and Widmark shouldn't work, but it does.<br /><br />Thelma Ritter is brilliant as stoolie Moe, well-deserving of her Oscar nomination. Ritter's performance, like everything else in the film, is gritty, real and heartbreakingly honest. Her death scene is stunning. Fuller's camera movements and location settings are particularly interesting. Fuller loved a good close-up, and PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is full of uncomfortable, cloistering tight shots that only enhance the tension of the plot. Fuller isn't afraid to let the camera linger on a shot for longer than standard Old-Hollywood really allowed, yet stunningly pulls away from Ritter's death scene to give the audience maximum impact. The urban locales and unusual, confronting camera angles give PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET, a bold, uncompromisingly modern look.<br /><br />10/10.

Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis.

The story for the first-aired television installment of "Columbo" is simple: one-half of successful mystery-writing team does away with the other, frames an unseen Mafia group, is blackmailed by an admirer, does away with the admirer, and is tricked up by the stalwart Columbo.<br /><br />With that said, this is still one of the most entertaining in the show's history, benefiting tremendously by the work of the late Jack Cassidy and star Peter Falk.<br /><br />Besides the notability of being directed by a young Steven Spielberg, the episode also has a air of the macabre because of the future of two of its stars: Cassidy and Barbara Colby. The two share several scenes together and it is poignant that both would die tragically within a decade of this filming, Cassidy in an apartment fire and Colby at the hands of assailants, yet to be found after over three decades.<br /><br />Now, both demises are true-life MYSTERIES!

George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.<br /><br />Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell.

Saw this as a young naive punk when it was first released. Had me snifflin' like a baby as I left the theatre, trying not to let anyone see. So, when I saw it again now in '07, I knew what to expect & the sobs were ready & primed as their required moment approached. Thankfully this time I was at home.<br /><br />What I hadn't remembered from my youthful viewing- or perhaps hadn't noticed because of it, was the technical brilliance of this movie. The use of flashbacks which tell so much story without resorting to dialogue. The camera work which seemed to place the viewer, together with the characters in the scene. Think of the opening when Joe is crossing the street to the diner, the camera pans behind the woman & child sitting on a bench in the foreground, framing the street scene. <br /><br />The story itself, & the characters - seedy, sad & brutally real. It is very touching to be drawn so closely into a human drama such as this with people most of us would likely spurn. Then again, Joe & Ratso could be any of us. Must have been '70 when I saw it. I recall that upon leaving the theatre I was impelled to find the company of friends. All these years later, I'm glad I'm not alone tonight. This is one hell of a great movie.

A Walt Disney MICKEY MOUSE Cartoon.<br /><br />STEAMBOAT WILLIE, a mischievous little rodent, neglects his pilothouse and frolics his way into cinematic history.<br /><br />On 18 November 1928, a struggling young genius debuted the world's first successful cartoon with synchronous sound. There would be no looking back for either Walt Disney or his alter ego Mickey Mouse. Financial struggles would remain, but essentially the world was their oyster bed and Mickey would eventually rival Chaplin as the most recognizable cultural icon of the century.<br /><br />As entertainment, STEAMBOAT WILLIE is still fun to watch, featuring fine work by animator Ub Iwerks and showing a Mickey with all the passions & indifference of a small child. He must deal with a tyrannical skipper (Pete, without his peg leg; he had been appearing in Disney cartoons since February of 1925), a wisecracking parrot (in a few years it would be a Duck) and a cute little Mouse named Minnie. Together the two rodents rather callously make music on the live bodies of a goat, cat, goose, piglets & cow (a precursor of Clarabelle) - all of whom happened to be conveniently on board the steamship. Audiences howled for more and the pattern was set for the subsequent Mouse cartoons of the next few years.<br /><br />******************************<br /><br />Walt Disney (1901-1966) was always intrigued by pictures & drawings. As a lad in Marceline, Missouri, he sketched farm animals on scraps of paper; later, as an ambulance driver in France during the First World War, he drew comic figures on the sides of his vehicle. Back in Kansas City, along with artist Ub Iwerks, Walt developed a primitive animation studio that provided animated commercials and tiny cartoons for the local movie theaters. Always the innovator, his ALICE IN CARTOONLAND series broke ground in placing a live figure in a cartoon universe. Business reversals sent Disney & Iwerks to Hollywood in 1923, where Walt's older brother Roy became his lifelong business manager & counselor. When a mildly successful series with Oswald The Lucky Rabbit was snatched away by the distributor, the character of Mickey Mouse sprung into Walt's imagination, ensuring Disney's immortality. The happy arrival of sound technology made Mickey's screen debut, STEAMBOAT WILLIE (1928), a tremendous audience success with its use of synchronized music. The SILLY SYMPHONIES soon appeared, and Walt's growing crew of marvelously talented animators were quickly conquering new territory with full color, illusions of depth and radical advancements in personality development, an arena in which Walt's genius was unbeatable. Mickey's feisty, naughty behavior had captured millions of fans, but he was soon to be joined by other animated companions: temperamental Donald Duck, intellectually-challenged Goofy and energetic Pluto. All this was in preparation for Walt's grandest dream - feature length animated films. Against a blizzard of doomsayers, Walt persevered and over the next decades delighted children of all ages with the adventures of Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi & Peter Pan. Walt never forgot that his fortunes were all started by a mouse, or that childlike simplicity of message and lots of hard work always pay off.

That's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.<br /><br />Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.

This movie is incredible. If you have the chance, watch it. Although, a warning, you'll cry your eyes out. I do, every time I see it, and I own it and have watched it many times. The performances are outstanding. It deals with darkness and pain and loss, but there is hope. This movie made me look at the world differently: vicarious experience, according to my English teacher. Also, if you've seen it, note the interesting use of shadows and light. Home room is a phenomenal movie, and I rate it 10/10 - for real - because of the excellent acting, amazing plot, and heart-wrenching dialogue. Very tense, very moving. Doesn't give all the answers, but makes many good points about humankind

For a movie shot in 18 days and a budget less than 2 million, this little movie that could deserves a 'best we could' award. Interesting premise (aside from the usual meteor stuff) with solid perfs by a cast of familiar faces. 2 thumbs up. Advice to the other reviewer: Don't be afraid to say you liked something.

Set in Hungary in November 1956, this is the story of a group of foreign nationals who were trying to leave the country at the time of the Uprising.<br /><br />Once the airport is closed, the titular journey begins on a bus taking them to Austria. As would be obvious, they are stopped on their way which is where they come up against the almost faultless Yul Brynner whose military power as a Red Army Major was marked with loneliness, his internal struggle between right and wrong, his search for the truth and his need to feel emotions for other human beings. He was saddened by the fact that his job had alienated him from his friends and enemies alike and he yearned for social contact.<br /><br />Robert Morley plays the quintessential stiff upper-lipped Englishman who, no matter how serious the role, manages to maintain an almost light-hearted logical outlook on life while Jason Robards has a stunning movie debut which enforces the reason why he had so many roles throughout his career. Deborah Kerr, as the leading lady, exhibits the grace and femininity we have come to associate with her yet manages to bring over the strength and resolve required for her character.<br /><br />The film deals with a very tempestuous time in European history but it never ceases to remind us that there is good in all of us and you can never completely judge a book by the cover. Fabulous scriptwriting ensures that for all the seriousness of the subject there can still be great one-liners and comedic instances that add to, rather than detract from the movie. The chemistry in the cat and mouse game between Kerr and Brynner makes you understand why they appeared in more than the one film together.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly engrossing movie which I would definitely watch again. 8/10

"Who Will Love My Children" Saddest movie I have ever seen. Definite 10/10. Released on TV in 1983. Movie has been released on VHS. DVD release is a must, sooner rather than later. Mother dying of cancer, must find homes for all her children before she dies, because her thoughts are that her husband and father of the kids is not capable of caring for them once she has died. She manages to find homes for the children except one, a young boy whom is not wanted because he suffers from epilepsy. Very sad when your not wanted. In for a real good tear jerker, get your hands on this movie. I'm a male even I cried when I watched this movie. Not to be missed.

I have read both the book and saw the movie today. The storyline is so powerful that almost any script or screenplay would have done justice to it. So nothing much there. However, this is still a beautiful movie because it makes one think and feel, just like the book. Watching it is not like watching a documentary on a failed state and feeling sympathetic towards people suffering under an oppressive regime, but is like watching any other common man's story unfold, across generations, across continents. Amir's cowardice, his guilt, his dilemmas and finally his choosing a way of redemption could have been a story of any of us. There isn't a single infallible character to look up to and idolize but all of them are gray, just like all of us.<br /><br />Another important observation is that the movie does a great job of chronicling the lives of Afghans through the twenty some years of turbulent political scenarios. The vibrant, care-free childhood represents Kabul before the Russian invasion and the desolate, shattered remains of the city echo what the Taliban has done to it.<br /><br />The child actors deserve 'thumbs up' all the way. They can put any matured actor to shame.<br /><br />If you have not yet seen the movie or read the book, just walk into the theater keeping in mind that you are going to witness a multi-layered story woven on a multi-colored fabric of human emotions and sentiments. This movie is not meant to stir anti-Soviet and anti-Taliban feelings but to feel the trials of human existence.<br /><br />I read some of the external reviews linked to the site and I must confess I do not see the point in writing reviews that summarize the storyline like a distant spectator and point out technical details about amazing cinematography or something similar. At least for this movie, one should try to connect to it rather than judging it objectively.

What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a "big name" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.<br /><br />At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.<br /><br />It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.<br /><br />Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of "spot the Kiwi bit parters"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.

This movie, to me, is about family. Jimmy Morris lived his dream not just for himself, but for his family. I can't begin to tell you how I would be able to tell my little girl that daddy was going to Kansas City to cover Priest Holmes and the Kansas City Chiefs. She'd think it was the coolest thing, like Morris' son did. Living dreams with the family is what this one is about. I think only a father who has a close relationship with his family can truly appreciate what Jimmy Morris did.

The Time Machine starts in New York during 1899 where Professor Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) proposes to his beloved girlfriend Emma (Sienna Guillory) who accepts, unfortunately just after they are attacked by a mugger & Emma is shot dead & dies in Alexander's arms. Jump forward 'Four Years Later' & Alexander has built a time machine which he uses to travel back to the night Emma was killed in order to save her but she is still killed, only a different way this time. Alexander realises whatever he does, however many times he goes back Emma will always end up dead one way or another & he yearns to know the answer why so he travels far into the future to discover the truth. However after having destroyed the moon two new races have evolved on Earth, the human like Eloi & the monstrous Morlock's that eat the Eloi. Alexander decides to stick around & save the Eloi.<br /><br />Directed by Simon Wells who is actually the great grandson of author H.G. Wells who wrote the original The Time Machine book on which the original The Time Machine (1960) film was based & it is in fact the 1960 film that producer John Logan's script is based upon here rather than Wells original literally source. While all three share the same basic story & ideas this remake adds the subplot about Alexander's fiancé Emma being killed & that's the reason he invents a time machine rather than just because he is clever & he can. The script is a mixture of sci-fi, action adventure & drama none of which really grabbed me or engaged me that much, sure there are a few pretty special effects, a few nice action scenes & the moment when Alexander's question is answered regarding why he can't save Emma is actually quite intelligent & makes sense it never really captured my imagination & I was never really moved by it either. The time travel aspects of The Time Machine feel very similar to Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992) in the sense you can't change the past but at the same time the future is not set only The Time Machine isn't anywhere near as good a film as Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The character's are alright although I thought Guy Pearce just looked too young to be a brainy scientist capable of inventing a time machine & there's never any real explanation behind it's mechanics either as it's like one moment there's no time machine the next he has invented & made one & it works perfectly. I reckon the Back to the Future trilogy offer far more thrills, laughs, excitement & general entertainment value than The Time Machine ever does & while I will stop short of calling it a bad film since it moves along at a decent pace, tells a reasonable story & has it's moments I wouldn't call it brilliant or even particularly good. There is also a cheeky little reference to the book & original film which are both name-checked here.<br /><br />The benefit this modern version has over the original is the development of special effects & in particular CGI which leads to scenes of time rapidly passing around Alexander in his time machine complete with huge buildings being built, new ridges, canyons & mountains being formed & a elaborate pan back which ends up in space as we see passenger rockets orbiting the moon. The effects work is good, there are one or two moments that look a little below par but generally speaking the effects are good. I saw The Time Machine on telly & the station playing it badly pan and scanned it so the left & right edges of the frame were cut off the screen thus cutting off part of the year on Alexander's time machine dial so I actually didn't know what year he went to. Apparently director Gore Verbinski took over the last eighteen days of filming as Wells was suffering from 'extreme exhaustion' while the IMDb says that the time machine itself was the biggest & most expensive prop ever built for a film at that point which I find hard to believe & Guy Pearce broke a rib during a fight scene but like a trooper carried on.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $80,000,000 the production values are high with a lovingly recreated period New York & good effects work although amazingly The Time Machine was nominated for an Oscar for best make-up but lost out to Frida (2002). The acting is mixed, Jermey Irons puts in a good performance in a terrible make-up job that has him looking like a reject from a Lord of the Rings film while singer Samantha Mumba makes her big screen debut here & is simply terrible although Guy Pearce is quite good & fairly likable.<br /><br />The Time Machine isn't a particularly bad film or a particularly good one, just a somewhat unremarkable one that is watchable & passes an hour and a half but not much else. Watch Back to the Future (1985) again instead.

When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.

A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all... <br /><br />Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.

Not much to it but a validation of small town values and the embracing of a mentally challenged young man into its heart.<br /><br />I read some of the reviews and was surprised at some of the hostility it engendered. I felt Cuba Gooding handled the part with dignity and respect unlike Sean Penn's drooling fool portrayal in "I am Sam."<br /><br />The fact that this is based on a true story makes it all the more heartwarming. Sports are taken seriously in small town high school America (and elsewhere, I suspect) and I felt the portrayal of these competitive students opening their hearts to one less fortunate rang true, at least for me.<br /><br />The coach was never forced to choose between his daughter and Radio but rather came gently to the decision himself under Radio's loving and open ways. Very well done to all. 7 out of 10.<br /><br />Debra Winger, we need more of you in pictures!

Ride With the Devil has something rich and special, if you can stand the slow development. While tackling a dark, gritty subject, the brutal guerrilla war in the American West during its Civil War (which in turned spawned the outlaws of the old west of the 1870s), the movie maintains a strangely satisfying, unmanipulated atmosphere. What I'm refering to is the tendency of films' music and lighting to make you feel the mood you'd expect to feel. But RWTD instead has a relatively upbeat soundtrack, and lets the words and action do the talking set the mood rather than manipulation of the viewer's senses.<br /><br />As an enthusast of this particular area of CW history, I'm greatly impressed with the accuracy of the film. The diologue is expertly written, (even with subtle humor occasionally) with references to bushwhackers and previous boarder battles (Independence for example...A far cry from the Oregon Trail!). The minor events that occur to Jake's band are similar to actual events that took place...Especially the attack when they're holed up in the house, and the destruction of the store/booth. The battle scenes, though rare, are pretty well executed. It even has the first CW cavalry battle put on film recently.<br /><br />The directing shows the talent everyone expects of Ang Lee in subtle ways. Example: The character of Black John is shown taunting a Lawrence resident during the massacre: "Where's your army? Who are we to fight!? Who are we to fight?! (The shot then switches to a trio of Confederate Regulars standing, doing nothing to stop the carnage while the voice continues) You are cowards all!" Who are the cowards, really? Little touches like that really enhance the movie's quality.<br /><br />There are no major glaring areas in the history, something that can not be said of the masterpiece of film Glory, which was basically fiction within the context of the major events it follows. Some minor problems include the fact that the years as shown by the events represented don't add up. But you will never notice that. A larger curiosity is the fact that the only African-American man-at-arms character in the film is the quasi-slave fighting for Jake and his Confederate bushwhackers. It is true that some blacks did fight for the Confederacy out there, including one who scouted Lawrence for Quantrill before the attack (Who would suspect him?). Though this black rebel is a fasinating character (whatever PC African-Americans might think of him), not a single black Union infantryman is seen in the film, which would have been more represenative of the black experience in the Western CW. One of the first black regiments of the CW was raised in Kansas (by the murderer Senator Jim Lane, and before the 54th Mass. Reg. of fame was organized), and black troops in such battles as Baxter Springs, KS, played a critical role.<br /><br />No glaring historical errors. Good, realistic action, which is infrequent and not gratitous. Good Directing. This film may not be the blockbusters other recent Civil War were, but it's the cleanest job of any.

I saw a preview of Freebird at the Isle of Man TT as i had heard about it in a couple of motorcycle mags. Although i was over mainly for the racing, the lure of seeing Phil Daniels in a motorcycle movie (yes i love Quadrophenia like everyone else) proved enough to get me away from the beer and partying. At last! we've done it! us British have actually made a great motorcycle film (and no it's not like Torque) this is up there with the best of British comedy. Mark my words, this is Phil Daniels best screen performance, and as far as Geoff Bell is concerned, there's a new British legend making his name felt. I loved Gary Stretch in Shane Meadows' fantastic Dead Mans Shoes and here he gives a quietly touching performance that he can proudly add to his growing film reputation. This is a film not just for us Bikers, but I think for everyone (even my girlfriend loved it). I hope it gets the same brilliant response on the mainland as it got at the Isle of Man. I'm not going to go into the details of certain classic scenes that this movie has, (watch out for the shop), as it would spoil the fun, but i would say, go see, enjoy, and have one of the best nights in the cinema you've had in a while. I really think this could well be a cult classic. As they were saying at the TT... C'Mon Freebird!

I want so badly to give this piece of GARBAGE a zero, unfortunately, there isn't, so, I had to give it a 1 just to warn you about how stupidly terrible this imposter of a familiar cartoon really is! The characters look like they were drawn by pre-schoolers, no, wait, I've seen pre-schoolers do better! I prefer "Misadventures of Flapjack" to this terrible excuse for a cartoon! I'm probably saying what others have said, two words: RIP OFF!! Remember that episode of Dexter's Lab when they raced go-karts down that volcano? yeah, Mister Fellows even cashed in on that idea and failed! They even ripped off Shadow Lugia in that one episode that parodied Pokemon!(he even cashed in on that franchise!) That one character is a cheap rip off of Mandark from Dexter's Lab! Mister Fellows needs to be sued for statutory infringement for this piece of crap!! Everyone has their own opinion, but those of you who like Johnny (RIP-OFF) Test, your'e just lying to yourselves. Do yourself a favor, change the channel when this rip off tries to disgrace your screen!

This movie, even though it is over 70 years old is still a very moving, strong film. Bette Davis, as the slutty, vicious Cockney waitress Mildred is absolutely believable. Watching her performance is still spellbinding. She makes the viewer absolutely despise her and pity her at the same time. Leslie Howard's performance as the weak, obsessed Phillip Carey is not as strong, but I don't see how any actor could hold their own against Ms. Davis's performance. She chews up the scenery in every scene she is in, totally stealing the show. This is the movie that sealed her stardom and she deserved to win the Academy Award, but lost. It was shocking for it's day what with themes of unwed pregnancy, multiple sex partners, and Mildred's vicious language so it is somewhat dated, but still an excellent movie. Just to see the scene where Mildred tells Phillip what she REALLY thinks of him ("You cad, you dirty swine....") is still some of the greatest acting I have ever seen on film.

I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.

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

A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong.

The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.<br /><br />Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.<br /><br />Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.

Ah, McBain… The character name is immortalized and forever ridiculed by "The Simpsons" but it will also always – to me personally, at least – remain the name and title of a tremendously entertaining and outrageously violent early 90's action flick; directed by the cool dude who brought us "The Exterminator" and starring two of the most ultimately badass B-movie heroes Christopher Walken and Michael Ironside (the latter with a cute little macho ponytail). I guess "McBain" will largely have to be labeled as a guilty pleasure, because there's no way I can convince anyone this is an intellectual motion picture. The film is unimaginably preposterous (most action heroes take on a small gangster posse … McBain takes on an entire country) and yet takes itself way too seriously. The script is a non-stop and incoherent spitfire of clichéd situations, nonsensical twists, compulsory sentimental interludes, grotesquely staged action sequences and utterly implausible character drawings. It's a totally delirious movie; I loved it. <br /><br />Vietnam POW McBain's life is saved by fellow soldier Roberto Santos on the very last day of the war. They each keep half a dollar note as a symbol that McBain is in Santos' debt. Eighteen years later, Santos is a spirited rebel leading the revolution against the corrupt president of his home country Columbia. Santos initial attempt to take over the power fails and he's publicly executed on El Presidente's balcony. His sister travels to New York with the dollar note and turns to McBain for financial assistance and manpower. McBain and his former Vietnam buddies, who all coincidentally happen to be fed up with the injustice in this world, charter themselves a miserable little plane and fly to Columbia to open a gigantic can of whoop-ass. <br /><br />Okay, let's not fool each other here. The fact you're reading a user- comment on "McBain" already indicates that you have some sort of interest for low-budget B-movie action. One of my fellow reviewers spent quite some time composing a list containing all the main stupidities and insensible moments of "McBain". This list is totally accurate and I can only concur with it. Heck, I could even add some more senseless sequences to that list (like the preposterous and needless heroic self- sacrifice of a soldier who doesn't even have any affinity with the goal of the mission and the rest of McBain's squad), but what's the point? You definitely know not to expect a 100% coherent and plausible masterpiece. We know from beforehand this will be a silly and exaggeratedly flamboyant movie, and it's maybe even the exact reason why we want to check it out! This is a terrifically outrageous and exciting movie about a bunch of former Vietnam buddies turning into mercenaries and declaring war against the corrupt Columbian president and the national drug cartel. Please don't expect another "Apocalypse Now". This particular motion picture relies on the ruff 'n tuff acting performances of the macho leads, a whole lot of explosions and gunfights and – last but not least – a fantastic soundtrack in which Joan Baez sings a cover of "Brothers in Arms".

I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point. <br /><br />I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....<br /><br />The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.<br /><br />You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!<br /><br />On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.<br /><br />I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?<br /><br />Or....... Go really "Art-House" with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.<br /><br />Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it?

Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.

This film is really, really full of sex. Hot sex. I watched it (of course) on Cinemax; and I liked it of course; those virtual fantasies are played out so much in great style, and I kind of enjoyed the story line. But one must know that when a soft porn film director sets out to make another soft porn film; all he/she wants to do is film good sex scenes. And I got nice sex scenes, full of skin. Yet another reason some people call soft porn Cinemax films "Skinemax."

Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Ollie is recovering from a broken leg in hospital, and with nothing else to do, Stan decides to visit him, and take him some boiled eggs and nuts, instead of candy. Chaos begins with Stan curiously pulling Ollie's leg cast string, and manages to push The Doctor (Billy Gilbert) out the window, clinging on to it, getting Ollie strung up to the ceiling. When the situation calms down, Stan gets Ollie's clothes, as the Doctor wants them both to leave, and he also manages to sit on a syringe, accidentally left by the nurse, filled with a sleeping drug, which comes into effect while he is driving (which you can tell is done with a car in front of a large screen. Filled with some likable slapstick and not too bad (although repetitive and a little predictable) classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!

I can understand why others reacted rather unpleasantly towards the climax yielding a twist that really is hard to take seriously. I think, though, that the build-up to it works rather well. The music, quite menacing and spine-tingling, really provides a spooky aura matching the unforgiving sound of a constant ringing telephone that is driving struggling English actress, Joan Matlin(Jean Marsh)bonkers. She's borrowing a pal's nice apartment while attempting to jump-start her career in New York City(..the city buildings outside the window look about as realistic as David Letterman's)and is unceremoniously welcome by a noisy telephone which rings quite a bit, followed by loud slams against the wall. Searching for answers regarding the one responsible for such disregard towards her sanity, Joan discovers that no one rents that room, and that a former tenant had in fact strangled herself. Without help from the manager, Joan will decide to find out for herself who is causing her such anguish. Joan discovers the room empty and the phone with a particular female voice which will haunt her.<br /><br />The episode, I think, is a tour-de-force for Jean Marsh who is a one woman show. She's the only actress visible and we follow her through the crisis which slowly erodes her, the phone and the banging from that other room causing her much distress which grows into fear. Instead of leaving, Joan remains, so shaken by the noise and to the breaking point where she just wishes for the phone(..or whoever is ringing)to stop. The episode provides a possible answer as to who is plaguing Joan and why. A character named Beth comes into the story rather late as Joan struggles to find out whose female voice it was across the other line who knew her name on that dreaded phone she discovers in the room across from hers. The fate of Beth might just tell the viewer why Joan is being traumatized. I think this episode is an exercise in spooks instead of credibility;some didn't particularly like it, but I certainly did. I will admit that the phone, as a physical menace "crawling" towards Joan is hard to take seriously, not to mention it's attack on her, but I thought the intense opening twenty minutes before this were suitably chilling enough to make up for it.

The film looks super on paper. A romantic comedy in which a frantic lover gets dragged into a smuggling thriller should be generic cross-breeding gold, especially with this excellent romcomic cast.<br /><br />I'm afraid Lawrence Kasdan simply gives his two stars too much rope though and they duly go and hang themselves. Adam Brooks' script may well be to blame but you'd expect better from the Kevin Kline of A Fish Called Wanda. Instead the two ping-pong off one another and the unlikely burgeoning romance is never reconciled satisfactorily with the reason either of them are in and dashing around France.<br /><br />Jean Reno co-stars amiably as the cop-with-a-heart and I guess wishes he was a star-with-a-part. Mind you he went on to do those Pink Panther remake(s!) so perhaps he was OK with this... 3/10

In an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.<br /><br />The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.

It wasn't the most pointless animation film experience ever, but it certainly can't be admired as much as it tries to be good. Combining Dreamworks animation and computer graphics, this is the story of a mustang, later named Spirit (Matt Damon, providing the first person narration), and his journey through across the frontiers of the Old West. Basically he is born free amongst all the other horses in the beautiful countryside, then he is kidnapped to be used as a saddle horse, he manages to throw off all who try to ride him. However when he escapes his cage, along with Little Creek (Daniel Studi), the two of them form a friendship, oh, and he obviously has a thing for Little Creek's female horse. In the end, after a few more escapes, being chased by The Colonel (James Cromwell) and his men, and making a final big leap across a gorge, Little Creek lets Spirit go, and he also releases his female horse, and they run home to their countryside and fellow horses. Also starring Chopper Bernet as Sgt. Adams, Jeff LeBeau as Murphy/Railroad Foreman, John Rubano as Soldier, Richard McGonagle as Bill and Matthew Levin as Joe. I was expecting to see the horses talk in this film, but it turns out to be more like a Dumbo thing throughout, and the songs by Bryan Adams aren't the most engaging, but it isn't a terrible film. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Song for Bryan Adams' "Here I Am". Okay!

Now i like Johnny Vegas which is a good start, I also enjoy toilet humour<br /><br />Such as Young Ones and Bottom etc. This however failed to bring even a<br /><br />small smile to my face. The story follows Johnny around after his wife<br /><br />chucks him out (how he got his good looking wife and kid i dont know) <br /><br />as he attempts to shag anything that moves. Failing normally. I was looking forward to this but found it to be totally boring and a waste<br /><br />of my time altogether. Unless you are stuck for something to do for 90 mins apart from wash the car then dont bother..... <br /><br />

I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.<br /><br />Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.<br /><br />The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?<br /><br />Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.<br /><br />Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.<br /><br />The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.<br /><br />The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.<br /><br />Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.<br /><br />

After what was considered to be the official Dirty Harry trilogy with The Enforcer(1976) to be the final chapter in the series. Dirty Harry is back, older, more dirtier and grittier than ever since the original 1971 classic.<br /><br />Dirty Harry in the past has killed a psychopath killer, vigilante cops, and Vietnam veteran terrorists. But now he's after a new killer, a killer who wants payback, by gunning down her attackers.<br /><br />Sudden Impact brings a new meaning and more darker tone to Dirty Harry. Callahan is on a new murder case that is circling back to a woman(played by Sondra Locke), who was brutally raped, along with her sister, who is left traumitized. Ten years after, she's out for revenge by gunning down her attackers. At the same though Callahan is on a heat of trouble by his superiors after he provokes a mob boss to a heart attack, of which the mob are hunting him as well. So in order to let the heat die down within the city, Harry is on order to take a vacation on a seaside town, but at the same time the raped victim is in town as well, while hunting her attackers one by one. Harry is on the investigation and finds the killings very similar, as he homes in on the killer's trails.<br /><br />Sudden Impact in my opinion, has to be one of my top 10 revenge films, as well as being the second best Dirty Harry movie yet, far better than both The Enforcer and The Dead Pool combined. Sudden Impact has what the original Dirty Harry had, a dark tone with entertaining value.<br /><br />So do you feel lucky, punk?

First I have to say that I really love Udo Kier and have always had respect for Armand Assante but nothing could save this train wreck of a movie. Udo does not even appear till much later in the movie and the acting from Everyone is just terrible. The script is all over the place, the dialog is wooden, the "action" is laughable and the plot could be summed up on a dirty cocktail napkin. I really wanted to find something redeeming in this movie but found myself holding my hands over my eyes, shaking my head and repeating over and over to myself, "Oh Udo.....why???....Why?????..". If you are a fan of Udo or Armand, please don't watch this movie. It will only make you sad for them.

This is a very enjoyable, fluffy, glamorous musical from the 40's. 'Cover Girl' made Rita Hayworth (formerly the dark-haired Latin senorita Margarita Cansino) into a bona-fide, all-American star. It confirmed Gene Kelly's amazing talent as a dancer, singer, actor and choreographer. It epitomises the exuberance and colour of the musical genre.<br /><br />Rita Hayworth is great as Rusty Parker- it is her picture, and her presence is always at the forefront. Her singing is dubbed, but her dancing is absolutely brilliant and she combines very well with Kelly. I think that Rita was highly underrated as an actress- she plays every scene superbly here. Gene choreographed the dance sequences (he was basically given almost complete creative freedom here), and his 'Alter Ego' dance number is amazing. Such artistry. The stand-out tunes are 'Make Way For Tomorrow', 'Put Me To The Test', and, of course, 'Long Ago and Far Away'. The plot is rather thin, yet it does have a moral. It's about the perils of quick fame and fast money, and how any happiness with only these factors will ultimately be doomed. This will cheer you up, lift you up to your feet and make you laugh.<br /><br />That said, 'Cover Girl' is not the greatest musical ever produced- it has a number of flaws that must be addressed. One can say that a little bit of Phil Silvers goes a long way. His character gets tedious rather quickly. However, I was impressed with his dancing ability and how he was able to keep up with Gene and Rita. Another major problem is that too many songs are just not that great. The 'Cover Girl' number looks fantastic, but I'm not a fan of the lyrics or the singing. 'Poor Tom' is a huge downer. I think it's one of the worst numbers I've heard in a 40's-50's musical yet. It stinks. The grandmother sub-plot borders on being ridiculous. But that's only my opinion. Others may like these elements.<br /><br />Still, apart from it's faults it's a very, very good film, much better than most of the product churned out today. The dancing and singing is sublime, the production values are excellent, and it's mood is infectious.<br /><br />8/10.

I'm not a writer or an critic...I'M just a student that has seen this movie few minutes ago....AND I want to thank people that worked on creating this movie!It is not the best or the most.... but it touched my heart...why???i would like to understand it myself...it is easy and accessible..it is a movie that makes you feel good after a bad day without any regret about the time wasted on watching it!It is about love and caring, about the life that we have but we miss it sometimes because of material stuff .......Look at all the time that we have but we miss it....why a fu*k do we do that???We need to live like were dying ...care about every second and remember:if we do good things-good things come back to us!HAppiness is real...and it has a special taste in New York...i love this town and the world the we live in!!!!thank you very much for the movie and sorry for my mistakes(English is my second language)...

This is probably one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. It has action, but not this bullet-flying, good guys - bad guys, van damme - stallone action, but quick, realistic and nervous action, it has a plot, cause till the very end of the movie you don't know how this is gonna end, it has characters, aidan quinn, donald sutherland and ben kingsley are just perfect, and it has suspense, this movie just won't let you go away before you've seen the end of it.<br /><br />Though there are only a few characters, I didn't find it difficult to keep my attention the the story, and as for the story, it's basic (not too tom clancy-difficult, but simple and raw) and realistic.<br /><br />If you're in for a movie with a good story, some action and great acting, watch this and I promise, you won't go away till you've seen the end of it. The very end of it.

It's so rare to find a film that provides a plot that can't be figured out at every turn. Surprises throughout delighting throughout.<br /><br />A couple of things I could not quite understand though is that here you have the lead female character who plays "the good girl, hard worker" and yet in the end she ends up being an anti-social risk taker. That was not enough to make me not like it though but it did give me pause.<br /><br />The other thing I could not get was the old man who was being hauled away by the police at the very end of the film. I never did get who he was or what his issues were. If anyone has any ideas, I'd like to hear what they might be.<br /><br />The film was exciting and fun throughout and always left me guessing. Very much worth seeing.

This is hands down the worst movie I can ever remember watching. Everything was unbelievably cliché and retarded. The acting was horrible too. The camera work wasn't bad but that still couldn't redeem it. The writer/director of this film must suffer from down's syndrome if he believed this movie would help his career. I want the hour and a half of my life back that I wasted watching this crap. I would rather watch a video of the grass growing than this. I cant believe IMDb is making me write 10 lines in order to post this but I feel that this movie is so bad that I must continue to warn others about it. The reason I came about this movie is that my girlfriend requested it from the local library thinking that it was the Kris Kristoferson movie which ended up being entitled "Disappearances". I don't know whose fault it was for this garbage ending up in my DVD player but I feel that someone owes me at least $20 for my time, pain and suffering. In conclusion, the director/writer of this movie better hope i ever recognize him on the street.

Being a retired medical/health field "toiler in the vinyard" I never get tired of seeing this film. Paddy Chayefsky was a friend of my college comp teacher & visited him & us during several clases back in 1958. His writing ability has stood the test of time & the "Hospital" is as fresh as it was in 1971. I can watch it every week & still find something new. So many of the supporting cast members went unto bigger & better roles in both TV & film. George Scott made only a few comedies, but his timing & patter are as good as Jackie Gleason & Steve Msrtin. Mental humour rather than physcial/slapstick wins in my book every time. And still a family film with only 1, four letter word during entire film

Pick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered "yes" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.<br /><br />Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking… it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.<br /><br />Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis "looks dangerous?" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.

The Mod Squad isn't a movie, it's a void. That's the most fascinating thing about it and the thing that kept me watching – I'd never seen a film that offered absolutely nothing before. It's a film without any reason to exist whatsoever, seemingly consciously designed to appeal to no-one as if made purely as a contractual obligation to someone the studio really dislike. There is no plot, there is no characterisation, there are no set piece action scenes, there aren't even any scenes as such, just a progression of increasingly empty shots projected at 24 frames per second. I'm not talking about empty as in dumb summer blockbuster but empty as in "We haven't got the pages yet so just point the camera at something and stop when you've got 90 minutes worth." It makes you appreciate the 'artistic achievements' of Charlie's Angels and S.W.A.T. that much more. What it does offer is far too much of Giovanni Ribisi at his most tediously execrable doing his bastard son of a thousand morons impersonating Marlon Brando method acting routine, Michael Lerner dancing with Omar Epps and… no, that's it. Oh, Clare Danes has a nice smile in one shot. And Dennis Farina has the sense to get killed off early. Genuinely the most utterly pointless film ever made, it's like L'Humanite without the jokes but, you know, for kids.

Even as a big fan of the low to no budget horror genre, I couldnt find this disaster mildly amusing. With horrible acting, a painfully generic "plot" and no dimensional characters, no matter how bored and drunk you are, this one is not worth your 81 minutes. Don't make the same mistake I did. Rent something else. ANYTHING else!!!

Part of the BBC filming of all of Shakespeare's classic plays, this version of Hamlet does nothing to dispel my particular impression that it is one of Shakespeare's most over-rated plays and Hamlet himself a not particularly moving and tragic character. I feel no sympathy for him, and I didn't after watching this.<br /><br />Even when you have great actors like the great Derek Jacobi in the role of the Dane, and Patrick Stewart as Claudius and Jonathan Hyde as Rosencrantz, it cannot disguise the lack of passion in the storyline. And when a good actor like Jacobi injects passion into it, he renders the entire role incomprehensible. I just could not connect his physicalisation of the character to what he was saying, and this killed it for me. That said, he does get the "To be, or not to be" speech right, as his actions with a dagger make clear the character's suicidal intentions at that point in the play.<br /><br />The supporting roles, to me better written and consequently better played, are enjoyable, notably Lalla Ward's loopy Ophelia and Stewart's well-detailed interpretation of Claudius.<br /><br />At four and a half hours, it is very long and best watched in bite-sized chunks. Check it out if you're interested but be prepared for a long watch.

Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.<br /><br />The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.<br /><br />Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P

A bad one.<br /><br />Oh, my...this is one of the movies, which doesn't have even one positive effect. Just everything from actors to story stinks to the sky. I just wonder how low I.Q. you should have to watch this kind of flick and even enjoy.<br /><br /> Is there something than this is worth watching for? Well, there is a lot of nudity involved, but it's nothing particular. And when you just think that it couldn't get worse, your realize that all the naked ladies looked like there are forty years old. C'mon guys, where did you search for these actresses. In elderly home, perhaps.<br /><br /> Anyway, the leading actresses has some sex-appeal and knows how to show it. Again, too bad, that she is too skinny & old. All in all, skip these one.<br /><br />2 out of 10

There are so very few films where just the title tells you all you need to know about the film. Such a film is I Was A Communist For The FBI. Another example would be I Married A Monster From Outer Space.<br /><br />The really interesting thing about this film is how in heaven's name did this get nominated for an Oscar in the documentary category? It is not a documentary in any sense of the word, it's not even in that hybrid category of docudrama. It's just a rather exploitive film about the work of an FBI undercover agent named Matt Cvetic who infiltrated the Communist Party in Pittsburgh and got active in trying to take over the Steelworker's Union for the Communists and reporting on said activities to his handlers in the FBI.<br /><br />A documentary of that work might have been interesting, but what we got was a film to fit those paranoid times. I found it fascinating that when Cvetic finally broke his cover it was to the House Un-American Activities Committee rather than the trial in New York of the Communist Party leaders. There was a moment in the film where head Communist James Millican tells his followers to start spreading the word that the House Un American Activities Committee was composed of a bunch of right wing yahoos looking to get their names in front of the camera. Now what could have given him that idea? Anyway just connect the dots and no doubt the word their came from J. Edgar Hoover trying to give some credence to HUAC by having an effective undercover come out there rather than at an actual trial. Little thing there called cross examination.<br /><br />Warner Brothers who produced I Was A Communist For The FBI later produced Big Jim McLain which starred John Wayne about a HUAC investigator in Hawaii. HUAC did grab on to credit for the work done by the Honolulu PD in breaking up a Communist spy ring there among the dockworkers. But at least in John Wayne's film nobody claimed it was a documentary.<br /><br />Frank Lovejoy is in the title role as Cvetic and his FBI handlers are Richard Webb and Philip Carey. Dorothy Hart plays a Pittsburgh school teacher who says that there are 30 or so like here in that school system indoctrinating the young among whom is Ron Hagerthy, Lovejoy's son. She has a change of heart about the Communists and Lovejoy has to save her from a homicidal fate planned by his superiors. Ironically Hart left the movies and went to work for all places, the United Nations which as we know has been accused often of being a Communist nest in the USA.<br /><br />Over half a century later and we really have very few objective works on film or in print about the Communist Party of the USA. They were in fact a very active bunch in the labor movement. The real heroes in stopping them were labor organizers like Walter Reuther in the UAW or David Dubinsky in the ILGWU. But since they were people of the left they just don't have the following on the right to be suitable propaganda material.<br /><br />Anyway I Was A Communist For The FBI is an exploitive work based on a real life character and a testament to those paranoid times.

(Warning: Some spoilers ahead.)<br /><br />What an incredibly crappy movie. It makes Iron Eagle 2 seem good.<br /><br />The story is as follows: Captain Holiday (Rutger Hauer) gets shot down by his friend Banning (Robert Patrick) to stop him from shooting down a iraqi airliner filled with innocent civilians. Six years later Holiday returns to take his revenge. Among other things he, sitting in a tank, chases Banning (now a colonel) and his pregnant wife over a field. He manages to fire shells and drive the tank at the same time. After getting the tank blown up by a bazooka, he miraculously survives and steals a fighter jet. With it he shoots down a number of allied fighters before attacking the NATO headquarters in an attempt to kill Banning's wife.<br /><br />An extra bonus is that major Baxter (who Holiday hangs in her office) has put the rank insignia on her right shoulder on backwards. Elegant.

For the record, the 1949 version of "The Blue Lagoon" is not the original film, as many have stated.<br /><br />This story was filmed in Great Britain, in 1923, just after the novel was written. As much as I'd love to see the 1949 version, I'd thoroughly enjoy an opportunity at seeing the true original release of this story on film.<br /><br />Granted, the 1980 film with Christopher Atkins, Brooke Shields, and the two youngsters was filmed with beautiful cinematography. The acting didn't seem all that great when I first viewed this film, but after having viewed this a few times.... it becomes obvious that two children growing up on an island without adult guidance, would indeed have a simplistic way of approaching life.... whether it be in their language, appearance, or daily activities.<br /><br />Although some have been fortunate enough to view the 1949 "Blue Lagoon", I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone living who can remember the 1923 release of this story to film.

This is a piece of cinematic beauty, and it shows more of Quebec culture to others than probably any other work to come from la belle province. It takes everybody into a first-person experience of the culture, to the point that you wish you glued your hair in place and lived, breathed, and ate everything Maurice Richard. The book does this as well as the short, and I'm glad that in all the time I did spend studying French in high school, this was required reading in both languages.<br /><br />I thought it was brilliant to have Roch Carrier narrate this story. His molasses-thick accent brought a lot of realism to the story. The animation was good, as well, very surrealist, which brings attention to the idea of this being a whimsical daydream, fancying over better days gone by.<br /><br />Again, as a symbol of culture quebecoise, this is unsurpassed. One can almost smell the tourtiere being cooked slowly over a wood stove. This whole film deserves endless praise for making people proud to be Canadian, and encourage us all to appreciate the finer things of family and our roots. I'm from Ontario, and this film made me fall in love with Quebec. Maurice Richard va toujours vivre dans nos coeurs.

I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.<br /><br />It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.<br /><br />It has its points such as the future is dirty, like "Blade Runner" showed ..... of course, this is no "Blade Runner". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.<br /><br />But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad "Andromeda" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of "Aliens", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on "Danger Island" in the "Banana Splits"; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in "Andromeda".<br /><br />It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.<br /><br />It's ..... "okay". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.<br /><br />For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting.

This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called "Green Death", utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, "gruesome". A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this "fight" was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the "bad guy" (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner.

Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).

This movie was hysterical. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I mean, it's not "Good Will Hunting," but was it supposed to be? I actually went into the advanced screening expecting a lot less and was pleasantly surprised. The comedy hits hard and is fairly constant. Amanda Peet is hot and awesome. The entire audience that I screened it with seemed to be enjoying the film as much as I did.

The Sensuous Nurse (1975) was a Italian sexual comedy that starred the one time Bond girl Ursula Andress. Man was she hot in this movie.. She was stacked and built like a *@#% brick house. Ursula was smoking hot in this movie. I have never seen a nurse's outfit that filled out before. <br /><br />Ms. Andress stars as a nurse who is hired to take care of a rich elderly man. Even one in the house seems to be knocking the boots. One night, the nurse decides to take the grandson's temperature and give some needed T.L.C. to her ancient client. The old man takes to his nurse and this angers the rest of the family. What kind of job did the family hire her out to do? Will the geezer fall for her car giver? How can she deal with the octogenarian crone and the rest of the family? To find out you need to find a copy of the SENSUOUS NURSE!! Italian but badly dubbed into English.<br /><br />Highly recommended.