Datasets:

jahjinx

/

IMDb_movie_reviews

like 3

The plot of Corpse Grinders 2 is very much similar to the original Corpse Grinders, what is left that is different from the other film consists of weird aliens.<br /><br />It is my belief that this film would be the #1 worst film on IMDb - if anyone had actually watched it. The plot is disconnected and, in several (way too many) instances, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The real wonder here is why in the world was this sequel created to such an unsuccessful and horrendous (but still somewhat better) film.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film if you enjoy watching terrible movies for a good laugh.

Watching The Wagonmaster is not likely to result in deep thoughts, unlike many other great Ford films, like The Searchers, My Darling Clementine, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and The Grapes of Wrath among others, but it is likely to produce a feeling of awe and deep satisfaction. The story is very simple: two cowboys decide to help a wagon train of Mormons get to California. Along the way, they run into a medicine man whose mules ran away, a group of bank robbers, and some Navajos. There's a lot of adventure and excitement on the trail, and the film is imbued with fun and beauty. The music is absolutely beautiful. The scenery, again from Monument Valley, is as beautiful as it ever was. Plus, how can you go wrong with James Arness? The Wagonmaster might not be one of John Ford's better known films, but it is nonetheless a must-see if you get the chance. 9/10.

"Before Sunrise" is a wonderful love story and has to be among my Top 5 favorite movies ever. Dialog and acting are great. I love the characters and their ideas and thoughts. Of course, the romantic Vienna, introduced in the movie does not exist (you won't find a poet sitting by the river in the middle of the night) and it isn't possible to get to all the places in only one night, either (especially if you're a stranger and it's your first night in Vienna). But that's not the point. The relationship of the two characters is much more important and this part of the story is not at all unrealistic. Although, nothing ever really happens, the movie never gets boring. The ending is genuinely sad without being "Titanic" or something. Even if you don't like love stories you should watch this film! I'm a little skeptic about the sequel that is going to be released in summer. The first part is perfect as it is, in my opinion.

I can't say that this movie deserves a ten, because I would be lying. I adored this movie when I saw it, though! It carries the unique bond of a friendship between a teenager and a dolphin. Although it doesn't display the sweetness that Jesse and Willy had in Free Willy, it provides an exciting movie that the whole family will enjoy! If you love marine animals, or if u love just a perfect family film, this movie is suited for YOU! Flipper definitely shows us how adorable dolphins are, and they are playful and could easily be house pets if everyone had a big enough pool! I love whales and dolphins, so obviously this movie works for me. I do think that the producers should have chosen another shark instead of the hammerhead to enhance the antagonist part in the story. Perhaps a great white? FLIPPER IS MAGNIFICENT! So check it out!

I caught the first screening of Driving Lessons at the Tribeca Film Festival. Rupert Grint shows he can act past Harry Potter. Laura Linney is amazing as the overbearing mother. Julie Walters is hilarious as Dame Evie Walton, with a mouth worse than a sailor. I hope that this film is picked up by an American distributor so that everyone can see it. This film is not only about Driving Lessons, but life lessons. Ben (Rupert Grint) is torn between wanting to obey his overbearing mother and vicar father and wanting to live his own life. It's an amazing film, from an amazing director whose taken his own life and put it on the screen for everyone to see, and everyone who can, should.

If you're not a fan of the 80s, and you need to be a particularly strong fan, or of one of the two leads, there's nothing about this film to recommend.<br /><br />The story, as others have said, is dull, almost an afterthought to the basic notion of the characters and the idea of making a slightly manic comedy. I watched it to about an hour, hoping it would turn a corner, a twist would occur or it would somehow kick into gear but no... It's not unwatchable, it's just dull. It goes by. It goes by with bits of running around madly, lingering shots of feet at strange angles, bits of shouting madly but I didn't get a real feel of energy or manic fun, it just came across as forced. Needless to say also, there was nothing to laugh at particularly. A bit of mild amusement here or there but nothing more.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the mention of feminism by the way, all it means in this case is that almost all the principal cast is female. If anything, it's actually cloying... Two female leads, fine, excellent, the drug dealer is female, okay, their landlord is a landlady, alright, their friends are female, okay, the only other person we particularly see who lives in the same building, oh, female... I wasn't on the lookout for that but after a while it felt like a conscious decision had been made to have the film cast that way and it felt, again, a bit forced and cloying.<br /><br />On the plus-side, if you are a fan of 80s fashions and culture, there is plenty to see and if you're a fan of Helen Slater, she's fun and enjoyable to watch. There's also some screen-time for Carol Kane, which is great, but not enough...<br /><br />Overall: 3/10. If you're a huge fan of the 80s, Helen Slater and Carol Kane, you could maybe stretch it to a 5 because of them, although there's still the fact it's a comedy which isn't funny, which hinders it substantially. If you're not a fan of those things, you might as well make it 0 because there's nothing much else to enjoy here.

Ernesto is a man that makes a living out of duping other solid citizens of their hard earned money. Together with Manco, an older man with a lot of experience, he pulls out capers that allow him to make a decent living, but that is not making him a rich man by any means. Enter Federico, an older man who is more experience in the art of deception. Together with the younger Ernesto they prove a winning combination. That only lasts until Pilar, Federico's former love interest, appears in the picture.<br /><br />This Spanish film directed by Miguel Bardem, is light in tone and pleasant to sit through. Other, better made caper films have been made with much clever plots than this one, but the film is easy to take, and at times, it has a lot of funny situations.<br /><br />This viewer will see Federico Luppi in anything, even reading the telephone directory! He is an actor's actor. We have had the privilege of having seen him in the Buenos Aires stage doing excellent work before his international film career. As Federico, he does what he does best. It's impossible to imagine anyone better in his role. Ernesto Alterio, the son of Hector Alterio, is a young actor who promises to have a great career. Victoria Abril makes Pilar fun as she gets involved with these con men. Miguel Alexandre, a veteran actor, is also good as Manco.

Ostensibly a film that predicts the coming trends in British popular music, it's wrong on so many fronts that it's laughable. Tommy Quickly? The Honeycombs? The movie DOES include a song by the Spencer Davis group, two by the Animals, and one tacked on live film of the Beatles doing their live version of Twist and Shout (all 1:20). But all in all, an awkward display of British music circa 1964. Oh, and Herman's Hermits.

Terry West had a good idea w\ this movie. He just didn't flesh it thru. There are endless shots of the creepy looking school's exteriors that go on forever and probably to pad the film's running time. Also at this school there are only 2 students. Misty Mundae is good as usual but this film will always belong to Ruby LaRocca (which is the only reason to watch the film in the beginning). If the script centered on her interesting character we'd have a movie to watch. She is so GORGEOUS!! Good news for DVD buyers, Terry West's earlier (and better) film "Blood For The Muse" is a special feature. One thing I'd like to say is that this movie feels like someone who's not good at delivering the punch line at the end of a long joke for the ending feels that very same way. Then again, just watch this for Ruby LaRocca.

I really hate most end of the world movies. They show what jaded Hollywood people think of the rest of the world, and they clearly think we're a bunch of sadistic idiots (or at least that watching sadistic idiots react to things is somehow entertaining). I've been to L.A. many times, I have family that works in show business, and I just want to say that these are the *last* people we should be looking to for a reality check. Some disaster movies at least paint a clever picture: Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, but usually the message is just "people will do anything to survive, all is dark and sad and purposeless, we should all be ashamed of ourselves".<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a story that explores throwing off the system of social order and testing people's mettle in the face of horror, and I do believe some people would act like this film portrayed, but sadistic idiots aside, I seriously doubt society would just dissolve into every man for himself, that's just insulting.

'Moonstruck' is a love story. There is not one romance, there are at least three, but they all have to do with the same family. Loretta's family. Loretta (Cher) is about to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). She doesn't love him, but he is sweet and good man. When he leaves to visit his dying mother in Italy Loretta meets Johnny's brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage). He and Johnny haven't spoken each other in five years and Loretta wants to invite him to the wedding. Of course they fall instantly for each other.<br /><br />How this story and love stories of Loretta's parents and uncle and aunt develop is something you simply have to see for yourself. Every seen is a delight to watch, with Cher as the bright star in the middle of everything. She won and really deserved the Oscar that year. Cage is pretty good, and goofy as well, and Olympia Dukakis as Loretta's mother and Vincent Gardenia as her father are terrific. This movie is funny, charming and therefore highly enjoyable.

Previous commentator Steve Richmond stated that A Walk On The Moon is, in his words "not worth your $7". I ended up paying a bit more than that to import what is one of the worst-quality DVDs I have yet seen, of this film or any film in existence. Even when you ignore the fact that the DVD is clearly sourced from an interlaced master and just plain nasty to watch in motion, the film has no redeeming qualities (save Anna's presence) to make watching a top quality Blu-Ray transfer worthwhile. Not that this is any fault of the other actors. Liev Schreiber, Diane Lane, Tovah Feldshuh, and Viggo Mortensen all score high on the relative to Anna Paquin acting ability chart. Far more so than Holly Hunter or Sam Neill did in spite of an equally lousy script, anyway. Director Tony Goldwyn's resume is nothing to crow about, but Pamela Gray's resume includes Wes Craven's most dramatic excursions outside of the horror or slasher genre, so one could be forgiven for thinking this is a case of bad direction.<br /><br />As I have indicated already, the sole reason I watched this film is Anna Paquin. In her acting debut, she literally acted veterans of the industry with a minimum of twelve years' experience above hers under the table. While she is not as far ahead of her castmates here, her performance as a girl that starts the piece as a brat and grows into a woman whose world is crashing down around her proves her Oscar was no fluke. For some time I have been stating to friends that she would be the best choice to portray the heroine of my second complete novel, and a dialogue seventy-three minutes into this film is yet another demonstration of why. This woman could literally act the paint off walls. Anna aside, only Liev Schreiber comes close to eliciting any sympathy from an audience. Sure, his character spends the vast majority of the film neglecting a wife with an existential crisis, but he plays the angered reaction of a man who feels cheated brilliantly. I should know, even if it is not from the same circumstances here.<br /><br />Viggo Mortensen also deserves credit for his portrayal of a travelling salesman, although perhaps not to the same extent. In a manner of speaking, he is the villain of the piece, but he successfully gives the character a third dimension. Yes, his actions even after the whole thing explodes are underhanded, but not many men would act any differently in his situation. Nobody wants to be the other man in this kind of messed-up situation, so Viggo deserves a lot of credit for giving it a try here. Unfortunately, these are all participants in a story about a woman who feels trapped in a stagnant marriage where Tovah Feldshuh tells us that the Mills And Boon archetype of women being the only ones who feel life is passing by simply does not exist. Either writer Pamela Gray or director Tony Goldwyn thought they could just put this line into the film without thinking of how the audience might receive it. Anna even gets to speak the mind of the audience when she asks Diane who she is to be lecturing anyone about responsibility.<br /><br />That said, the film does have a couple of things besides Anna going for it. Mason Daring's original music, while not standing out in any way, gives the film a certain feeling of being keyed into the time depicted that helps where the other elements do not. Roger Ebert is right when he points out that while Liev is a great actor, putting him alongside Viggo in the story of a woman forced to choose between her marriage and her fantasy is a big mistake. He is also very correct in that when the film lingers over scenes of Lane and Mortensen skinny-dipping or mounting one another under a waterfall, it loses focus from being a story of a transgression and becomes soft porn. The film seems terminally confused about the position of its story. No matter how many times I rewatch Liev's scenes, I cannot help but feel he has been shortchanged in the direction or editing. One does not have to make their leads particularly handsome or beautiful, but taking steps to make them the most interesting or developed characters in the piece would have gone a long way.<br /><br />Ebert also hits the nail right on the head when he says that every time he saw Anna on the screen, he thought her character was where the real story lay. Stories about the wife feeling neglected and running into the arms of a man who seems interesting or even dangerous are a dime a dozen, to such an extent now that even setting the story in parallel with an event as Earth-shattering as the moon landing will not help. In spite of feeling revulsion at the manner in which her character's story is presented, Anna might as well be walking around with a neon sign above her head asking the audience if they would not prefer to see the whole thing through her eyes. While I am all too aware that it is difficult to control exactly which character your audience will find the most interesting from your cast, it is very much as if they did not bother to try with Lane and Schreiber. Fans of these two would be well advised to look elsewhere. Hopefully by now my ramblings about the respective performances will give some idea of where the whole thing went wrong.<br /><br />I gave A Walk On The Moon a three out of ten. Anna Paquin earns it a bonus point with one of her best performances (and that is saying something).

Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.

I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.

It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm at the time it was. I'm examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.

This early film from future goremeister Lucio Fulci is a very good addition to the giallo sub-genre. Set in rural Italy, there is a serial killer of children at large. Add to the mix an array of characters familiar to fans of giallo cinema – a madwoman, a newspaper reporter, ineffectual police, a sexy siren, a priest, a mute girl, a mentally-retarded loner etc. This is one of the best Italian thrillers of the early 70's.<br /><br />Unusually for a giallo, the victims in this case are young boys, which makes a change from the more typical women in peril angle. The fact that it is kids who are the target of the maniac only serves to make things a little more uncomfortable. Fulci is pushing the envelope a bit here and he goes even further in a gloriously outrageous unPC scene where a young boy is subjected to the somewhat inappropriate attention of a sexy naked young woman (Barbara Bouchet) who he is tasked with delivering a drink to. She displays herself openly and actively invites the youngster to ogle her; ultimately asking him if he wants to go to bed with her. Although she is clearly playing around with him, it's still quite an unusual scene. Admittedly there are one or two unintentionally funny bits of dialogue here but it's very nicely photographed and Barbara Bouchet exudes high levels of confident sex-appeal. A standout scene. Even if you might feel slightly wrong watching it!<br /><br />Along with Barbara Bouchet, the other standout performance is from Florinda Bolkan, who plays a madwoman who is accused of murdering the children. She is not directly responsible but it is left to the viewer to decide whether her black magic may or may not have kicked off the subsequent killing spree. Irrespective, she is hunted down by a lynch mob and chain-whipped while a car radio blasts out rock music. This scene is very strong and unpleasant. Its viciousness indicates the path Fulci's career would subsequently go.<br /><br />Despite the visceral impact of the above murder it's maybe a little surprising that the other killings are either bloodless or committed off-screen. The only other death scene comparable with the lynch-mob is the demise of the killer at the end of the movie, although this sequence is kind of silly. The plot is convoluted and awash with red herrings, although personally, I found the identity of the killer a little predictable. This weakness is less problematic on subsequent viewings though – like most gialli, Don't Torture A Duckling is eminently re-watchable.<br /><br />Technically, the film is well made with impressive camera-work, solid acting and effective music from Riz Ortolani – particularly good is a recurring unaccompanied female vocal that sounds like it's coming from a distant hill. Fulci obviously went on to make more graphically violent horror movies but here he shows a talent for slightly more restrained material. It's still wild stuff though and is highly recommended to fans of giallo cinema.

It's hard to say what was the worst thing about this show: the bad acting, poor acoustics of different portions, bad CGI, improper sets for the period, the poor script. It would have been nice if the script followed the original tale a bit closer -- there's enough tension and good material in Beowulf to provide a great deal of good material, and a better story line, than the scriptwriters could come up with.<br /><br />And why introduce a strange new weapon like a crossbow that fires explosive bolts?<br /><br />I see that this movie was made in "only" 21 days. It shows in the lack of quality. I'm beginning to think this is general (poor) attitude taken by Sci-Fi channel (and others) when it comes to making movies out of classic tales in the past few years.<br /><br />What a waste!

La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, or Terror Express! as it was called on the version I saw, starts as various passengers board a long distance train. Three thuggish idiots, Dave, Phil & Ernie (Carlo De Mejo) board & it's clear that they're there to cause trouble as they intimidate & verbally abuse the other passengers & staff. As the train speeds along things turn nasty when a prostitute named Juliette (Silvia Dionisio) refuses to have sex with Dave, he & his mates decide to hold the entire train hostage so they can have an orgy with Juliette &, well not much else actually happens apart from some hero cop & his prisoner who set about saving the day. Erm, that's it really...<br /><br />This Italian production was directed by Ferdinando Baldi & is complete total & utter crap from start to finish. The script by George Eastman as Luigi Montefiori could just as easily be described as a really boring porno as much as a horror/thriller. It is tediously slow, it's 35 minutes before anything even remotely sleazy happens & as a whole the film lacks the sort of exploitation elements that Italian sleaze & horror was delivering at that time. The film can be compared to another Italian production the infinitely better The House on the Edge of the Park (1980) made the same year, it's a very broad comparison though as everything that made The House on the Edge of the Park the notorious film that it is is absent from La Ragazza del Vagone Letto, there's no blood, no gore, almost no violence, there's only a couple of really tame rapes, the story has no twists or turns & as it's incredibly boring to watch. Italian sleaze & horror from the late 70's & early 80's isn't known for it's strong story lines or great scripts but this films really does scrape the bottom-of-the-barrel on all counts. The character's are awful, the film spends the first 30 plus minutes building them up & giving some background as to why they're on the train but this is all quickly forgotten & comes to absolutely nothing. I hated the lame ending as well & I don't know if I missed something but was any sort of reasonable explanation given as to why these three lamebrains would hijack a train? I don't think there was, was there? I'm sorry but because your angry at a prostitute is not enough of a reason, surely the filmmakers could have come up with something a bit more substantial & interesting if not more plausible. In my opinion this film stinks, it's as simple & straight forward as that I'm afraid.<br /><br />Director Baldi does an OK job, to be fair he only has one corridor & a few train compartments to work with so I'll cut him some slack, having said that the film does become very repetitive. There is no style & he films the sex scenes like a bad soft core porno complete with awful romantic sounding piano music. There is NOT ONE SINGLE DROP OF BLOOD SPILT IN THE ENTIRE FILM, that's right not one single drop. Forget about any gore or violence as you'll be very disappointed if you do, like I did. There are a couple of rapes but they're amateurishly staged & have zero impact, the nasty exploitation & sleaze of say I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or The Last House on the Left (1972) is not here.<br /><br />Technically La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is OK & it's quite well made on what must have been a low budget but the setting obviously helped keep the cost down to a minimum. The acting is poor as usual, although since it was dubbed the original performances have been lost. Fans of Italian horror will recognise a lot of the voices here.<br /><br />La Ragazza del Vagone Letto is a terrible film, it's just my opinion but I was bored to tears waiting for something to happen & when it eventually never I felt cheated, I want those 80 minutes of my life back. This piece of crap isn't even fit to grace the 99p VHS bargain bin in your local Blockbuster, one to avoid.

Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...<br /><br />

On the surface, this movie would appear to deal with the psychological process called individuation, that is how to become a true self by embracing the so-called 'dark' side of human nature. Thus, we have the Darkling, a classic shadowy devilish creature desperately seeking the company (that is, recognition) of men, and the story revolves around the various ways in which this need is handled, more or less successfully. <br /><br />However, if we dig a little deeper, we find that what this movie is actually about is how you should relate to your car like you would to any other person: - in the opening scene, the main character (male car mechanic fallen from grace)is collecting bits and pieces from car wrecks with his daughter, when a car wreck nearly smashes the little girl. Lesson #1: Cars are persons embodied with immortal souls, and stealing from car wrecks is identical with grave robbery. The wicked have disturbed the dead and must be punished. - just after that, another character (Rubin) buys a car wreck intending to repair it and sell it as a once-lost-now-found famous race-car and is warned by the salesman. Lesson #2: Just like any other person, a car has a unique identity that cannot be altered nor replaced. In addition, there is the twist that Rubin actually sees a hidden quality in what most people would just think of as junk, but eventually that quality turns out to be a projection of Rubin's own personal greed for more profit. Lesson #3: Thou shalt never treat thy car as a means only, but always as an end in itself. - then we have the scene where the main character is introduced to Rubin and, more importantly, Rubin's car: The main character's assessment of the car's qualities is not just based on its outer appearance, but also by a thorough look inside the engine room. Lesson #4: A car is not just to be judged by its looks, it is what is inside that really counts. There is punishment in store for those who do not keep this lesson in mind, as we see in the scene where another man tries to sell Rubin a fake collector's car. This scene by the way also underlines the importance of lesson #3. <br /><br />There are numerous other examples in the movie of the 'car=person'-theme, and I am too tired now to bother citing all of them, but the point remains (and I guess this is what I'm really trying to say) that this movie is fun to watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do - or, if you're a car devotee.

Yes, the first "Howling" was a classic. A rather good werewolf movie that I admit started slowly, but gained momentum along the way to have a rather good finish then the anchorwoman changed into a cute werewolf only to be gunned down on camera. Yes that made for an entertaining horror movie to be sure...well forget all of that as this movie has nothing to do with that film. Oh sure, they kind of make it out that the anchor woman is the same and that her brother or something is wanting to find out what and why things went down as they did, but they go from the little cozy retreat from the first movie to Transylvania or somewhere here where they must battle evil magician werewolves or something. I often wonder what in the world Christopher Lee was doing in this movie, however I read the trivia here where it says he had never been in a werewolf movie before, but still read the script before you take a role. Maybe you could have gotten into "An American Werewolf in London" hell that could have been possible. It was set in London after all. Heck, werewolves do not seem to figure much into this movie except for a rather bizarre and prolonged sex scene. In fact, the most memorable death in this movie for me was when the one gal started talking loudly and this one dude's ear's started bleeding.

This is undoubtedly the most harrowing black-and-white war film that I've watched; as a matter of fact, the only Western director during this time to remotely approach its level of intensity and sheer visceral power in his work was Samuel Fuller. By the way, I had attended a Kon Ichikawa retrospective at London's National Film Theatre in September 2002, but only managed to catch some of his work made between 1960 and 1973.<br /><br />The film is certainly as depressing as it's reputed to be; however, it also displays welcome touches of black humor throughout - the 'dead' man who wakes up to answer a querying soldier and promptly 'dies' again, the deliciously ironic shoe exchange sequence, a moribund eccentric telling the famished hero which part of the body he should eat, etc. Incidentally, the script was written by a woman - Natto Wada, the director's own wife!<br /><br />Ichikawa is a versatile and prolific film-maker whose reputation may not be as high as it was during his peak years (1956-65), but his direction here is often striking - the startling pre-credits sequence (the hero is violently rebuked by his superior officer for being discharged from hospital earlier than expected!), the death of a surrendering Japanese at the hands of a gun-toting Philippine woman, the bombing of a hospital (with the medical staff running away to save themselves, leaving the wounded soldiers behind to crawl out of the shack at their own limited pace), the automated march in the rain of the disillusioned soldiers (which also involves the afore-mentioned business with the shoes that, actually, recalls a similar scene in ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT [1930]), a hill littered with the bodies of soldiers attempting to climb it, the finale, etc. Surely one of the film's major assets is the stunning cinematography of the unforgiving and desolate muddy landscape.<br /><br />The film is notorious for treating the taboo subject of cannibalism (almost 10 years before it became a staple of horror movies) but Ichikawa's approach is not only subtle but highly effective: the flesh is actually referred to as "monkey meat", while the hero is seen partaking only once (and promptly spits out the piece along with most of his decaying teeth!); conversely, when the weak underling soldier (played by Mickey Curtis who, despite his name, was a Japanese pop idol of the time!) rabidly indulges, the ground nearby is splashed with blood.<br /><br />In the supplements, Ichikawa remembers that Method-practicing lead actor Eiji Funakoshi (whose portrayal is unforgettable, by the way) arrived on the set at starvation point - with the result that production was forced to shut down for two weeks until he recuperated! Donald Richie's perceptive interview favors the nihilism of the film over the underlying patriotism behind such gut-wrenching recent Hollywood fare as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).<br /><br />FIRES ON THE PLAIN is universally considered to be one of its director's top efforts and, out of the several films of Ichikawa I've watched, the closest to it in spirit are THE BURMESE HARP (1956; another character-driven war film but with a spiritual tone, and which is also available on DVD from Criterion) and ENJO aka CONFLAGRATION (1958; which was actually given a limited theatrical showing locally, as part of a foreign-film week, a couple of years ago). Personally, I also have a particular soft spot for the director's stunningly stylized color extravaganza, AN ACTOR'S REVENGE (1963), which I've actually caught twice at the NFT in 1999 and the afore-mentioned 2002 retrospective.

its been years since i have seen these shows. i have been searching years for anyone else that has seen these or know anything about them. i thought i made them up. the one i remember most is the soldier and death. i'd ask movie fanatics if they had seen these, mentioning its a Jim Henson and people still didn't know. these are great fables. i was very young when i was these, not even 10 and it left a lasting impression on my life and beliefs. i would recommend anyone to watch these, just remember they are from the 80's so they don't look like the movies today. just give them a shot. Jim Henson was way ahead of his time and died to early.

As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE. <br /><br />I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =)

When reading a review from another user, saying that it's a terrible game, I could not stand idle and do nothing!<br /><br />Well, this game is great, from the news clips (with two real persons, full of humour sense and credibility!), to the story, I find it very good! I only complain about the enemies start blinking when they die, until they disappear; and some frustrating situations on the LEILA VR missions, when riding the bike, here and there...<br /><br />Except that, it's a great game, with a great story, good graphics, excellent characters, great soundtrack... I recommend it! Surely! It can be a bit old, but still enjoyable! At least, on the Dreamcast... but the PS2 version shall be the same.

Late film critic Gene Siskel said that this movie shows how easy it is to make a movie. He was giving it a compliment even though now that might have been taken as an insult these days. Even though I didn't always agree with Gene Siskel, I agree with him here. Love Jones is a shining example of how a love story should be: realistic with real characters in real situations.<br /><br />The story chronicles the ups and downs of the relationship between Darius Lovehall(Larenz Tate) and Nina(Nia Long). Larenz Tate and Nia Long are more than just a beautiful couple on screen. These two actually have chemistry together. You can feel the vibe between these two whenever the are on screen and its fantastic.<br /><br />Bill Bellamy is pretty funny as the deceitful Wood and Lisa Nicole Carson is great as Nina's friend Simone. Isaiah Washington is just as great as Darius's close friend Savon and I sigh every time I see him in a movie. The guy is a great actor whose career is ruined by industry lowlifes and the childish games they play. You can believe that he called the little weasel on Grey's Anatomy out of his name but anybody that knows how Follywood works knows better than to believe any "official story" from the place of make believe. At any rate...<br /><br />Love Jones is a wonderful love story full of interesting and likable characters that are in realistic situations that anybody that has been in love can relate too. You love these people because they are believable and are not portrayed as gangsters and tramps. Not one obscene stereotype can be found here. Contrast that with the Romance movies of toady. Exactly. In closing if you love Black Cinema then you would do well to own a copy of this movie.

As you may remember I have seem all three of the trilogy of trash and the first movie is the only one even remotely close to be watchable. Part two was low grade sewage and this installment is slightly better then two, but still one steaming pile of something I removed from my backyard last Monday. The premise doesn't make sense, why did the moonshiners murder that poor old lady and even in 1921 I think someone would notice a bunch of oily guys where a sweet little old lady once lived. Second, that scarecrow is pathetic compared to how cool they looked in the first movie. It's just old clothes and a burlap sack. Let's face it, the series is garbage and should be forgotten about. THE NOOSE!

Julia (Kristina Copeland) travels with her husband Steven Harris (Steven Man) and their baby son Alex to spend a couple of days with her family in Savage Island, an island of their own. The couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. While waiting for the boat, Julia and Steven meet two weird men in the harbor, and when her brother Peter (Brendan Beiser) arrives, he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. The reckless Peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off; however, he accidentally runs over the young son of the Savage's family, but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. Later, the Savage family claims Alex as a compensation for their lost son. The Young family does not accept the trade, and they initiate a deadly war between families.<br /><br />"Savage Island" is a very low-budget movie, with a stupid screenplay, amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. The flawed story is totally absurd, and there are many unbelievable situations. For example, how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family? The logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue Peter. Then the Young family vanishes; Julia and Steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends, and nobody chases them? Peter calls his sister Julia of Alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. There are so many flaws in this flick that I could spend many lines writing about this subject. I believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. The good cast deserved a better material to work. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ilha de Sangue" ("Island of Blood")

Four lovely young nurses in their last year of nursing school experience all kinds of turmoil and excitement in their lives: sweet Susan (winsome brunette Elaine Giftos) tries to comfort the bitter, terminally ill Greg (a moving performance by Darrell Larson), eager, but neurotic Phred (lovely blonde Karen Carlson) romances handsome gynecologist Jim Caspar (affable Lawrence Casey), free-spirited hippie Priscilla (the stunningly gorgeous Barbara Leigh) gets impregnated by laid-back drug dealer Les (the solid Richard Rust), and compassionate Lynn (nicely played by Brioni Farrell) helps out angry Mexican revolutionary Victor Charlie (the excellent Reni Santoni). Despite the fact that this film was made for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures, it's anything but your standard mindless piece of leering soft-core schlock. Instead, it's a very pleasant, charming and even often thoughtful time capsule of the social and political upheavals of the groovy early 70's (the subplot involving Lynn and the revolutionaries is especially potent and provocative). Special kudos are in order for director Stephanie Rothman, who brings a welcome and refreshing intelligence and sensitivity to the material. Moreover, the four attractive and appealing female leads all turn in sound and praiseworthy work. Scottie MacGregor likewise impresses as wise supervisor Ms. Boswell and ubiquitous 70's trailer voice guy Ronald Gans supplies the off-screen voice of a psychiatrist. Stevan Larner's polished cinematography, the fantastic rock soundtrack, and the flavorsome folksy'n'funky score by Clancy B. Grass III are all up to speed. A real sleeper.

Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.<br /><br />This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.<br /><br />It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.<br /><br />Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.<br /><br />Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.<br /><br />This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.<br /><br />While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.<br /><br />Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009

Deeply humorous yet honest comedy about a bunch of grownups (Bill Paxton, Julie Warner, Kevin Pollak, Elizabeth Perkins, Vincent Spano, Matt Craven, and Diane Lane) who are invited back to spend a week to Tomawka, a camp in (Ontario) Canada by their former consuelor (Alan Arkin). Writer/director Mike Binder drew upon his experience at the same camp as the main source of creating a gentle and understanding yarn that makes sense. Also, the movie has plenty of funny moments, some of which are completely bizarre like my favorite, the one involves using masking tape. Newton Thomas Sigel ("The Usual Suspects", "Three Kings") provides the film with some impressive shots of the Canadian wilderness. Among the cast, Sam Raimi, director of "THE EVIL DEAD" films and "The Gift", appears here as Arkin's bumbling right-hand man. One more thing, this film reassured me that a camp doesn't have to be a site of bloody murders.

As essential a part of British pop culture as the Monty Python and James Bond, Doctor Who was a massive hit for 26 years (1963-1989), making it one of the longest running TV shows in the world (most serials are lucky to have ten seasons). Plans to reboot the series were always on the BBC's agenda, and after a miscalculated (not to mention Americanized) TV movie produced by Fox failed to capture the magic of the original version, another nine years (Comic Relief spoof and animated mini-series notwithstanding) were required before the ultimate Time Lord could return properly, courtesy of acclaimed writer Russell T. Davies.<br /><br />Davies' brilliance in reintroducing the character lies in his decision to do so through the eyes of an outsider: Rose Tyler (Billie Piper), a London-based girl who leads a very normal life until one night she is attacked by creatures made out of living plastic. She is rescued by an elusive stranger who introduces himself simply as the Doctor (Christopher Eccleston) and then disappears after quipping: "Nice to meet you, Rose. Run for your life!". As she gets more and more curious about this "man", she soon finds herself in a whole new world: aliens, invasions, travel through time and space, and of course, the omnipresent Police Box-shaped TARDIS.<br /><br />The first 45 minutes of the new Doctor Who are almost perfect (the special effects could have used a bit more polishing) because Davies nails two things: the show's unique humor and the two protagonists. The original series' most endearing trait was its blend of spectacular sci-fi and pure British comedy, a hybrid that's hard, if not impossible, to export. Here the laughs are all linked to the conversations between Rose and the Doctor, who come off as fully rounded characters after just one episode. Okay, so technically Eccleston's Doctor is the Ninth to use that name, but he distances himself from the previous eight incarnations by speaking with a Northern accent (the one he uses on a daily basis) and justifying it with a terrific line: "Lots of planets have a North!". <br /><br />The real triumph of this episode, though, is Piper's performance: in theory, Rose is in her late teens, therefore nearly the same age as thousands of young viewers who had never heard of the Doctor before. Her portrayal of an ordinary girl lost in a new, exciting universe, represents the new generation's reaction to the return of a TV icon, and the chemistry that instantly forms between her and Eccleston is a sign indicating the new Doctor Who is just as good as the old one.<br /><br />First, fifth, ninth, it makes no difference: there may have been others before Eccleston (and Piper, for that matter) but together he, William Hartnell, Peter Davison and the rest of the bunch are one single character, one so cool he doesn't even need a name: he's THE Doctor.

A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.<br /><br />My Grade: F

Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel "The Forever War." It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and John Steakley's "Armor." And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers," which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.<br /><br />Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's "Iliad." A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.<br /><br />The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to "Terminator 2" a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi." Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.<br /><br />Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts.

This one is quite a nice surprise. Cute little story of the heroine's quest, very surprising metamorphosis of the four-eye prissy soon-to-be-spinster type into a raunchy DD-cup sex queen. <br /><br />Visually a sight for sore eyes, not only for two quite stunning actresses but also for (most of) the costumes and make-up of the actors. An unnecessary bit of cheapness came in some ridiculous castle imitation.<br /><br />Back to the positives: The movie is spiced with some unusually explicit camera-shots which you would not expect in a soft core. Loved that scene with the icicles, absolute classics potential. A slight minus only for (very) few odd scenes where bad acting by minor casts shortly suspended the suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />9/10 including an extra credit for the serious drooling effect.

Rita Hayworth is right there where she should be - as a "Cover Girl" in this 1944 Technicolor film also starring Gene Kelly, Phil Silvers, Eve Arden, Lee Bowman, and Otto Kruger. Rita plays a beautiful showgirl, Rusty, working at a small club owned by the man she loves, Danny (Kelly). Each Friday they go out for oysters with Genius (Silvers), the club comedian. They all hate oysters, but they're looking for a pearl. When they find one, all three of them will have good luck, they believe.<br /><br />Rusty auditions and wins the role of cover girl for a magazine - she starts off ahead of the other contestants because the magazine owner (Kruger) sees a resemblance between Rusty and the girl he once loved, who turns out to be Rusty's grandmother. Once she becomes the cover girl, the world opens up for her and her dreams of appearing on Broadway come true. Danny wants her to have her success, but at the same time realizes he's lost her.<br /><br />"Cover Girl" has exuberant dance numbers and songs by Jerome Kern, with Rita dubbed by Martha Mears. Rita is at her best playing both Rusty in the present and her grandmother in the past. For such a sexy, desirable, gorgeous woman, she was apparently very insecure and always under the thumb of domineering men. None of this ever showed on screen, nor did the fact that she didn't want to be a movie star. She is one of the true goddesses and brought everything she did to life. Gene Kelly is in a serious role here, but gets plenty of chances to dance and sing. Phil Silvers is very amiable and funny as the in-house comic and best friend.<br /><br />This is a very good movie with no dull spots. The only problem I had is the idea that Rusty has to choose between a successful career and the man she loves. When supermodel Jinx Falkenberg, who plays herself in the film, speaks of getting married, she's warned by her boss not to, that she's too necessary to the modeling business. We're not told if Rusty continues with her career or goes back to work at Danny's - but all signs seemed to point toward the Brooklyn club. Why couldn't she have had both? Nevertheless, you can't beat "Cover Girl" for top entertainment, beautiful color, lovely music, great energy, fine performances, and its most fabulous asset, the glorious Rita Hayworth.

This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.<br /><br />Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.

Expectacular THE ATOR's second part!! Directed rapidly by JOE D'AMATO, specialist in all kinds of subkinds(subgenres) of exploitation, and interpreted again by MILES O'KEEFFE. the budget of the movie debio to be derisory or minimal. In spite of not being a better movie of his antecesora not mas entertained, ATOR 2 either, it has something, something that makes it enterteining. His introduction you prop it explains ATOR's origin to us with images of the first part. The script is incredible, is like any comic-book of the brilliant ROY THOMAS. has so fantastic elements inside dle world of the SWORD and such FANTASY as invisible men, black gentlemen, cannibals - monkeys ... the role of the villain this one interpreted brilliant. The final this struggle very well. lacking mas violence and blood, but this one well. Never it becomes boring. It has everything what there was lacking ATOR 1. Be charmed with to my me!! 4/5

I really like 101 Dalmations when it came out in 1996, now 5 years later i went to see 102 dalmations in 2001, i thought it was fantastic but i think 101 is better because i think it's more funnier, more humor, and also that movie was based on the same story as the cartoon version (one hundred and one dalmations (1961) i wonder if there are plans for 103 Dalmations. I hope there is, maybe yes, maybe no, all of us dalmation fans will have to find out if there is going to be 103 dalmations in the future.

The legendary Boris Karloff ended his illustrious career by making four cheapie fright flick clunkers in Mexico. This is the token moody period Gothic horror entry from the bunch. Karloff gives a typically spry and dignified performance as Matthias Morteval, an elderly eccentric patriarch who invites several of his petty, greedy and backbiting no-count relatives to his creepy rundown castle for the reading of a will. Pretty soon the hateful guests are getting bumped off by lethal life-sized toy people who populate the place. Onetime Mexican sex symbol Andres Garcia of "Tintorera" infamy portrays the dashing police officer hero and Julissa looks absolutely ravishing as the sole likable female character. The clunky, plodding (non)direction, trite by-the-numbers script, ugly, washed-out cinematography, ridiculous murder set pieces (a gross fat slob gets blasted right in the face by a miniature cannon!), overwrought string score, morbid gloom-doom atmosphere, largely lousy acting (Karloff notably excepted), cheesy mild gore, poor dubbing and rousing fiery conclusion all lend this enjoyably awful lemon a certain endearingly cruddy and hence oddly amusing ratty charm. A real campy hoot.

Faith and Mortality... viewed through the lens of an elderly Ashkenazi Jewish-American gentleman and a younger, African-American Jewish gentleman who waver between being at odds with each other and having frank talks about how their lives have unfolded over the years..<br /><br />Mostel's character is a tailor with chronic back problems, and a terminally ill wife; Belafonte's character is a career hustler, never settling on a regular job, and a fatal car accident leaves him in an odd Purgatory-- he must convince Mostel to renew his faith, as it has been failing along with his wife's health (and his own).. but Belafonte's Levine has his own problems, still pining for the girlfriend he left behind..<br /><br />Belafonte's character leaves the film before he seemingly should, and so the the ending is cryptic, and the film suffers somewhat from its ambiguous ending..<br /><br />This is not a 'typical' Hollywood movie on ethnic relations or about a person's crisis of faith.. it is worth watching more than once and appreciating the excellent performances of the principal actors..

I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.

Claire Denis's Chocolat is a beautiful but frustrating film. The film presents a very interesting look at the household of a European colonial family living in Cameroon, giving the viewer an informative perspective on the lives of many characters and their interaction. However, the development of these characters is often maddeningly insufficient. For example, a central theme in the story is young France's inability to form strong relationships with others. Although this portrayal is executed flawlessly, notably in the way that Denis frames the story with scenes from France's return to her childhood home, the girl's lack of intimacy with the film's other characters makes it difficult for a viewer to invest much interest in her development (or lack thereof) as a protagonist. The general stagnation of the film's character development makes it difficult to become engaged in the loosely organized plot. The film raises a great deal of tension between characters, particularly between Aimee and the men in her life, but never fully addresses this social friction, leaving the viewer unsatisfied. The final few scenes are powerful but depressing. Denis's work is certainly interesting from an intellectual and historical standpoint, but if you are looking for a film with adventure or drama, Chocolat is definitely not the best choice.

What a surprising treat to come across on late television. Had I only read a brief plot rundown on a television listing before seeing the movie, I would have passed. The idea of a movie about a hit-man-seeing-a shrink-wanting-to leave-the-business-and-falling-in-love....sounds trite. But the film works. From the start of the movie, it's clear the man carries a weight on his shoulders, before he even says a word. The look and feel of the film is perfect. dark, but not obnoxiously so.<br /><br />Aside from the hit-man family aspect which provides a touch of surrealism, Macy's character grapples with his marriage, and his father's control. Macy shows a repressed sadness, and his bedtime talks with his young son are amazing. The young boy shows acting skills well beyond his years, and the interaction between the father and son is so very natural, personal and loving.<br /><br />This is one of the best movies I've seen in a while, and I can't believe I came across it by accident on late night television.

Wow, umm this was a very, how to say it, different type of movie. It calls itself a comedy...but it wasnt really laught out loud funny at all. It was insane. If you are willing to accept that 3 people survive a calamity of a global scale, why not 4? or 5?.....and why did it suddenly end without anything happening??? They could have made this much better by simply having another element in the plot such as a dumpy female for the ugly dude or something.......zinc, riduculous....ahh<br /><br />i dunno..watch it...it wasnt that bad.....sorta funny at times....i guess...<br /><br />schneider

"Rois et Reine" is a sprawling mess of a movie which will probably irritate as many viewers as it delights. It focuses by turns on ex-lovers Nora (Emanuelle Devos)and Ismael (Mathieu Amalric) as they each confront a major crisis in their now separate lives. While Nora's story is played straight and is sombre in tone, Ismael's is played mainly for laughs, although it's not particularly funny. Nora's crisis is triggered by the terminal illness of her father Louis (Maurice Garrel), and Ismael's by his sudden incarceration in a mental hospital at the instigation of a mysterious third party. Ismael and Louis are just two of the males who have shaped Nora's life, and in turn have been shaped by her, the most notable others being her now deceased first lover Pierre and their young son Elias. As events past and present are played out for the audience, and the ex-lovers become involved in each other's lives once more, it gradually emerges that Nora's personal take on her life story may be less reliable than first meets the eye.<br /><br />Cult director Arnaud Desplechin has fashioned a considerable oddity here, one which has garnered major plaudits in France. He wilfully eschews established narrative convention and develops the movie via a series of dramatic shifts in mood and tone. Had this approach been founded on a coherent unifying core idea or theme it might have worked, but it's not clear in the end what exactly Desplechin's film is actually about. Heavy-handed allusions to Greek mythology and Freudian theory are evidently freighted with meaning but, at least for this unschooled movie-goer, remain less than helpful in illuminating and interpreting the lives of the characters. At other times the treatment lapses into kitsch but the use of the anodyne "Moon River" as the film's theme tune suggests this is probably deliberate.<br /><br />**Spoiler alert** I suspect a major theme of the movie is the not very original observation that how we see ourselves can differ radically from how others see us or even how we think others see us. This idea is most obviously represented in the film by the violent death of Pierre and the revelation contained in Louis' secret diary, but unfortunately both events seem entirely disconnected from what has otherwise been revealed to the audience of Pierre and Louis' respective relationships with Nora. This seems a cheat on Desplechin's part, as if he is thrusting the idea upon us in unmediated form rather than illustrating it more subtly in the natural course of the narrative. One or two darkly surreal touches imply the presence of an alternative but largely unconscious world of persons stripped frighteningly bare, but again these are felt more as pretentious intrusions of film-making technique rather than eruptions from a deeper reservoir of truth inherent in the story. In fact, for all its heavy-handed hints at depth, the characters are curiously undeveloped and unnuanced, as if they function more as ciphers for their creator's many ideas about people rather than as real people in their own right. Much of the detail of their lives seems arbitrarily applied rather than organic. For example, Ismael, as we are constantly reminded, is a viola player, but more than two hours pass before we actually see or hear him play, and the effect of his chosen instrument or profession upon his personality is never elaborated. Hence, he may just as well be a marine biologist or a trapeze artist. <br /><br />Amalric brings a certain manic charm to the unhinged but ultimately sane Ismael, but I found Devos cloying and monotone (which may be intentional, however) as the elusive Nora. Meanwhile Jean-Paul Roussillon as Ismael's father, Elsa Wolliaston as his psychoanalyst and Magalie Woch as the psychically wounded but defiant Sinologist he befriends in hospital make the biggest impact amongst the supporting actors. Catherine Deneuve's in it, too, though her role is little more than a self-referential cameo.<br /><br />Ultimately, "Rois et Reine" is very much an acquired taste. Should it fail to push your buttons, it's very likely that Desplechin's undisciplined and florid approach will frustrate and exasperate even as you somehow keep watching.

Being a fan of Billy Bob Thornton, and the diversity of his skills, I noticed this movie listed, and was surprised I hadn't heard of it.<br /><br />I'd traveled more than usual during both the period it was being filmed in 2000, and when it hit theaters more than 2-1/2 years later (that passage of time is the first clue all was not well with the production).<br /><br />Now Patrick Swayze can't act for sour apples, but Thornton has more than enough ability to make-up for the difference between them. And Charlize Theron is someone whom it would be a pleasure to see, even if it showed her watching paint dry.<br /><br />Being curious, I checked this site's production info. It made a whopping < $600 per screen its opening weekend, and just over $400 each, after its month's theater run in latter 2002. Overall gross was $261K, which I'd doubt could cover cast and crew's hotel and food for a week on location.<br /><br />The story is pretty benign, and even the use of the usually interesting locale of Reno is as dull as the rest of the goings-on.<br /><br />It's something like several SNL bits all pieced together, none individually too great at all, and the overall presentation even worse.<br /><br />Whatever, the expenses for this production had to be considerable - even if all worked for less than their usual fees - so the one thing which made it a barely tolerable opus was the quality of the filming and Billy Bob's present (albeit understandably somewhat laconic here , compared with his usual work.<br /><br />Think of the three superb, totally diverse characters he portrayed in "Sling Blade," "Bandits" and "Bad Santa," and you know he realized this work was below standard, long before the viewers had the opportunity to confirm this. One star for him, even here, and one because production was better than, say, the typical "Lifetime" flick.

Rajkumar Santoshi tries his hands at comedy and succeeds. One of the few good movies that involves Salman Khan. A very funny movie from start to finish. All the characters contribute to the movie and believe me, there are a lot of them. Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Raveena Tandon, Karishma Kapoor, Paresh Rawal, Viju Khote, Jagdip, Deven Verma, Shakti Kapoor, Harish Patel, Tiku Talsania and more. The direction, editing, sound are not up to par, but that still does not matter, because the actors more than make up for that part.

This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.<br /><br />"You're an angry little elf!"

Lupin sets off for Morocco, looking for a legendary treasure. His only clue is an interesting jewel that an old man gave him. It's a nice different location for Lupin, with the desert and that hot exotic feel.<br /><br />One interesting thing about this movie is that Jigen has a much smaller role than usual, generally being in a different place than Lupin. On one hand their classic dynamic together is missed, but it is a change of pace. Plus, this way, Lupin can focus on the ladies...<br /><br />Fujiko rules in this. Throughout the entire feature she is seducing Lupin, and us viewers. Then there's Lara, the damsel of this particular tale, and she's quite likable. This one has more nudity than any other Lupin anime, which is a fun distinction to have.<br /><br />There's a very entertaining effeminate ninja guy who's the best villain in this, and naturally he has some great fighting with Goemon, as well as some fun scenes with Fujiko. Inspector Zenigata of course is also on a warpath here, in fine form.<br /><br />Pretty much, this is a smooth ride with Lupin. The plot is average and there are some slow spots, but all in all this movie is a real pleasure. Enjoy.

Let me just say I loved the original Boogeyman. Sure, it's a flawed clichéd 80s horror movie, but hey those types are fun to watch! And plus it gave us something a bit different. So I gladly bought it and to my surprise this movie came along with it (only copy they had actually) so I thought "Eh, what the hell" and bought it. Mistake #1. So that night I felt in the mood to watch a movie (I actually bought tons that day) and figured this was the shortest out of all the ones I bought so I'll just watch this and hit the sack. Mistake #2. Yes, I have heard how bad it was but I was willing to take a chance.<br /><br />So a few minutes into the movie and there's the first flashback. I think nothing of it at first. Then the new footage with the prediction of the chick in the bathtub and I'm kinda liking the direction it's going in. Then the next flashback which is a bit longer and I'm sitting there thinking "Yes I've seen the first Boogeyman! I know what happens so move along!" Then the next one comes up and I figure screw it and fast forward through it. Then the final one (Maybe I fast forwarded through the explanation but why was she lying topless on the mirror? At least she could've shown them!) and I decide to fast forward through it and then the climax and the movie was over! WTF? What happened to the prediction stuff? What happened to the long hair dude (Did he tap that or what?)? And more importantly what kind of weed was the writer and director smoking when making this awful POS??!!! And what was the point? Was Annie just having flashbacks of what happened in the first movie? Or was the stuff from the first movie just happening at the same time as this? The latter could make sense because the stabbing of Pantyhose Face happened in 1978 according to the characters in this movie and it was 15 years later. Wait a minute, no it wouldn't! Because Lacey (who the movie questionably renamed Nancy! Is Uli too dumb to remember his movie characters' names?) would be 20 years old since she was 5 when that happened and not only is she married to someone who looks 30ish but also has a kid who looks around 7 and 10! Did she get around during middle school? And also why would Pantyhose be after Annie? What connection does she even have with the characters of the original movie? And a BIG HUGE MOVIE MISTAKE I found in this movie is that when the doctor is writing in his notebook does anyone notice that he's just SCRIBBLING? Wow, how professional, Doc! So, what is the explanation for all of the questions I asked above? IT'S A POINTLESS MOVIE WITH NO THOUGHT PUT INTO IT AT ALL! I will try to find a copy of the original movie that comes with just that movie and that's it (Maybe a couple of extra features, any Special Edition of it yet?). Then I will return this DVD and hopefully this review and all the others will prevent those who haven't seen it from seeing it thus making movie stores get rid of it and this movie may not exist anymore! Please let that be so! Sorry this review is so long. I'm just angry at this movie I had to vent somehow

I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.<br /><br />Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $.

Taran Adarsh a reputed critic praised such a dubba movie<br /><br />The film has a weird story wherein a lover sells his love to a brothel cos he wants money to save his mother and then also gets forgived for it LOL<br /><br />The movie is crap<br /><br />the entire first half has it's focus on romance, comedy which fails to work The twist shocks but the entire second half is a mess and the climax is clichéd<br /><br />Direction by Aditya Datt is bad Music is typical Himesh<br /><br />Emraan does his serious role well but his wardrobe, his way of walking through songs.etc is similar to his previous films Geeta Bhasra annoys Ashmith Patel fails to convince this actor was good in MURDER only so far and then a downhill Mithun some screen time and he is okay but his breaking down into a song is forced Ranjeet is okay

Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.<br /><br />The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)<br /><br />MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)

How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.<br /><br />Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.<br /><br />The filmmakers may as well have had a "The moral of the story is..." bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a "1" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.<br /><br />I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful.

This cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.<br /><br />The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.<br /><br />All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.<br /><br />Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.<br /><br />It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts.

I have to say that this TV movie was the work that really showed how talented Melissa Joan Hart is. We are so used to, now, seeing her in a sitcom and I really hope that a TV station will show this TV movie again soon as it will show the Sabrina fans that MJH shines in a drama. Seen as we have watched her on Sabrina now for now 5 years and so to give the viewers a taste of her much unused talent would be a plus. Melissa plays her role so well in this wanting her parents "done away" with so she can be with the guy she loves. One thing that all Sabrina viewers will notice, Melissa works with David Lascher in this, well before he took the role of Josh on Sabrina. So it would be kind of neat to see this currently whenever it gets aired again. Hopefully MJH gets some good roles in movies or even in more TV Movies, sort of like Kellie Martin who has always shined in TV Movies. Lots of unused talent waiting to bust out when it comes to Melissa Joan Hart, you shine always Melissa!!!

surely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.<br /><br />i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.<br /><br />finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.<br /><br />no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...

Following a roughly 7 year rocky road on NBC, it was decided to do just one last Super Installment. The Series had been on the bubble several times thanks to not having the numbers that would qualify it as a block-buster of a TV hour. It had always had a sizable, hard core of hard corps of followers. <br /><br />It was almost as if the series with the full title of "HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET" (1993-99) was a sort of "Mr. In-Between" of series. It was too big to just cancel, but too small to get a case of 'Rabid Ratings Ravings' over. <br /><br />During the precarious tenure on Friday evenings, they had presented some of the best and most daringly Artistic of Hourly Dramas. There, I've said it Artistic, Artistic!! But please, remember we mean Artistic, but not just Phony, Pretentious, Pedantic, Politically Correct preaching.<br /><br />When at last, it was a sure thing that it was the end of the line for "HOMICIDE"; this super episode was prepared as this 2 hour made for TV Movie. <br /><br />Looking at all the past seasons' happenings and parade of regular characters, the Production team went out and gave us what proved to be a super send off.<br /><br />OUR STORY………. As we join the story, we find that Baltimore Homicide Unit Commanding Officer, Lt. Al Giardello has "pulled the pin", Retired from the job, that is. But 'G' isn't ready to really retire-retire yet. So, instead of a rocking chair o a fishing rod, we find that Al is running for Mayor of 'Charm City.'<br /><br />While out in the City, making some campaign stops and speeches, the former Detective Lieutenant takes an assassin's bullet. Alive, but in a comatose state, he is taken to the Hospital. <br /><br />News spreads quickly and as if officially summoned, we find all of the Detectives of the Baltimore Unit we've seen on the show showing up to offer their services and assistance. There is a great meeting of all of these former and present gumshoes as they pitch in and follow every lead and possibility of a lead.<br /><br />The Producer found a way to deal with those who had died previously in bringing their memory into the story. They managed to answer some long standing questions and even introduced some here to unrevealed ones. The whole story winds up the series in a most satisfying and original way. But at least for now, we'll leave that as "classified".<br /><br />In wrapping up everything into a neat, little package, this TV Movie surely gets our endorsement. As for grading "THE HOMICIDE MOVIE", we must give it an A or A+, even. But, no matter the Grade here, it didn't score as high as a typical weekly episode.

I haven't seen the original "Incredible Journey" since I was a child, so I can't really compare the two versions. This version tells the story of three animals, two dogs and a cat, whose owners leave them with friends in the countryside when the father of the family has to take a new job in San Francisco. The pets, believing that they have been abandoned, escape and set out on a long homeward journey through wilderness.<br /><br />This story might have been most easily filmed as a cartoon, but both versions are in fact live-action films made using real animals. One major difference is that in the later version the animals speak in human voices, giving each its own distinct personality, something that was not done in the original film. (A similar device of talking animals has been used in other recent children's films such as "Racing Stripes"). Some critics have been rather sniffy about the use of this device, but my own view is that giving the animals distinctive personalities of their own helps to strengthen the film rather than weaken it. The animals were voiced by big-name stars, Don Ameche, Michael J. Fox and Sally Fields.<br /><br />Both dogs are male, and their relationship parallels that between many humans in "buddy-buddy" movies. Shadow, a golden retriever, is the wise, experienced older dog; Chance the younger one is brash, cocky and impulsive. To British eyes Chance looks like a boxer, but is actually an American Bulldog, which is apparently a different breed to its British cousin. Sassy the cat is female with a rather prim and proper personality. She is very proud of her status as a cat, which in her eyes makes her vastly superior to any mere dog. ("Cats rule, dogs drool!").<br /><br />From an adult viewpoint the film has a number of faults; it can be sentimental, some of the incidents (such as the one in which the animals manage to catapult a mountain lion into the river) are quite incredible, and the human characters are all completely forgettable. This, however, is a film which is mainly aimed at children, and I suspect they will enjoy it immensely. Certainly, any animal-loving child will do so. (Comments by some professional critics such as James Berardinelli, who complained that the animals' voices lessened the film's "grandeur", only serve to strengthen my view that professional critics are not always the best guides to children's movies. I doubt if many playground conversations about "Homeward Bound" concentrated on its supposed grandeur).<br /><br />One thing adults will appreciate is the photography of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. They may also appreciate the film's blend of humour and excitement as the runaway pets encounter perils such as bears, mountain lions and porcupines in the wilderness. This is a very enjoyable family film. 7/10

During the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred "In the Border States", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed. <br /><br />**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan

After stopping by the movie store to find something to watch, we stumbled on this. It looked appealing from the summary, at least, so we gave it a try. And here's the kicker: the first 20 minutes are interesting! It's actually enjoyable! Oh, wait, spoke too soon.<br /><br />Somewhere in there, the movie took a disgusting turn into fundamental, right-wing Christian brain-washing. Not entirely sure what happens, but I think the screenplay writer found God somewhere in there, finished writing this script, and had no time to edit it because he had a KKK meeting to get to with his friends from the Westboro Church and his hood wasn't clean.<br /><br />Can they put warnings on this? I refuse to support this religious idiocy. Much like video games have rating systems, movies need some sort of symbol: maybe a small cross in the bottom corner to show us that a movie is going to take a turn for the worse.<br /><br />Unless you share sentiments with whatever moron came up with this story, and will have your Bible open in your lap while you watch this and plan on how you'll convert your neighbors, don't waste your time. It's some of the worst junk that's come out in a very long time, and the radical religious nuts don't need anymore funding.

Dekalog Five was an interesting viewing experience for me, because of the question Kieslowski seems to subtly ask the audience. Three men are the focus of this chapter, and Kieslowski present the two involved in murder with traits both good and bad (In one's case, almost overwhelmingly bad). With such vile characters, I found myself almost glad that they would receive some sort of punishment. However, when the time comes for the murder (And it's subsequent effect on the murderer), Kieslowski takes an interesting angle and seems to ask those of us who shared my view, "Are you not as guilty as this man?" This sort of indirect address of the audience makes the finale of Dekalog Five that much more profound as Kieslowski (As usual) doesn't stay within the literal confines of his theme. Just as the other parts of the Dekalog don't take their Commandment's theme in it's literal sense, neither does Dekalog Five. It asks us what is murder, who is more guilty of murder, and what should be the appropriate punishment, if any? It's a fantastic film and, typical of Kieslowski, absolutely stunning.

Afraid of the Dark left me with the impression that several different screenplays were written, all too short for a feature length film, then spliced together clumsily into this Frankenstein's monster.<br /><br />At his best, the protagonist, Lucas, is creepy. As hard as it is to draw a bead on the secondary characters, they're far more sympathetic.<br /><br />Afraid of the Dark could have achieved mediocrity had it taken just one approach and seen it through -- and had it made Lucas simply psychotic and confused instead of ghoulish and off-putting. I wanted to see him packed off into an asylum so the rest of the characters could have a normal life.

I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.

This is one of the more unromantic movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />Casting: Richard Gere is just too old looking for romantic lead roles anymore. Diane looks a bit eager to please and frowning as usual but she seems unconvinced by the romance herself. Supporting cast not too memorable.<br /><br />Story: The medical drama he has to deal with is unconvincing and is not interesting. The story is weak - not enough happens to make a movie about. There is nothing new to say or no new way to say it here. <br /><br />The setting is a little bleak and the house it is set in is unattractive. <br /><br />NOT destined to be a great one to remember.

I have the entire Weissmuller Tarzan series on DVD (fully restored editions) & I never tire of watching them. My personal favorite is "Tarzan and His Mate", due entirely (well almost entirely) to Maureen O'Sullivan's costume and the occasional flashes of her genital area beneath that leather flap hanging in front. Before anyone claims that A - It wasn't really her, or B - It wasn't really what it looks like, let me say that I have watched it numerous time, in high zoom mode, and trust me...it IS her, AND she is completely naked underneath that costume...several times, especially during the lion attack at the end, careful viewing in slow motion and maximum zoom will reveal that she was shaved except for a tiny patch of dark hair covering her labia...There is NO mistake about that at all. As to the swimming scene being a body double in a "skin" suit, yes, it is a double, BUT she is NOT wearing any "skin" suit or anything else...again, slow motion and maximum zoom shows everything to those who want to see it. Now, that controversy out of the way, let's move on the actual movie...I thought the script was really well thought out and written tightly...The action sequences were simply great, although it is obviously a stuntman riding the rhino, Weissmuller actually wrestles the big male lion...The use of background shots that were second unit stuff from Africa is very well blended with the studio & US locations making it sometimes hard to tell which is which. Don't complain too much though, remember that 90% of ALL films is phony anyway, so just relax and enjoy the damned thing with a big bowl of popcorn, some cold beer, and a fresh pack of smokes...a sexy and willing girlfriend/wife isn't out of line either...lol. Oh...One final word about nudity...at the very beginning, while the white hunters are speaking dialogue, keep your eyes on the background extras...there are several good shots of nude African girls (obviously shot on location) behind them. One more thing, the movie is not racist by the standards of the 1930's until the 1960's...that's the way colored people were thought of and portrayed back then. Shaft hadn't even been thought about at that time, nor would audiences have accepted any other portrayals of them at the time in history. Safaris actually did use natives carrying luggage on their heads...and Tiny's character did die a heroic death trying to save the white hunters and Jane. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until Gene Autry treated the native Americans and colored people in his Westerns like real human beings that Hollywood began to see that it was okay to do so.

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

I sat through this movie this evening, forcing myself to stick with it even though I never cared about any of the characters or what happened to them, because the two leads, Gérard Philippe and Michèle Morgan, were major film stars of their era and I wanted to see them in "something different," which this certainly was. They both gave fine performances, but of distasteful characters.<br /><br />Indeed, the whole movie is about a shabby little town in Mexico inhabited by almost uniformly distasteful characters (the doctor is, of course, the major exception). What Michèle Morgan ever sees in Philippe to fall in love with him is never explained.<br /><br />This is supposedly based on a work by Jean-Paul Sartre. All I could think was that, if Sartre's work is anything like this movie, it must be a very mediocre attempt at imitating Camus' masterful novel The Plague, which dealt with a plague in North Africa.<br /><br />A well-acted but uninteresting movie.

I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.<br /><br />After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.<br /><br />Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D<br /><br />Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.<br /><br />Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.<br /><br />For about the first two.<br /><br />And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.<br /><br />A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.<br /><br />Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.<br /><br />What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's "I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.<br /><br />It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/<br /><br />And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P<br /><br />If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.<br /><br />You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.<br /><br />Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.<br /><br />And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.<br /><br />If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.

The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.<br /><br />So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.<br /><br />I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.

This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.<br /><br />Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).<br /><br />Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.<br /><br />Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.<br /><br />It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion.

Terrific film with a slightly slow start - give it a chance to get cooking. Story builds in interest and complexity. Characters and story line subvert expectation and cliche at all the right moments. Superb New York City locations - gritty, real - are a fantastic antidote to the commercial imperatives of "Sex in the City" - in fact, the entire film is an antidote to the HBO/Hollywood notion of New York City , sex and relationships. It's a rare film that treats its characters so honestly and compassionately. LOVED IT! Great cast with notable performances by Steve Buscemi, Rosario Dawson, and her love interest (forgot his name!).

`The United States of Kiss My Ass'<br /><br />House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels `downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.<br /><br />The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.<br /><br />In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a `class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by `honest' crime.<br /><br />The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.<br /><br />An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10

This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This is saying quite a bit, considering some of the choices I've made in film rentals.<br /><br />I got this on netflix based entirely on the fact that someone I went to high school with is topless in it. The topless scene lasted all of about 5 seconds and the rest of the movie was about as much fun as having pungee sticks driven underneath my toenails whilst being forced to listen to Roseanne sing Big Spender.<br /><br />The "skits" are stupid and consist of the worst kind of juvenile bathroom humor and locker-room gags, and it's such a blatant (and poor) rip-off of The Kentucky Fried Movie that you'll be begging for Big Jim Slade to crash through the wall and save us from the stupidity of "Vince Offer" (whoever that is).<br /><br />Unless you are a masochist, avoid this pile of rubbish.

When I was younger, this movie always aired on Friday night in the summer on Channel 40 (this was the years before Fox was a network and took over the programming). I always looked forward to it. I'd go grocery shopping with my parents, then sit down with my Swanson's TV dinner and a Lady Lee Cola(the only time of the week I was allowed to drink cola, and enjoy. Sure, the script is predictably late 70's (like Little Darlings), but it's a fun movie, and I loved Rudy and Tripper. Bill Murray coasts with little effort in the movie, but he is charming. Gotta love Spaz and those taped glasses (pre Revenge of the Nerds). Chris Makepeace is pretty much the same character he played in "My Bodyguard" but he does it so well.

I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.

A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!<br /><br />Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.<br /><br />This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10

When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.<br /><br />A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...<br /><br />Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws.

L'Humanité is a murder mystery. These movies tend to be popular,<br /><br />and the 6.9 rating it currently has suggests that it has been, too.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />A few non-spoilers, for instance, include a 5-minute scene<br /><br />wherein the main character eats an apple. And another 3 minutes<br /><br />where he breathes.<br /><br />In case you were wondering, this is not, in fact, art. Neither is it a<br /><br />commentary on humanity, which from the title it seems it is trying<br /><br />to be. It is, in fact, boring. There are numerous attempts in this<br /><br />movie to say something about humanity. One might think to<br /><br />onesself, "How would I comment on humanity?" And the most<br /><br />obvious and boring answers will of course be sex, love, and death.<br /><br />Not that these options are uninteresting when done well - just that<br /><br />they are the canonical options. For sex, this movie does its best to<br /><br />make it unattractive and disgusting. In your first five minutes -<br /><br />hence this is not a spoiler - you will see the bloodied vagina of a<br /><br />murdered 11-year-old girl; it's a murder mystery, remember? Later<br /><br />on, a few people throw themselves at each other and have what<br /><br />the director would like us to believe is "raw" sex, but in reality it's<br /><br />contrived and overly symbolic - but worse yet, uninterestingly so.<br /><br />I enjoy being disturbed by movies. This movie showed me why:<br /><br />Disturbing movies usually show something inside of someone,<br /><br />their humanity, which they did not know existed and are a bit<br /><br />scared of. L'Humanité tried to do just this and failed, and I walked<br /><br />out of the theatre not disturbed, but disgusted, thinking that I had<br /><br />wasted my time in the theater, despite having seen the movie for<br /><br />free.

The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.<br /><br />Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's "brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.<br /><br />As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this – it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4/10.

Channel surfing and caught this on LOGO. It was one of those "I have to watch this because it's so horribly bad" moments, like Roadhouse without the joy. The writing is atrocious; completely inane and the acting is throw-up-in-your-mouth bad.<br /><br />There's low budget and then there is the abyss which is where this epic should be tossed and never seen from again. I mean, the main characters go to a ski retreat in some rented house and the house is, well, ordinary which is no big deal, but they choose to show all the houseguests pouring over it like it was the Sistine Chapel. I'm sorry but watching 6 guys stare into every 10'x10' boring room with a futon in it and gushing is lame. I guess they didn't learn anything from the Bad News Bears in Breaking Training (see hotel room check scene)...wow a toilet !!! yaayyyyy !!!! I don't buy the its all over the top so anything goes routine. If it smells like...and it looks like...well, you know the rest.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.<br /><br />edit: Apparently other more close minded reviewers believe that since I disliked this movie, I am an "obvious hater" which I can only assume means I am phobic, which of course is not true. I decided to do this wacky, crazy thing and judge the movie based on the actual content of the film and not by its mere presence (i.e. its refreshing to see...)<br /><br />Sure, it may be refreshing to see but that doesn't equate into a great movie, just give them some better material to work with and tighter direction. In fact, I applaud the effort. Frankly, I'd rather go listen to my Kitchens of Distinction catalogue than watch this again.

Exactly what you would expect from a B-Movie. Deritive, gratuitous nudity, boring in parts, ridiculous gore and cheesy special-effects. Of course it could have been better, better acted (defintly) better written, directed, etc. But then I guess it wouldn't have been a B movie. The actors pretty much sucked, in fact this pretty much seemed like an episode of buffy the vampire slayer or something except with a lot of blood, profanity and nudity.<br /><br />Tiffany Shepis must be singled out. She absolutely is the scream queen of the new millennium. Not that acting really matters in these movies, but she was better than any of the other actors. She's also smokin hot, in that plastic jump suit thing she wore for the whole movie - wow! Her posterior is absolutely stunning in that outfit, I mean it every single time she turns around you can help but check her out. And near then end of the film the viewer is rewarded with seeing her completely nekked.<br /><br />So if your a looser b-movie horror buff (like myself), check this out. If not, you should probably avoid at all costs.

Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth century's major film landmarks.

I just saw this movie for the second time with my 8-year-old daughter and I remembered why we liked it the first time. All these people who say it is bad are too uptight and critical! It is simply an entertaining little movie, it's not supposed to change the world. I thought all the actors did a great job with their characters. (Except for Jeremy Jordan as Guy--he was a maggot who looked seriously in need of soap and shampoo. If HE is supposed to be the hot guy in their school, then they've got slim pickins'.) But I digress--Drew Barrymore was delightful, as usual, and David Arquette was even enjoyable, and I usually can't stomach him, if only because of those STUPID AT&T commercials! Molly Shannon is always entertaining, and Leelee Sobieski did a great job as a tortured brain. Some parts were actually painful to watch, reminding me of high school. Even though I thankfully didn't get made fun of, it made my heart ache for those who do. Movies like this are actually good for children to see--my daughter made several observations about the cruelty of some of the students and how wrong it was. This movie is appropriate for anyone and a good way to while away 2 hours. If there's ever a time you want to see a lighthearted little movie with a happy ending where you don't have to think very much, then this is definitely a consideration.

CHANCES ARE is a charming romantic fantasy about a woman (Cybill Shepherd) whose husband (Christopher McDonald) is killed shortly after learning she is pregnant. We then see the husband in heaven letting the powers that be know that he was taken too soon and that his wife needs him. He is told he can return to earth but not as himself. Flashforward 19 years where we see Shepherd's daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson) preparing to graduate from college and encountering a young man (Robert Downey Jr.)who, it turns out is the reincarnation of her father. The film is a little on the predictable side...the story goes all the places you expect it to, but it is so charmingly played by an energetic cast (especially Shepherd and Downey) that you can't help but get wrapped up in the fun. Shepherd has rarely been seen on screen to better advantage and she and Downey are backed by a talented group of character actors in supporting roles. A lovely and charming fantasy that will engulf and enchant you.

I saw Heartland when it was first released in 1980 and I have just seen it again. It improves with age. Heartland is not just for lovers of "indie" films. At a time when most American films are little more than cynical attempts to make money with CGI, pyrotechnics, and/or vulgarity, Heartland holds up as a slice of American history. It is also a reminder of how spoiled most of us modern, urbanized Americans are.<br /><br />Nothing in this film is overstated or stagey. No one declaims any Hollywood movie speeches. The actors really inhabit their roles. This really feels like a "small" film but really it is bigger than most multizillion-dollar Hollywood productions.<br /><br />The film is based on the lives of real people. In 1910, Elinore Randall (Conchata Ferrell, who has never done anything better than this), a widow with a 7-year-old daughter Jerrine (Megan Folsom), is living in Denver but wants more opportunities. She advertises for a position as housekeeper. The ad is answered by Clyde Stewart (Rip Torn, one of our most under-appreciated actors), a Scots-born rancher, himself a widower, with a homestead outside of Burnt Fork, Wyoming. Elinore accepts the position (seven dollars a week!) and moves up to Wyoming with her daughter. She and her daughter move into Stewart's tiny house on the property. It is rolling, treeless rangeland, a place of endless vistas where the silence is broken only by the sounds made by these people and their animals. It's guaranteed to make a person feel small. The three characters go for long periods without seeing another human soul. What is worse, Stewart turns out to be taciturn to the point of being almost silent. "I can't talk to the man," Elinore complains to Grandma Landauer. "You'd better learn before winter," replies Grandma. Grandma (Lilia Skala) is one of the only two other characters who are seen more than fleetingly. She came out to Wyoming from Germany with her husband many years before and runs her ranch alone now that she is also widowed. Grandma is their nearest neighbor (and the local midwife) and still she lives ten miles away! The other supporting character is Jack the hired hand (Barry Primus).<br /><br />Elinore's routine (and her employer's) is one of endless, backbreaking labor, where there are no modern conveniences and where everything must be made, fixed or done by hand. This is the real meat of the film: Watching the ordinary life of these ranchers as they struggle against nature to wrest a living from the land. But despite the constant toil and fatigue, Elinore is always looking for other opportunities. She learns that the tract adjacent to Stewart's is unclaimed. Impulsively, she files a claim on the property (twelve dollars, or almost two weeks' pay!), meaning that if she lives on it (and she must actually live there) and works it for ten years, she will get the deed to it. Naturally, Stewart learns what she has done. With merciless logic, he points out that with no money, no livestock, no credit, and no assets, she has no chance of succeeding. He then offers a solution: He proposes marriage. The stunned Elinore realizes that this is the only real alternative, and accepts.<br /><br />We think that Stewart's proposal is purely Machiavellian---he wants the land and the free labor---but we see that, in fact, he is genuinely fond of Elinore, and they grow together as a couple. She becomes pregnant; she goes into labor in the middle of a midwinter blizzard; Clyde travels for hours on horseback through the storm the ten miles to Grandma's and the ten miles back, only to announce that Grandma wasn't there. This is more like real life than is pleasant, folks. Elinore has the baby all by herself, with no help whatsoever. Their son is still an infant when he gets sick and dies. They lose half their livestock to the vicious winter. They struggle on. The last sequence in the film is supposed to be optimistic: The birth of a calf. Clyde calls Elinore urgently to help him deliver the calf. Instead of being head first, the calf is in a footling breech presentation. He and Elinore must physically pull the calf out of the birth canal. There is no CGI, animatronics, trickery, fakery or special effects: What you see is what happened, folks: A calf is born on a bed of straw in a wooden barn by lamplight. With that, the film does not so much end as simply stop, leaving the viewer unsatisfied, but after a while you appreciate the film as a whole, not just for its ending.<br /><br />This little gem rewards patience and thoughtfulness. It will be watchable long after most of the films of the last generation have long been forgotten.

I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching "dankness falls"

The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.<br /><br />They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.

The movie is good and I think Tiffany Amber is very beautiful. I liked the movie. Can anyone tell me how I can get hold of the songs from this movie? Even the soundtrack will do. If that's not possible, can I at least get the names of the songs with their respective singers? I tried to look up amazon.com but its not there. I tried CD baby, not there either. I browsed through Google to get some details but there weren't any. I would appreciate it if someone could give me the answer to my question. I know that the songs belong to Country Music and is sung by a country artist. I just need the title names along with the singer. I would recommend this movie or rather the songs to any country loving person.

It WAS supposed to be the last Freddy movie (and it was for over 10 years)--you would think they would have tried to get a good movie done. But they turned out giving us the worst of the series (and that's saying a lot). The plot made no sense (I seriously can't remember it), all the main characters were idiots (you REALLY wanted them dead) and Freddy's wisecracks were even worse than usual. The only remotely good bit about this was a brief (and funny) cameo by Johnny Depp (the first "Nightmare" movie was his first).<br /><br />Also I originally saw it in a theatre were the last section (reaccounting Freddy's childhood) was in 3-D. Well--the 3-D was lousy--faded colors and the image going in and out of focus. Also the three flying skulls which were supposed to be scary (I think) had the opposite reaction from my audience. EVERYBODY broke down laughing. Looks even worse on TV in 2-D. Pointless and stupid--very dull also. Skip this one and see "Freddy vs. Jason" again.

Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.<br /><br />For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded "Convicted felons," apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched "Good Night, and Good Luck," a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves.

I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been.

This was the third time I tried to watch this film. The previous two times, I found the beginning so sickeningly sweet and "schmaltzy" that I just stopped watching. However, now that I am a little older and more compulsive, I forced myself to watch all the film and I was very surprised to see that I actually liked it quite a bit. So, I look at the movie much the same way I would look at swimming in the ocean when the water temperature is 70 degrees (that's about 21-22 degrees Centigrade for all those metric-lovers out there). Sure, the water is terribly cold and shocking at first, but if you FORCE yourself to stay in the water, you'll get used to it--so resist that urge to jump out right away!! <br /><br />The film begins with a lengthy exchange between Flynn and his daughter, played by a lispy Patti Brady. Some may find there conversations very cute and endearing, though others may find them a bit hard to take since these moments are so gosh-darn sweet! In a way, it was some amazing acting by Flynn because it's hard to imagine him in real life having kids or acting domestic especially that he wanted to be faithful to one woman in this film--now THAT'S ACTING!! NEVER SAY GOODBYE concerns the divorced couple, Flynn and Parker, and their mutual desire to remarry. Since they both love each other as well as their lispy kid, it seems like a foregone conclusion that they will once again tie the knot. However, there are some serious problems standing in their way: Lucille Watson (who plays her usual over-bearing and controlling mother-in-law character), Flynn's girlfriend (after all, he is Errol Flynn and he is divorced, so you gotta expect him to have a girl SOMEWHERE) and a marine (played by Forrest Tucker).<br /><br />Not unexpectedly, all this does get worked out by the end and everyone lives happily ever after. However, despite it being formulaic and predictable, the film is a winner because it is so much fun to watch. Flynn, despite his reputation as an action-adventure hero, is very good with comedy-romance and it's just a lot of fun to watch him. Also, the film has the ever-scene chewing Cuddles Sakall--he's just so gosh-darn cute and sweet that he is perfect in this type of film. And, despite the sweetness, the film is pretty well-written. The bottom line is the film is FUN.<br /><br />So my recommendation is that you DO watch this film and force yourself not to retch at the sickeningly sweet aspects of the film. Once you've gotten over this, the rest of the film is a picture that is well worth your time.

I saw this black and white comedy noir yesterday at the London film Festival. Structurally, it has been compared to Pulp Fiction but it is perhaps closer to the structure of Amores Perros and the slacker mood of Kevin Smith's Clerks. Four stories intersect at a French motorway diner. The first vignette has Franck (Edouard Baer) bungling a hold up at the diner. The waitress, Suzie (Anna Mouglalis) takes pity and tell him her story. The second has two incompetent kidnappers, Leon (Bouli Lanners) and Paul (Serge Lariviere) take a teenage girl from her rich family. Unfortunately for them, she is suicidal and her family don't appear to want her back. The third is a dialogue between two ageing rock stars who bump into each other at the diner (Alain Bashung and Arno playing themselves). The final part is about four ex-criminals who smuggle their old partner out of hospital to visit their old hideout which has since been turned into … the diner. An 'epilogue' returns to Franck and Suzie to complete their story (not really an epilogue, more a conclusion).<br /><br />The structure does not really work. The stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one.<br /><br />This film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look forward to seeing more of Writer/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work.

Pathetic NRI Crap.....Appeal to all who are not Indian's....This is the WORST of Indian cinema,made by the worst piece of NRI trash.....The story is boring and clichéd (the way NRIs and westerners view India).....Go for it if u want to be bored to death.<br /><br />The movie deals with the plight of widows in India before independence.A lot of it is true even now in remote rural areas but not to the extent as depicted (maybe because its a period movie).....<br /><br />There are plenty of other Indian movies directed by extremely talented directors that are worth savoring...This one is a definite miss...Watch a documentary instead or look up information on the net if you are genuinely interested in the plight of the downtrodden in India.<br /><br />I wasted my time.

Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse. <br /><br />Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious. <br /><br />I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career...

This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.

After having seen Deliverance, movies like Pulp Fiction don't seem so extreme. Maybe by today's blood and bullets standards it doesn't seem so edgy, but if you think that this was 1972 and that the movie has a truly sinister core then it makes you think differently.<br /><br />When I started watching this movie nothing really seemed unusual until I got to the "Dueling Banjos" scene. In that scene the brutality and edge of this film is truly visible. As I watched Drew(Ronny Cox,Robocop)go head to head with a seemingly retarted young boy it really shows how edgy this movies can get. When you think that the kid has a small banjo, which he could of probably made by hand, compared to Drew's nice expensive guitar, you really figure out just how out of their territory the four men are.<br /><br />As the plot goes it's very believable and never stretches past its limits. But what really distinguishes this film, about four business men who get more than they bargained for on a canoe trip, is that director John Boorman(Excalibur) breaks all the characters away from plain caricatures or stereotypes. So as the movie goes into full horror and suspense I really cared about all four men and what would happen to them.<br /><br />The acting is universally excellent. With Jon Voight(Midnight Cowboy, Enemy of the State) and Burt Reynolds(Boogie Nights, Striptease) leading the great cast. Jon Voight does probably the hardest thing of all in this film and that is making his transformation from family man to warrior very believable. Unlike Reynolds whose character is a warrior from the start, Voight's character transforms over the course of the movie. Ned Beatty(Life) is also good in an extremely hard role, come on getting raped by a hillbilly, while Ronny Cox turns in a believable performance.<br /><br />One thing that really made this movies powerful for me is that the villains were as terrifying as any I had ever seen. Bill Mckinney and Herbert "Cowboy" Coward were excellent and extremely frightening as the hillbilly's.<br /><br />Overall Deliverance was excellent and I suggest it to anyone, except for people with weak stomachs and kids. 10/10. See this movie.

Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real.