Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell. <br /><br />Except.. <br /><br />Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in!

1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then.

This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.

The most interesting thing about Miryang (Secret Sunshine) is the actors. Jeon Do-yeon, as Lee Shin-ae, the main character, is a woman with a young son whose husband has died in a tragic accident, and who leaves Seoul to live in Miryang, which was his home town, with her young son. Jeon's face is very changeable. She is girlish, flirtatious, elegant, aged and sad, desperate and joyous, with it and terribly isolated by turns, and it's all in her face. The film also stars Song Kang-ho as Kim, a man who meets her when her car breaks down coming into Miryang, who happens to run a garage in town, and who follows her around all the time thereafter, despite her apparent lack of interest in his attentions. Song is the biggest star in Korea right now, renowned for his work with Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon-ho (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance; Memories of Murder and The Host). And yet here he plays a throwaway character, almost a forgotten man. But of course he makes him interesting and curiously appealing. He is the essential ballast to keep Jeon's character from floating away.<br /><br />Lee Shin-ae is a piano teacher. She comes to the new town, which is a neutral place, a kind of poor-man's Seoul, a town "just like anywhere else," as Kim says (just as he is in a way just like anyone else). Her little boy is sprightly, as little boys are, but plainly damaged and withdrawn at times too. His father used to snore, and when he misses him he lies awake, pretending to snore. He goes to school, and Shin-ae meets parents and students and shopkeepers. There is a sense of place in the film, even though the place is in a sense "anywhere." People speak in the local dialect, and everyone knows everything, and Shin-ae's Seoul origin is immediately noticed. Is life really harsher here, away from the big city and its sophistication? Shin-ae seems not to realize the danger she is in.<br /><br />Something terrible happens. And Shin-ae doesn't necessarily deal with it in the best possible way. But it happens and she must face the consequences. But she can't. She goes to pieces. A perpetrator is caught, but that's no consolation. Eventually she becomes so despairing, she relents and goes to a born-again Christian meeting an acquaintance has been pressing her to attend. She finds peace and release with this. But when she decides not only to forgive the perpetrator but to go to the prison to tell him so, that experience is full of ironies and it destroys her all over again. She becomes embittered and desperate and she no longer finds solace in religion. And it gets worse than that.<br /><br />Jeon Do-yeon gives her all in this extremely demanding and protean role. Lee Chang-dong may be a very good director. If an actor of the stature of Song Kang-ho expresses enormous admiration for him, that is convincing. According to Scott Foundas of LA Weekly, Lee's first three films, Green Fish (1997), Peppermint Candy (2000) and Oasis (2002) have marked him out as "one of the leading figures of his country's recent cinematic renaissance." But this is not as successful a film as those of other Korean directors whose work I've seen, such as Yong Sang-Soo, Bong Joon-ho, and the prodigiously, almost perversely gifted Park Chan-wook. It may indeed begin as Foundas says as a kind of "Asiatic Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" and then "abruptly and without warning" turns into "something of a thriller, and some time after that a nearly Bressonian study in human suffering." But that progression not only seems random and indigestible; the film sags and loses its momentum toward the end and then simply fizzles out, with no sense of an ending. There are also weaknesses in the action. Shin-ae takes foolish chances with her son, and makes bad choices all along. If she is destined for madness like Betty in Jean-Jacques Beineix's Betty Blue, which might explain her peculiar and mistaken choices, that isn't something that is properly developed. This is an interesting film, certainly a disturbing one, but one that leaves one doubtful and dissatisfied, after putting one through an emotional wringer.<br /><br />An official selection of the New York Film Festival presented at Lincoln Center, 2007—an event that has done right by Korean filmmakers in the recent past.

when i first read about "berlin am meer" i didn't expect much. but i thought with the right people, the right locations, the right music and fashion you could at least make a trivial movie about the hip berlin everyone seems to be talking about. but eissler failed, it's so ridiculously unauthentic. it's a complete misrepresentation of what it is going on in berlin's so called scene. of course it's not all about hippness, but you should expect more from a movie that's being sold as "the definite berlin movie".<br /><br />and apart from all the credibility stuff, it really is a bad movie. mediocre acting and a rather boring plot. interestingly some of the actors have proved in other movies that they are actually quite talented. so it really must be poor directing skills.<br /><br />don't bother watching "berlin am meer" unless you are 17, come from some small town in western Germany and want to move to the big city after you finished school. then you might actually find it enjoyable and totally cool.

I saw this film on September 1st, 2005 in Indianapolis. I am one of the judges for the Heartland Film Festival that screens films for their Truly Moving Picture Award. A Truly Moving Picture "...explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life." Heartland gave that award to this film.<br /><br />This is a story of golf in the early part of the 20th century. At that time, it was the game of upper class and rich "gentlemen", and working people could only participate by being caddies at country clubs. With this backdrop, this based-on-a-true-story unfolds with a young, working class boy who takes on the golf establishment and the greatest golfer in the world, Harry Vardon.<br /><br />And the story is inspirational. Against all odds, Francis Ouimet (played by Shia LaBeouf of "Holes") gets to compete against the greatest golfers of the U.S. and Great Britain at the 1913 U.S. Open. Francis is ill-prepared, and has a child for a caddy. (The caddy is hilarious and motivational and steals every scene he appears in.) But despite these handicaps, Francis displays courage, spirit, heroism, and humility at this world class event.<br /><br />And, we learn a lot about the early years of golf; for example, the use of small wooden clubs, the layout of the short holes, the manual scoreboard, the golfers swinging with pipes in their mouths, the terrible conditions of the greens and fairways, and the play not being canceled even in torrential rain.<br /><br />This film has stunning cinematography and art direction and editing. And with no big movie stars, the story is somehow more believable.<br /><br />This adds to the inventory of great sports movies in the vein of "Miracle" and "Remember the Titans."<br /><br />FYI - There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where there is a listing of past winners going back 70 years.

I saw a screening of this movie last night. I had high expectations going into it, but was definitely disappointed. Within 5 minutes of the opening, Williams is already campaigning for his presidency. And he becomes president in the first 40 minutes. So there goes all that aspect of the movie. The first half hour are hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its moments. But after the first half hour, it takes a turn for the worst. It becomes less of a comedy, and more of a thriller/drama/love story...which is pointless. the movie goes nowhere and stands still for a good 30 minutes. there are laughs interspersed here and there, but the consistently funny part is in the beginning and only the beginning. at one point, the biggest cheer i heard in the audience is when a person in the crowd yelled 'boooo' during a very confusingly emotional scene. Williams gives a great performance, right on par with his comedic style. Walken also delivers a strong supporting role as only he can. I think the one character that goes underrated is Lewis Black. Consistently vulgar and political, its funny to see him tone it down for a PG-13 rating. Overall, I would not pay to see the movie. Afterall, I saw it for free and even I was disappointed. The first half hour is solid, and its all downhill from there. Not really fitting into a category, the movie realizes half way through that it should not have been anything more than a one-hour comedy central special. 4.5/10

William Hurt may not be an American matinee idol anymore, but he still has pretty good taste in B-movie projects. Here, he plays a specialist in hazardous waste clean-ups with a tragic past tracking down a perennial loser on the run --played by former pretty-boy Weller-- who has been contaminated with a deadly poison. Current pretty-boy Hardy Kruger Jr --possibly more handsome than his dad-- is featured as Weller's arrogant boss in a horrifying sequence at a chemical production plant which gets the story moving. Natasha McElhone is a slightly wacky government agent looking into the incident who provides inevitable & high-cheekboned love interest for hero Hurt. Michael Brandon pops up to play a slimy take-no-prisoners type whose comeuppance you can't wait for. The Coca-Cola company wins the Product Placement award for 2000 as the soft drink is featured throughout the production, shot lovingly on location in a wintery picture-postcard Hungary.

IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.

I'M BOUT IT(1997)<br /><br />Developed & published by No Limit Films<br /><br />>>Pros: Absolutely none<br /><br />>>Cons: I don't even know where to begin!<br /><br />Plot summary: Master P plays a drug dealer that looks, talks, and acts more like a live-action cartoon character. That's all the plot I got out of this movie.<br /><br />Review: I remember back when I was in the ninth grade during its release and everyone in my class praised this clown called Master P. This movie is so bad, it's not even funny. All the characters in this film are extremely tired stereotypes, the audio is only audible when music plays, and the movie looks like it was videotaped off a public access channel. Luckily, I didn't buy this film like all my other inner-city degenerate classmates.<br /><br />My rating:1 out of 10<br /><br />My verdict: Avoid this video like its a sexually-transmitted disease.

I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.<br /><br />Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.<br /><br />The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" –whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest –same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."<br /><br />Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that –like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great.

I really enjoyed the detail that went into the script.<br /><br />Jonathan Rhys Myers (misspelled) and Jewel were outstanding in their support roles. As was Jeffery Wright. Toby McGuire gave as fine a acting job as ever depicted, when he had to amputate his best friend's arm, knowing he would die without the procedure. <br /><br />Attention to detail, with good dialect coaching to catch the Southern accent incredibly well.<br /><br />Why this movie was swept under the rug by the Hollywood promoters I can only imagine. I have strong suspicions. Which makes it all the more appealing to me. I have given a dozen DVD copies out for presents.<br /><br />Completely overlooked movie. Rent or buy it and give it your full attention for a couple of hours, then judge.

Didn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, "You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you". Ug replied, "Charlie, Bounty Hunter", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, "Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.

This movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.

I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.<br /><br />Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.<br /><br />I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.<br /><br />The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.<br /><br />Maybe I just didn't get it.<br /><br />I'll leave it at that.

Uwe Boll has done the impossible: create a game adaptation that stays at least somewhat true to the game; he has turned a game full of antisocial and offensive content into a movie full of antisocial and offensive content. So, as an adaptation, it's a success.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's still Uwe Boll we are dealing with here, so don't expect the movie to be actually any good. while it does have it's moment, "Postal" wears out his welcome very fast and becomes a pain to sit through.<br /><br />At its core, Postal is a satire on the United States, as done by a twelve year old kid. Boll seems to think that offensiveness is linearly proportional to comedic value: the more offensive, the funnier, and the more exaggerated the funnier. This results in a movie that sets new levels of tastelessness while being extremely hit and miss. Yes, some gags do work but it seems to be pure luck. High points include the director satirizing himself, and people getting hit very violently by trucks and other vehicles. Low points include..well pretty much everything else.<br /><br />After the initial surprise wears off, Postal simply becomes a bore to watch. Yes there is a good joke every and good point ten minutes, but everything else consists of hordes of annoying characters shooting and chasing each other all over the place for what seems to be an eternity.<br /><br />This probably would have worked as a short movie, but it's just not enough content for something that lasts over 90 minutes (although it feels twice as long). There are nice ideas and nice tries, but they get hopelessly lost in endless and pointless action scenes and content that is offensive just for the sake of it 4/10

I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!?

Brass pictures (movies is not a fitting word for them) really are somewhat brassy. Their alluring visual qualities are reminiscent of expensive high class TV commercials. But unfortunately Brass pictures are feature films with the pretense of wanting to entertain viewers for over two hours! In this they fail miserably, their undeniable, but rather soft and flabby than steamy, erotic qualities non withstanding.<br /><br />Senso '45 is a remake of a film by Luchino Visconti with the same title and Alida Valli and Farley Granger in the lead. The original tells a story of senseless love and lust in and around Venice during the Italian wars of independence. Brass moved the action from the 19th into the 20th century, 1945 to be exact, so there are Mussolini murals, men in black shirts, German uniforms or the tattered garb of the partisans. But it is just window dressing, the historic context is completely negligible.<br /><br />Anna Galiena plays the attractive aristocratic woman who falls for the amoral SS guy who always puts on too much lipstick. She is an attractive, versatile, well trained Italian actress and clearly above the material. Her wide range of facial expressions (signalling boredom, loathing, delight, fear, hate ... and ecstasy) are the best reason to watch this picture and worth two stars. She endures this basically trashy stuff with an astonishing amount of dignity. I wish some really good parts come along for her. She really deserves it.

My interest was raised as I was flipping through and saw the name Iphigenia. My name is Eugenia so I thought OK, lets see what this is. I am so glad I stayed on the channel. What a wonderful, wonderful story. Drama, sadness, some over the top acting but a wonderful time to be had. I watch this and it makes me sad for all the drivel the movie industry puts out and these beautiful little gems get passed over. Give Iphigenia a try and I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did. I have even gotten my children (27, 25, 20 and 17) to enjoy it. It starts slow, however, the drama builds and you will be drawn in to the story. Watching this lovely film made me want to shroud myself in more Greek tragedy and pathos.

Pity the Monkees. People always accused them of being manufactured (which they were) or being nothing more than a American knock-off of the Beatles (Again, which they were) but to the kids of the time they were real, they were important, they were legitimate. Discussions about who were better The Monkees or The Beatles were common on school yards but the critics, well they never quite bought into it. Despite recording some very catchy, classic pop tunes, the Monkess did not receive much respect for their albums. Sadly a similar fate was met by their one movie vehicle despite the fact that it stands as the best band film ever. Beatle fans may argue that "Hard Days Night" was better and I am sure that many of the kids think "8 Mile" was superior but none of these films were as daring and inventive as "Head" and that is probably why it failed.<br /><br />If Head had told a direct A to B type story perhaps it would have appealed to the bands young fans but by pushing the envelope and using the movie opportunity to mock their own image they really sabotaged the film with their fans. Could you imagine Eminem turning to the camera and actually talking about how sad it is that he is the best selling guy in a genre in which only 5% (and I am being generous) of the acts are white. If you can picture that than you have an idea how daring it was for the Monkess to sing "Hey, Hey we are the Monkees. You know we like to please. A manufactured image, with no philosophy". When you have a film in which Frank Zappa tells Davy that he should focus less on the dancing, and more on the music its clear that there is a lot more going on then you expected.<br /><br />The story, what there is, concerns the boys trying to flee their manager, who at one point forces them to play dandruff in a commercial, but every time they run away they end up inside a box. I don't think you need to be Fellini to figure out the symbolism of that bit. Some neat little comedy bits follow with Davy as a boxer who has to give up playing the violin to take a dive in the big match and Peter refusing to throw away a ice cream cone he does not want because there are starving children so its wrong to waste food but the real selling point to this film is the music and its some of the best the band ever recorded. Even if you are put off by the story, you can sit back and enjoy some terrific music.<br /><br />Any film that begins and ends with Mickey attempting suicide by jumping off a bridge (at the end the band follows him) is never going to be a mainstream classic but if you are a fan of either the band or experimental cinema of the era than you will enjoy this film.

Love Jones cleverly portrays young African-American men and women in a clear, positive, realistic sense. I feel that all of the actors and actresses were magnificent and really did a great job at capturing the mood. Nia Long and Larenz Tate worked well together and I hope to see more work from the two of them. As a matter of fact all of the actors/actresses did such a fine job it would be great to see another romantic-comedy from them. This movie can be compared to most any well-written, romantic comedy. If you have not seen this movie already I strongly recommend that you do, it can definitely give you another perspective on life and love.

This film is terrible - honestly. The acting is terrible, the script made me cringe, the effects are completely lousy (which I usually don't mind for older films, but this was made just two years ago), and everything about it just annoys me. A few friends go out on Halloween into the woods and meet a witch and her cannibal son. Of course, before that it has the cliché "You really believe that? Ha ha ha, it's just a story" routine dragged out for a while. The witch's cannibal son was made a retard (I don't know if it was for comedy or to make it creepy, but this film failed at both). It has minimal gore and no nudity, which made a bad film even worse. Heck, the only good thing about this film is the leg eating scene, and even that could of been better.<br /><br />Honestly, don't even waste your time watching it on cable, and certainly don't consider buying or renting this, else you'll be kicking yourself for wasting time which could of been spent doing something more constructive or entertaining.

This is a funny film and I like it a lot. Cary Elwes plays Robin Hood to a tee. This is, of course, the usual good vs evil with Robin against the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. The humor is sort of in your face stuff for the most part, but still works well. A comedy for a night when you don't want to have to think much, it's well worth a rent!

This movie makes me want to fall in love all over again!I am naming my next daughter "Adelaide". Just so that someone who sings like Ol Blue eyes can swoon her one day, and feel the butterflies I felt hearing it sung, and it wasn't even to me! I give it a 9/10

All day now I've been watching dinosaurs, and all day they've had the same fundamental problem.<br /><br />They don't believe in firearms. They just don't seem to have been _told_ about them or something. Bullets _bounce_ off of dinosaurs! Maybe it's because they became extinct millions of years before the invention of gunpowder, and the laws of physics were just different back then... Aah, no. Come on. If they're close enough to chemically operate today, they'd have to be vulnerable to fast (even subsonic) lead projectiles. It's that simple.<br /><br />Look, the toughest-skinned reptiles on the planet today, alligators and crocodiles, are completely vulnerable to basic rifle fire. They're nothing magic. You can shoot a pistol round right through the heavy scales on their backs. They don't take armor-piercing bullets or anything special. Small bullets penetrate them, they just don't kill them. Somewhat (but not REALLY) large bullets are preferred because the challenge (as with most game) is to kill the animal with one shot, so it doesn't run. (Hunters consider it immoral to allow prey to run off and die unharvested.)<br /><br />Most animals, including predators, are easily repelled by gunfire. Between the noise, and the pain of even a non-lethal wound, most will run away. An exception are big bears, which are so fearless that they're merely enraged by mortal wounds. Cape buffalo are regarded as highly dangerous because they are well known to charge when wounded. We've seen video of the big bulls of a herd of cape buffalo rescuing a calf from an entire pride of lions. A big cat will run if it can, but if it can't it will charge as a final act of desperation. Where a T.Rex would fit in this spectrum is unknown. Their behavior simply has not been observed. With these larger animals, safe hunting becomes a matter of applying an appropriately large and powerful projectile, and/or applying several of them rapidly enough to counter its charge. With a T.Rex, of course, this could be a serious problem. I've seen a T.Rex skull (they have one in the museum downtown) and carrying a gun big enough to bust that might be impractical. Chewing its neck off with lots of smaller fire might be a more viable approach. Small bullets would still _penetrate_ them, they wouldn't just bounce off just because the animal is too big to easily kill! <br /><br />So here we have Cortez and his men (this is _before_ the famous Mexican campaign, apparently) captured by American natives and scheduled for sacrifice on the pyramid. It appears that all those human sacrifices were about appeasing the bloodthirst of the pair of T.Rexes that terrorized the continent in the day. Rather than just having their hearts cut out and being fed to the lizards, Cortez et al talk the Aztecs into letting them hunt & kill them. OK, maybe they don't have M-16s like the guys in the "Carnosaur" series, but they _do_ have flintlocks, crossbows, pointed sticks (big ones, made from trees) and swords. Maybe that's a little less uneven than squads of soldiers with full auto, but they've several guys and I'd quickly bet on them over a dinosaur. Oh, wait, there's a _cannon_, about a 4-incher. That's just the ticket for busting a Tyrannosaurus' skull! So they lay a trap, with a squad of men, cannon, pointed sticks in a ravine, and lure the first T.Rex into it, using a pretty brown girl as bait. Cortez points out that they'll NOT have time to reload, so they'll have to close the range until they can be certain of their aim. T.Rex totally ignores their volley of flintlock fire, and we see both a crossbow bolt _and_ the cannon ball _bounce_ off! Forget it. End of credibility. A crossbow bolt would defeat Cortez' torso armor, and a 4" cannon ball might penetrate the hull of a wooden ship! This would also _certainly_ get through the hide, ribcage, or skull of any animal ever to walk this planet. (Do you think a _whale_ could withstand a 4" cannon ball?) And here's T.Rex, still standing, not even bleeding. So Cortez lures it to the ravine, where it falls onto the pointed sticks, which (I guess by magic) penetrate it and kill it. Yaaay, pointed sticks! <br /><br />The dinos aren't completely invulnerable to gunfire - they manage to put out an eye of the second one with a pistol. This runs it off, so it's NOT as mean as a bear or a buffalo, at least in the movies.<br /><br />They kill the second dinosaur with a bomb - made from a gourd filled with gunpowder and gemstones. My money would still be on the cannon. It's engineered function is to concentrate all the gunpowder's energy in one direction - toward the target. A bomb is a much more diffused application of force. A _real_ bomb (NOT a gourd bomb) has a steel casing which contains the explosion to extremely high pressure. (Think: pipe bomb vs firecracker.) A pile of gunpowder set on fire will simply go POOF. (Trust me on that one.)

i have lost count as to how many times i have watched this movie. i've never grown tired of it since this is a movie that can be enjoyed and interpreted on so many levels. they just don't make movies like this anymore.<br /><br />after recently finally watching the riveting documentary on the making of this film (Hearts of Darkness:a filmmakers journey into madness), i'm even more amazed that this film even got finished, yet alone turn out so great.<br /><br />the fact that they actually filmed this movie in the jungles of the Phillipines is the film's greatest asset. you actually FEEL like your in Vietnam.<br /><br />all of the actors are fantastic with my favorites still being Robert Duvall ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!") martin sheen, and the great Marlon Brando.<br /><br />a lot of people complain that the film gets too murky, weird and cerebral near the end. well, remeber what Coppolla said about this movie, "This film is not about vietnam, it IS vietnam!" what he means is that this film is about MADNESS and not the war.<br /><br />this movie is based on the short story "Heart of darkness" by Joseph Conrad and is set against the vietnam war instead of the civil war as in the book. i think that was a brilliant combination in my opinion.<br /><br />this is perfect, challenging film that is dark, violent, humorous at times and well done in every single possible way.<br /><br />a true classic<br /><br />rating:10

Like several other reviewers here, I'm surprised to see many negative reviews on this film. Dan O'Bannon's previous effort was the groundbreaking 'Alien' of 1979. Because it and 'Star Wars' introduced the stylistic approach of 'Used' or 'Dirty Space' in art-direction for these kinds of features doesn't mean that this was the only way to produce them.<br /><br />Rather than dismiss 'Lifeforce' out-of-hand as a sort of schlock and primitive exploitation feature, it's important to recognize that the film draws upon the 'esteemed' traditions of British horror and science-fiction - specifically Hammer and American International features like Quatermass (specifically 'Quatermass and the Pit', 1967), Doctor Who and 'The Day of the Triffids' (1963), if not the works of Gerry Anderson ('UFO', 'Space:1999' and 'Thunderbirds'). But none of these influences would be a surprise if other reviewers recognized writer O'Bannon's genre-scholarly appreciation for 'Queen of Blood'(1966) and 'It! The Terror from Beyond Space'(1958) - the immediate sources for 'Alien' (1979).<br /><br />Granted this film has some 'legacy' elements, but perhaps it's worth comparing this film to its more immediate peers - 1981's 'An American Werewolf in London' and 'The Company of Wolves' (1984) - other 80's films that share a 'looking-back' while they adapt those stories to the 80's zeitgeist. All three films drew on earlier incarnations of the same, but substantially sexed-up their themes (because they could), and, at the same time they recognized the tongue-in-cheek, humorous aspects of their projects.<br /><br />Neil Jordan's 'Wolves' played to many of the psychoanalytic memes floating around at the during the '80's, while 'American Werewolf' curdled its theme as a 'coming-of-age' film. It's called artistic license, and the adaptations of these three films are no less valid than the latter-day dramedy inherent in the 'Scream' franchise, 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Final Destination'. But these teen-targeted, films seem to be part of a box-office trend, whereas the 80's films like 'Lifeforce' belong a canon of British sci-fi - even if this one was written by an American.<br /><br />In many ways this film holds up much better than latter-day disaster and alien-invasion flicks ('Independence Day', 'Armageddon', 'Deep Impact') in that the 'solutions' don't reside in gun-battles, weaponized payloads and testosterone. At the opposite end of the pole, it is unfortunate that Steven Soderbergh and James Cameron didn't examine Tarkowski and Lem more closely before they remade 'Solaris'...<br /><br />The goal of this film was fun, not ponderousness or stupidity.<br /><br />7/10

Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****

Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.<br /><br />But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.<br /><br />Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while.

I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10.

This movie is good for entertainment purposes, but it is not historically reliable. If you are looking for a movie and thinking to yourself `Oh I want to learn more about Custer's life and his last stand', do not rent `They Died with Their Boots On'. But, if you would like to watch a movie for the enjoyment of an older western film, with a little bit of romance and just for a good story, this is a fun movie to watch.<br /><br />The story starts out with Custer's (Errol Flynn) first day at West Point. Everyone loves his charming personality which allows him to get away with most everything. The movie follows his career from West Point and his many battles, including his battle in the Civil War. The movie ends with his last stand at Little Big Horn. In between the battle scenes, he finds love and marriage with Libby (Olivia De Havilland).<br /><br />Errol Flynn portrays the arrogant, but suave George Armstrong Custer well. Olivia De Havilland plays the cute, sweet Libby very well, especially in the flirting scene that Custer and Libby first meet. Their chemistry on screen made you believe in their romance. The acting in general was impressive, especially the comedic role ( although stereotypical) of Callie played by Hattie McDaniel. Her character will definitely make you laugh.<br /><br />The heroic war music brought out the excitement of the battle scenes. The beautiful costumes set the tone of the era. The script, at times, was corny, although the movie was still enjoyable to watch. The director's portrayal of Custer was as a hero and history shows this is debatable. Some will watch this movie and see Custer as a hero. Others will watch this movie and learn hate him.<br /><br />I give it a thumbs up for this 1942 western film.

I vaguely remember this film. I do remember it for the one solid reason that it is the only film that I have ever walked out on!! and since then I have never seen it available to rent ANYWHERE!! I can't spoil it for anyone cos I can barely remember it!! To think, looking at the cast, it seemed a winner, with John Landis directing, but good god, they must have been paid a whole lot for this drivel!! All I can seem to recall is that the dad goes missing and the family try to search for him, by trying to put an actual photograph into the disc drive of a computer. I walked out after about half an hour of this. I must confess though, I'd love to see if I can get a copy, just to see if it really was that bad!!<br /><br />It wouldn't surprise me if this was on every actor's black list! I mean Christopher Lee was in this?? The legend of all bad guys, who'd been in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings?? As I said - black listed movie, The Stupids!

One of the finest pieces of television drama of the last decade. Throughout the five hours, ones perceptions and sympathies are constantly challenged as it explores many facets of modern day British society. David Morrisey is, as usual, brilliant. At first coming across as a heavy handed copper in conflict with the heroine, but then proving to be intelligent and caring, as he works with her in uncovering the truth. I have never seen Surrane Jones before. I believe she comes from the world of television soaps. Her performance was magnificent, as she maintains her humour and composure whilst trying to balance the demands of the case and the stress of caring for her mother. I could go on and talk about every member of the cast who contributes to this magnificent drama, but their efforts would mean little without such an absorbing script that constantly challenges your assumptions about any of the characters. It is programmes like this that restore one's faith in television drama, whilst at the same time making it almost impossible to settle for most of the garbage that is increasingly filling the airwaves.

My name is John Mourby and this is my story about Paperhouse: In May 2003 I saw Alfred Hitchcock's psycho, I was very scared and deeply disturbed. I began a frantic search for a film that was frightening in the same way. But none where satisfactory. Amongst those tried and failed were The Birds, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Ring, The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Near Dark, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Cell, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, Witchfinder General, Friday the 13th and The Omen. That should confirm I was desperate! Long after I had stopped searching I found out about Paperhouse …….<br /><br />Paperhouse is based on a favourite book that I own, called Marianne Dreams. Paperhouse had also come up in some of the books I had found on horror films, but they didn't tell me about the link between book and film. I discovered the truth while on the Internet, I bought the film later that day.<br /><br />I thought Paperhouse would not be faithful to the book and dull. Unfaithal it certainly was but dull certainly not. It was the answer to my prayers Marianne is renamed Anna in the film but most of the original story is the same. One day in school Anna draws a house in her scrap book (nothing remarkable about that) then she becomes ill and every time she faints or falls asleep she finds herself outside a creepy old house (and I mean genuinely unnerving). More she also finds that every time she puts something new in the drawing it appears in the dreamworld, EG an apple tree. Anna draws into the dreamworld a rather sad boy named mark who apparently is a person in the real world. Mark is a cripple but wants to leave the house, obligingly Anna draws in a lighthouse (a place to go to) but still the problem remains mark can't walk. So Anna decides to draw her father in. she gets her pencil out and gets too work, but the outcome is deformed and unsettling Anna particularly dislikes his eyes. Quote "he looks like madman". So Anna tries to rub him out and start again, but the pencil proves indelible (that means nothing can be rubbed out). Then Anna loses her temper and crosses out her father's eyes! I leave you too find out for you self the terrible consequences of the rash action.<br /><br />Paperhouse truly is the British answer to A Nightmare on elm Street! The viewing of this film left me shocked and upset. But I have found what I was looking for after 2 years. The question is how dose the compare with Psycho? Answer, 1 the old dark house, 2 psychological parental fears, 3 a genuine shock, 4 and very scary music.

This Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.<br /><br />The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, "Haunted Spooks."<br /><br />However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.

We watched this in my Women's Health Issues class to point out how women are treated inferior to men in many societies, and I absolutely loved this movie. I plan on trying to get a copy of it myself to watch. The story is very touching and I would recommend it to anyone. I am a fan of different cultures and this movie was just what I needed. This is a movie for the whole family despite its rating. This is a movie I will show to my children. The professor of our class meant for the movie to primarily be a too to educate about women, but this movie was more than that. It is one of those movies that will forever stick out in my mind and will be a favorite.

Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying "Hello" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a "Look out! Godzirra!" effect.

I just found the IMDb and searched this film and I was moved almost to tears by the comments of all the people who saw this film as I did when 6 or so years old in 1967?. I saw it before the Jungle Book so I was Eagle Boy for a few hours and then Mowgli for the next year. I burst into tears at the cinema when the boy turned into the Eagle and always wanted to see the film again. When we got home we had a Roast chicken dinner and I got the wish bone and guess who I wished to be? My dad then said 'I bet you wished to be an Eagle' and of course we all know that wishes are broken if someone guesses so more tears and a little resentment to this day for not being able to fly away...

This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in "Glen or Glenda?"<br /><br />The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable "Russian" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.<br /><br />If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.<br /><br />Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.

Yes, this film has many gay characters. It also has straight characters, characters who are not sure about their sexuality, people who are searching for some truth about their existence. <br /><br />This is not a film about sexual orientation. It's about loneliness and the difficulty human beings often experience in connecting to one another. Filmically, Denys Arcand cleverly balances the various dimensions of the relationships and the contrasting, constantly shifting relationships. The serial killer element is a bit less successful (it feels more like a way to wrap up various plot points and, unlike the rest of the film, is thematically heavy-handed). <br /><br />Thomas Gibson centers and grounds the film; it's a quiet performance but behind the handsome, arrogant exterior he slowly reveals a terrified soul afraid of showing or accepting love from those around him. The supporting cast is strong, especially Mia Kirshner as Gibson's friend, a dom-for-hire with precognitive powers. Her role is more metaphor than a literal conceit---strangely innocent and depraved at the same time, she represents the light and dark of the characters' sexual consciousness. <br /><br />The film's involving and often surprises in its character development. The effect is somewhat like Robert Altman directing a David Mamet script---the dialogue doesn't shrink from some searing observations aside from a few contrived moments in the beginning. Often, in our search for love and a conventional "relationship", we ignore the love that already exists around us---in our friends, family, those who are able to see us as we are. Arcand and the writer, Brad Fraser, make some canny observations on the different ways human beings try to escape and deny their loneliness and how that denial returns to haunt us in so many unexpected ways.<br /><br />This film is a rewarding experience. It may not be for bigots who can't get past the sexual orientation of some of the characters to see the greater, transcendental message of hope and redemption. Loneliness is a universal experience. A film like this, that dares to explore the darker side of our lives with a clever and perceptive eye, deserves applause and an open-minded approach.

The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.

A few words for the people here in germen's cine club: The worst crap ever seen on this honorable cinema. A very poor script, a very bad actors, and a very bad movie. Don't waste your time looking this movie, see the very good "mutantes verdes fritos anarquia radioactiva", or any movie have been good commented by me. Say no more.

A sentimental, heart-tugging family film set in England of the 1920s. A young Elizabeth Taylor wins a horse in a raffle and decides to enter him in the Grand National; fortunately, ex-jockey Mickey Rooney is around to give Liz some help. Director Clarence Brown displays some remarkable control with material that could've been excessively maudlin in someone else's hands. He and screenwriters Helen Deutsch and Theodore Reeves take great care in establishing genuine characterizations and developing the story naturally. True, there are one or two scenes that seem a bit forced, but overall it's quite affecting, and gorgeously filmed in Technicolor. The race itself is quite thrilling, and like so many great classics, there's a marvelous, three-hankie fade-out at the end. Liz proves that she was a real trooper right from the start, and Rooney--who I usually find rather annoying--is surprisingly subdued and really very good. Donald Crisp is terrif as Liz's gruff father and Angela Lansbury is a delight as her older, boy-crazy sister. Most of the acting kudos, however, belong to Anne Revere, who won a richly deserved Supporting Actress Oscar playing Liz's wise and caring mother.

Dragon Fighter is the first Sci-Fi Channel (although I guess it's now called Syfy?) original movie I have ever seen. But I have seen one or two others since, and I can tell you that they were stupid, but this one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The CGI is done poorly, the acting is bad, the script is ridiculous, and what happens at the very end is unexpected and out of place (if you have seen Dragon Fighter, you probably know what I mean; I didn't want to put a spoiler in my review). Plus, there was this one musical tune that was used in pretty much every single dangerous sequence. That was really stupid; they just played it over and over. And it's definitely not original; I know I've heard that somewhere before (I just can't remember where). This is one to avoid.

"Gunga Din": one of the greatest adventure stories ever told! A story about the British Foreign legion in 19th century India and a lowly "water-bearer" named Gunga Din, a local denizen who aspires to be just like his military counterparts; three British sergeants whose loyalty and camaraderie for each other extend far beyond the bounds of mere patriotism. Their's is a true and abiding friendship for one another and each would be willing to sacrifice his own life for the good of the other. Gunga Din longs to be a soldier too, a Bugler in particular, but can never attain that rank due to his subordinate social standing. However, heroes are not made according to their social credentials, they're made through their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good of others. Gunga Din tries at every turn to prove his mettle, but will he ever attain the rank he so passionately seeks?...."You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din"! One of Hollywood's classics and a perfect 10!!!!

I first saw the film when it landed on US cable a year after it came out. It blew my little head away, I was only 16 and it was the first new wave music I'd heard, having been a strictly folky, classical kid growing up. The music mesmerized me, as did Hazel O'Connor's amazing look and charismatic vocal performances, and Phil Daniels' tough but soft Cockney manager just stole my heart. But I think my favorite character was Jonathan Pryce's drugged out sax player. He was so out of place in the band and so harmless and pathetic, he just begged for sympathy. Favorite scenes, the performance when the lights went out, and the love scene on the train.<br /><br />Okay, so the movie isn't the Rose! But it was really excellent for its limited budget and for its portrayal of the Britain of the early 80's, exploding with rebellious youth, looking for a way out of the dole queue. I went to Britain only a couple of years later and found the movie to have been very reflective of the atmosphere I found when I was there.<br /><br />If you get a chance to, see it. It is a great movie, with some wonderful performances, and the music will blow you away.<br /><br />

This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least.

This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash.

Movies like this one, and C.R.A.Z.Y., make me very sad for American films with a gay subject matter. With the exception of Parting Glances and Brokeback Mountain, there are few other notable American films with the kind of depth and sincerity as this movie, The Bubble. This movie centers on two men, Noam and Ashwar, an Israle and Palestinian respectively. Their relationship is complicated by the tension between the Jews and Arabs in Israel. Couples, in the early stages of their relationships will struggle with who will call who next, or who will say "I love you" first. Noam and Ashwar's early love is complicated by suicide bombings, armed security check points, and racism. While Noam's friends accept and like Ashwar, who is Arab, it is clear that most of Tel Aviv's citizens probably don't.<br /><br />One of the most touching moments, and there are many in this film, is when Noam and Ashwar attend a production of "Bent". We, as movie goers, see them watching this play, and the affect it has on the two of them is profoundly captured in their eyes. And ultimately, this touching moment is played out in a very sad way in the finale of the movie.<br /><br />Ohad Knoller and Youseff 'Joe' Sweid are outstanding as Noam and Ashwar. Director Eytan Fox is brilliant in creating a cogent and interesting retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet. And while most movies today have sex in them, (almost as a sport), this one goes back to the old tried and true version of sex with love and passion combined. It is so refreshing. Also refreshing is seeing two gay men being portrayed as people and not cartoons. There are cartoonish characters in this movie. It just doesn't happen to be the two gay guys for a change. Somewhere on this site I think I read a comparison between this movie and "Friends". Well, not really. Yes, these are youthful characters stumbling through their first uneasy steps into adulthood and relationships. But I don't recall getting "blowed up" as a backdrop to the insipid story lines in "Friends".<br /><br />This is a very good movie. It has heart, and heartbreak. And like all good love stories love does win out. But not in it's intact glory of full bloom . Still, it's a very satisfying movie to watch.

Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and – on top of that – it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended.

This movie is simply awesome. It is so hilarious. Although the skating and other montages are played out, the comedy is awesome. Raab Himself and Brandon Dicamillo are hilarious. There will be moments when you can't breath you're laughing so hard. Plus, there are scenes that you can watch hundreds of times and still laugh. This is one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen.

On its surface, this is one of the most classically entertaining action/comedy/romance films I've seen in a long time, reminding me of pleasurable old "Saturday-afternoon" movies that had just the right balance of unexpected twists, well-timed humor and integrated action. Beyond this, though, there is our knowledge of this film's context. It has the same elements of "Casablanca," but is set just before many of the characters would truly understand the seriousness of what was happening to their country (and the world) and the consequences of some of their own behavior. This adds a strong note of irony to the humor (we sense that one of the female characters has a radical change of hairstyle in her future). This is a film that you will not regret watching.

Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.

A lovely librarian, played by Playboy model Kristine DeBell, falls asleep and dreams herself into a strange world filled with extremely uninhibited people… These people love to sing and dance and fool around… Alice has a series of sensual adventures among these characters… <br /><br />The film was originally shot as a poem to eroticism with few explicit sex scenes, which were eventually cut from its theatrical release… Videocassette versions, however, have had some of the original erotic encounters joined at the end with them… <br /><br />For an extremely low-budget picture, the producers of this film did an extremely good job… The cinematography is full of life and energy, the dances and numbers quite professional, and the acting lovable… Without a doubt, it is one of the best adult fairy tales around…

One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.<br /><br />Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls – not women, girls – always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?<br /><br />Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.

After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, "journey is more important than the destination". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.<br /><br />Worst ending ever.

Having seen, and loved this film in Australia, I was very keen to get me paws on a copy. I got one on DVD back in the UK only to find that it's a very different edit.<br /><br />The domestic Australain edit I saw is snappier. The UK ,and I presume European, edits spends a lot longer on the narrator played by Jimmy's dead brother.And in truth belabours that and few other points to no real benefit.<br /><br />It is not a serious criticism, but the Oz edit is just brisker and I think more assured.<br /><br />I can't say why they felt it needed expansion for the overseas market?<br /><br />So careful about which one you go for.<br /><br />I went for both.

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*<br /><br />I thought Pitch Black to be quite enjoyable, with some nice effects--I liked the larger beasts, although they aren't a patch on the Aliens from the Alien series. It had quite a good atmosphere, which I felt Vin Diesel helped contribute toward.<br /><br />One thing which kind of stumped me was how it rained. If the planet has three suns and is in almost continuous daylight, where did the moisture come from to form clouds and therefore rain?<br /><br />I liked the fact that Fry died at the end--it reminded me of the New Hollywood films of the 1970s, with the main heroine not making it to the end.

"Cement" is a bad movie about a bad cop (Penn) with a bad attitude and a bad disposition who has a bad guy in a bad way up to his cajones in fast drying concrete. While we're waiting for the cement to dry and the film to figure out what it's about, we're periodically jerked back in time without rhyme or reason so we can watch events leading up to the cement thing. A boring junk flick overall, "Cement" suffers from lack of a story, a clumsy execution, and that most ubiquitous of filmdom's faults; no reason to care. A time killer for the needy couch potato at best. (D+)

This is simply the funniest movie I've seen in a long time. The bad acting, bad script, bad scenery, bad costumes, bad camera work and bad special effects are so stupid that you find yourself reeling with laughter.<br /><br />So it's not gonna win an Oscar but if you've got beer and friends round then you can't go wrong.

The first two-thirds of this biopic of fetish model Betty Page are very interesting. Betty, as portrayed with enormous sincerity by Gretchen Mol, comes across as a pleasant, girl-next-door type, who saw nothing wrong with what she did (and there certainly wasn't anything "wrong" with it). Director Mary Harron, who also made "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho", recreates Betty's America by mixing old black and white stock footage with new, degraded, black and white footage. Once Betty lands in Florida and starts working with Bunny Yeager, color is introduced. Betty's notoriety was mostly the result of her work with Paula and Irving Klaw (Lili Taylor, in a great performance, and Chris Bauer), as well as John Willie (Jared Harris). The scenes where Harron recreates Betty's bondage photography sessions are fascinating and adroitly executed. The early purveyors of fetish material are not portrayed too condescendingly and we get a sense that these folks were part of a tight "community". Betty never had too much of a problem with her notoriety, although we get the impression that her reputation prevented her from gaining legitimacy in the straight acting world. Because the film's third act is virtually non-existent, we are left with the impression that we have been watching a feature length documentary on Betty Page rather than a structured drama. Flaws aside, it's a film well worth catching and represents yet another fine feather in the cap of producer Christine Vachon.

This movie was unbelievably bad... It's gory but the violence is just too much to the point where it looks extremely fake and predictable. Since Everything is shown to you there is nothing left to the imagination. And the plot... what plot? There really isn't any! The pacing is unbelievably slow (despite the random acts of violence) and the screenplay must have been written by a deranged 12 year old kid who kills kittens for fun. So this movie was banned in 31 countries? I could see why... not because of the gore (boring and trite) but because it was a terrible movie. It should have been BANNED from existence. Avoid this one like the plague. 1 out of 10

...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his "masterpiece" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here.

I saw Borderline several years ago on AMC. I've been looking for it ever since. It was haunting: visual, textural, sensual. This movie took me somewhere like a dream and I didn't care where. I will never forget the curtain blowing in the breeze. I still remember the way it made me tilt my head. I remember my facial expression when I saw it. I didn't know what had happened when the movie was over, but I find life is that way. It didn't bother me. The unfairness of the ultimate rejection of an innocent character strikes me as sadly real. I loved the faces, the way the camera dwelt upon them. The camera gazed at the set with the unfocused eyes of a daydreamer. Borderline was real to me in a way movies aren't. It was exactly the lack of explanation, color, sharpness that made it enter my consciousness like a thief in the night. I love this movie. Someday I will own it.

This was absolutely one of the best movies I've seen. <br /><br />Excellent performances from a marvelous A-List cast that will move you from smiles to laughter to tears and back.<br /><br />I couldn't help but care about the characters. Ms. Merkerson will blow you away, as will the young man playing the young lead.<br /><br />I also thought that the set design was top-rate. The viewer is really placed inside each era as it's presented. <br /><br />The music is a blast, too. Nice selections to represent mood, time and place. The blind blues man is stereotypic but he delivers some great songs. <br /><br />This is a great story that will survive many repeated viewings. Take the time to watch it!

The most satisfying element about "Dan in Real Life" is that the relationship between Dan (Steve Carell) and Marie (Juliette Binoche) makes sense and is beautifully realistic. The casting of Oscar-winner Juliette Binoche as Dan's love interest was a superb decision; she is exceptionally talented, intelligent, naturally attractive and, thank goodness, appropriately aged for the part! Had this movie been made with Jessica Alba or Scarlett Johansson, it would have been a disaster.<br /><br />Another wonderful aspect about "Dan in Real Life" is that it is a perfect film for adults who are interested in a mature comedy that leaves out the three pillars of the "frat pack" formula: dumb chicks, chauvinistic guys, and sleazy jokes. "Dan in Real Life" is witty and has fun, intelligent laughs throughout. Whereas other comedies incorporate or are almost entirely based on jokes that shock the audience into laughing, the jokes from "Dan in Real Life" are more natural and clever, and involve some thinking on the part of the audience.<br /><br />My only problem with "Dan in Real Life" is that the rebellious, middle daughter is played too outrageously by actress Brittany Robertson. It's difficult to say if this was a personal choice on her part or a choice by the director. Either way, her character is unrealistic and annoying. But, this is only a minor flaw in the film, and does not take away from the story as a whole.<br /><br />All in all, "Dan in Real Life" is a great film, a fantastic escape from the redundancy of offensive and dumbed-down comedies. The quality of the writing, directing, acting, and (especially) cinematography is excellent. It is simply a beautiful, light-hearted comedy.

What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful. <br /><br />

If you've ever seen an eighties slasher, there isn't much reason to see this one. Originality often isn't one of slasher cinema's strongpoints, and it's something that this film is seriously lacking in. There really isn't much that can said about Pranks, so I'll make this quick. The film was one of the 74 films included on the DPP Video Nasty list, and that was my only reason for seeing it. The plot follows a bunch of kids that stay behind in a dorm at Christmas time. As they're in a slasher, someone decides to start picking them off and this leads to one of the dullest mysteries ever seen in a slasher movie. The fact that this movie was on the Video Nasty list is bizarre because, despite a few gory scenes, this film is hardly going to corrupt or deprave anyone, and gorier slashers than this (Friday the 13th, for example) didn't end up banned. But then again, there's banned films that are much less gory than this one (The Witch Who Came from the Sea, for example). Anyway, the conclusion of the movie is the best thing about it, as although the audience really couldn't care less who the assailant is by this point; it is rather well done. On the whole, this is a dreary and dismal slasher that even slasher fans will do well to miss.

Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.<br /><br />This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.<br /><br />There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.<br /><br />I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.

Remake of the classic 1951 "The Thing From Another World". 12 men are in a completely isolated station in Antartica. They are invaded by a thing from outer space--it devours and completely duplicates anything it chooses to. It starts off as a dog but gets loose--and has a chance to duplicate any of the men. Soon, nobody trusts anyone else--they're isolated--the radio is destroyed--their helicopter likewise. What are they going to do?<br /><br />The 1951 film had the thing just be a big, super human monster. That movie was scary. This one is too--but the story is different (and based more closely on the source material--the novelette "Who Goes There?") and it's scary in a different way. The movie starts right off with Ennio Morricone's extremely eerie score setting just the right tone and--when the Thing gets attacked--the amount of gore is astounding. There's blood and body parts flying all over--arms are bitten off, heads detach and--in the strongest one--one man is devoured face first by the Thing. The gore effects are STRONG and real nightmare material. I don't scare easy but I had to sleep with the lights on when I saw this originally back in 1982. Rob Bottin's effects are just incredible--how this picture got by with an R rating is beyond me!<br /><br />It also has a very creepy feel--gore aside, it is very suspenseful. You're not sure who is what and Carpenter's direction and the score really build up the tension. One complaint--no one is given any distinctive personality traits. They actors just remain straight-faced and say their lines. That's annoying...but the movie still works.<br /><br />This was a critical and commercial disaster in 1982--it competed with "E.T." and MANY critics complained about the amount of gore and there being no female characters in the movie. It's now considered one of John Carpenter's best. A must-see...for strong stomaches. NOT a date film!<br /><br />An amusing note: When this was released Universal sent a note along with all prints of the film. They suggested to theatre owners that they play the film in an auditorium near the rest rooms. They were afraid that people would be so sickened by the violence that they'd have to be close to a facility to throw up!

I didn't even watch this whole movie. Now, I like 50's sci-fi movies even when they are wildly inaccurate but this one just annoyed me. For one thing, one member of the crew on the spaceship talks and acts like he might have made it into the tenth grade. He sounds like he ought to be on a bowling league, not a space ship. Out the window of the spaceship the crew is marveling at Earth and this boob says 'Can you see Brooklyn?' and another guy says 'Sure'. And the boob says 'Gee, I wonder who's pitching?' Pardon me a moment, I think my sides are splitting.<br /><br />When they first get up into orbit the boob says 'The moon is just for looking at! Take me back down!' Watching the crew making stretched mouths and screaming from the G-forces of acceleration during takeoff is also not one of the better moments of the film. (Perhaps the film's best moment can be identified by a big "THE END" on the screen.)<br /><br />We also find out that they can't open the hatch because 'the boob' greased it before they took off. Sure, a space vehicle is going to be 'greased' by a member of the crew, who we later learn has never even had a space suit on before and doesn't know anything about zero gravity. As Baby Huey the overgrown fat cartoon duck once said, "That sounds logical!" The no-gravity-in-space effects are so bad it's painful to watch. (Everyone knows, in the absence of gravity, everything tends to go UP.)<br /><br />How this movie gets 6.3 stars out of 10, when other vastly superior films don't rate any higher, is a mystery to me. I really do like old sci-fi movies but this one is not realistic, and the lame attempts at character humor by throwing in that boob from a gas station grease pit does not work at all - it just ruins the movie. I think in retrospect it's not the whole movie I hate so much as the fact that 'the boob' is so obviously not someone who would be on a space ship - not even to 'grease the hatch.' OMG. I wonder if he checked the fan belts too. Maybe if they'd left 'the boob' off the trip it might not have been QUITE so excruciating. Even so, it's only average. What everyone else is raving about, I don't know.<br /><br />You want to watch a neat 1950's space movie? 'Rocketship X-M' beats it all to heck. Maybe not so much 'realism' but a more serious story and less goofy characters.

In the periphery of São Paulo, the very low middle-class dysfunctional and hypocrite family of Teodoro (Giulio Lopes), Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and the teenager Soninha (Sílvia Lourenço) have deep secrets. The religious Teodoro is indeed a hit-man, hired to kill people in the neighborhood with his friend Waldomiro (Ailton Graça). He has a lover, the very devout woman Terezinha (Martha Meola), and he wants to regenerate, going to the country with her. Cláudia has a young lover, Júlio (Ismael de Araújo), who delivers meats for his father's butcher shop. Soninha is a common sixteen years old teenager of the periphery, having active sexual life, smoking grass and loving heavy metal. When Júlio is killed and castrated in their neighborhood, the lives of the members of the family change.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" is a great low budget Brazilian movie that pictures the life in the periphery of a big Brazilian city. The story is very real, uses the usual elements of the poor area of the big Brazilian cities (drug dealers, hit men, fanatic religious evangelic people, hopeless teenagers etc.), has many plot points and a surprising end, and the characters have excellent performances, acting very natural and making the story totally believable. The camera follows the characters, giving a great dynamics to the film. In the Extras of the DVD, the director Roberto Moreira explains that his screenplay had no lines, only the description of the situations, and was partially disclosed only one week before the beginning of the shootings. The actors have trainings in workshops and they used lots of improvisation, being the reason for such natural acting. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Contra Todos" ("Against Everybody")

This film is a huge steaming pile. <br /><br />I have no idea why anyone felt that the Garland/Mason version needed to be redone, nor why Striesand would have been a first choice to star.<br /><br />For that matter, I have no idea why our people (Gay Americans) tend largely to regard Striesand as some kind of treasure. At least in my opinion, she had peaked professionally with with Funny Girl, and Bogdanovich's What's Up Doc. <br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the Judy classic, or even the original (a fine film in its own right), but please, Please, PLEASE skip this stinkpot!

Despite the lack of logic present in the storyline, Kill Shot is a highly enjoyable film. Through a moving performance Kasper Van Dien brilliantly portrays the emotional rift between a hard working wealthy father and his misguided son. Each member of the supporting cast pitches in with a solid performance, highlighted by the vivid acting of a young asian man whose name I cannot recall. A shockingly tragic ending may unnerve some younger viewers, but as a whole Kill Shot truly delivers a death blow.

Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that.

Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for?

I really truly enjoyed this movie. (Which is why it surprised me that it got such a low rating from so many users at this site!) I am not saying that it is a cinematic masterpiece but it was a great way to spend a cold, snowy Saturday night. It is funny, poignant, and a great tales of the ups and downs of female friendships lasting through difficult times and the bad things that female friends tend to do to each others! (fess up ladies, we have ALL BEEN THERE!) Bill Paterson shines as the Reverand Gerald Marsden and Andie McDowell proves that she can be a fine actress when the role is right and she puts her mind to it. (And truly, there is the best "wedding escape" that I have ever seen or dreamed up in this film ... more guts than anyone I have ever known!) You will laugh and you will cry --- ignore any marketing campaigns and how this film is being marketing .... it is a hidden gem that should have done TONNES of box office. (now I have to look around to purchase a copy!)

<br /><br />Summary: Not worth the film<br /><br />As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.<br /><br />

Working in a music store, my collegue first tipped me this soundtrack. The music of this movie is perfect. One of my favorite CD's. Only years later I saw the movie, I was afraid it would not fulfill my high expectations, luckily it did. A feel good romantic love story.

Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.<br /><br />But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).<br /><br />Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.<br /><br />The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.

What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.<br /><br />The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.<br /><br />The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.

I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.<br /><br />It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.<br /><br />Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.<br /><br />Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number. <br /><br />When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.<br /><br />The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.<br /><br />Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.<br /><br />P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.<br /><br />The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.<br /><br />Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more?

A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Blade Runner, Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow – if you are a fan of any of these then this will be well worth checking out.<br /><br />French animation project 'Renaissance' took seven years to make on a shoestring budget and tonight I finally got to see it at a private screening for the International Film Festival in Stockholm. My spontaneous reaction is awe; my further reflection is 'huh, neat' and closer analysis regrettably gets a resounding 'meh'. It is a gorgeous science fiction triumph on the surface, but scratch it or even poke it a little and its unnecessarily complex plot becomes glaringly apparent, as do the flat characters. <br /><br />Nevertheless it is clear that the people at Onyx films have done something spectacular with the aforementioned surface. The visuals are staggering. They have used live action motion capture fitted into key-frame animation, with stark jet black and bright white contrasts and a heavily shadowed rotoscoped background. For those of you who are not down with the 'technical lingo', the film looks like a fully-animated Sin City. Its fluid, transparent, dark and stylized template is complemented by great lurid lightning. It's a vision. Yet much credit is also due to the crisp sound effects that take the form of humming futuristic weapons, suspenseful music, heavy raindrops and glass shards breaking. It's every tech-nerd's wet dream...<br /><br />The film zooms in on an eerily-lit, bleak, futurescape Paris in which a major corporation called 'Avalon' has begun to interweave in the lives of the citizens with surveillance (think the fluid transparent screens from Minority Report) and genetic engineering. The latter leads to a mysterious kidnapping of young researcher Ilona (voiced by the lovely Romola Garai). Cut to our hard-boiled cop-on-suspension and protagonist Karas (Daniel Craig) – a man who takes the law into his own hands – who is assigned the case of finding and retrieving Ilona. During this case, he is being aided by Illona's sister with whom he also begins a love affair. A very half-assed love affair, if I may say so.<br /><br />The world of Renaissance is remarkable. Director Christian Volckman takes a fair jab at melting the noir themes and the result is an urban jungle filled with cads, rats, femme fatales and lonely detectives that hide in the shadows of the seedy slum. The problem is that the creators undoubtedly felt the need to have extremely clear and spelled-out archetypes in the story, or the film would have been "too surreal" for mainstream audiences, owing to its lurid animation format. It follows then that we have a multitude of clichéd characters such as evil-laughing villains, sleazy crime bosses and butch tough-chicks who blow smoke every chance they get. It shoves noir in our faces, and it isn't necessary.<br /><br />What is worse is that the dialogue is a little contrived. It seems as though every line exists for the sole reason of propelling the plot. This is nothing fatal because the plot is so complex once it gets going that it needs some clear direction. Daniel Craig helps here too by bringing a no-nonsense attitude to his hard-edged cop character. At one point in Renaissance, he is seen in a vivid car-chase that surely is one of the most adrenaline-pumping and top notch sequences of the film. Unfortunately, the novelty of the sci-fi visuals have worn off post this car chase and 'Renassaince' could benefit from being slightly shorter. In summary, a very interesting but flawed futuristic comic book experience.<br /><br />7 out of 10

There is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as "not getting it." Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.<br /><br />I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.<br /><br />For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.<br /><br />Rating: 2 out of ten

I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.<br /><br />Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.<br /><br />I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.<br /><br />Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.<br /><br />Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.<br /><br />But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.<br /><br />There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.<br /><br />Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.<br /><br />OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.<br /><br />Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.<br /><br />This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.<br /><br />I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.

I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and really didn't begin to love the show until Season 4 started. This episode "Hush" was view by me alone in the dark just after Midnight with my windows open and the wind blowing through furiously by an after storm. The writers of this episode did an excellent job scaring the heck out of me. I was in awe the entire episode which I just finished 2 minutes ago. Amazing doesn't touch the surface of what this episode accomplishes with almost no dialogue. If you've never given this show much thought at least watch this episode. If this doesn't impress you then no episode probably will.<br /><br />BTW My Heart is still racing...

"Der Todesking" is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry… Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous "Nekromantik", exists of seven short episodes – one for each day of the week – revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, "Der Todesking" is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, "Der Todesking" isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful – but also indispensable – aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too!

I recently rented this promising mini series, I didn't even know they had adapted it for television. I was really looking forward to it since the book Icon is one of the best spy thrillers I have ever read. What a disappointment it was. The plot only loosely resembles the one in the book, the characters are completely miscast and there's some appalling acting. A shame really. The story behind Icon is perfect for the silver screen, but I think television budgets just aren't big enough for a decent adaptation of this spectacular book.<br /><br />Forsyth deserves much, much better than this. Avoid and stick to the book, which is a must-read.

Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.

The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.

8 days no script that's what the DVD tells you is how the movie was made. It's shot in blurry video that's occasionally used to good effect, but it's really partially naked women sitting around in a room for most of the running time. It is very well acted and this helps a lot. But the killer only shows up once in a long time and the girls/women sit and mope they don't try to escape or do anything too interesting, so the whole thing grinds to a stand still after about 20 minutes. Would have been a good short maybe even powerful. Even for eight days they do very little. Why? Because they had no script. How many movies have been made without scripts. Not too many. I wonder why that is? How many great movies have been made from bad scripts. Not too many. Why is that? Working against this major problem, the direction tries and does some interesting things but with what is essentially nothing. Topless girls shot in dark grainy colorless video sitting around will keep some going for a while but not for the short but too long feature length. Actors again deserve praise, if only there was a script.<br /><br />Also the video quality, or lack thereof, is really low end, they try to use it to advantage and at times some shots look they are from Miami Vice, the recent movie that is. But that's not intended to compliment Miami Vice or this failed venture.

"In April 1946, the University of Chicago agreed to operate Argonne National Laboratory, with an association of Midwestern universities offering to sponsor the research. Argonne thereby became the first "national" laboratory. It did not, however, remain at its original location in the Argonne forest. In 1947, it moved farther west from the "Windy City" to a new site on Illinois farmland. When Alvin Weinberg visited Argonne's director, Walter Zinn, in 1947, he asked him what kind of reactor was to be built at the new site. When Zinn described a heavy-water reactor operating at one-tenth the power of the Materials Testing Reactor under design at Oak Ridge, Weinberg joked it would be simpler if Zinn took the Oak Ridge design and operated the Materials Testing Reactor at one-tenth capacity. The joke proved unintentionally prophetic."<br /><br />The S-50 plant used convection to separate the isotopes in thousands of tall columns. It was built next to the K-25 power plant, which provided the necessary steam. Much less efficient than K-25, the S-50 plant was torn down after the war.<br /><br />Concerned that the Atomic Energy Commission research program might become too academic, Lilienthal established a committee of industrial advisers, and during a November visit to Oak Ridge, he discussed with Clark Center, manager of Carbide & Carbon, a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation at Oak Ridge, the possibility of the company assuming management of the Laboratory.<br /><br />Prince Henry (of Prussia) Arriving in Washington and Visiting the German Embassy (1902). Evidently, with Prince Henry of Prussia according to the principles of science and its dangers their were already concerns with the applications of new science with military applications. The Hohenzollern (1902/II), "Kaiser Wilhelm's splendid yacht at the 34th St. Pier, New York. Taken at the exact moment of Prince Henry's arrival, and the raising of the royal standard." If Royalty knew of these necessary precautions to citizen welfare then what was the necessity of the warfare WWI and WWII. The quality of management control I presume?<br /><br />Thus, did the commandos of Operation Swallow volunteer for a military mission, or a business plan, based on the security principles of Laboratory management? Because supposedly their were no survivors, and the ones who were caught in Europe ordered to be executed. Of the 400 man commando team the survivors who were captured were executed under orders of the German Army against subversion, and espionage acts of the State of Germany. <br /><br />The Führer No. 003830/42 g. Kdos. OKW/WFSt, Führer HQ, 18 Oct. 1942, (signed) Adolph Hitler; Translation of Document no. 498-PS, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, certified true copy Kipp Major, declassified DOD 5200.30 March 23, 1983, reproduced at the U.S. National Archives.<br /><br />The OSS Society® 6723 Whittier Ave., 200 McLean, VA 22101

Interesting concept that just doesn't make it. I watched the whole movie, but had to read IMDb comments to find out what Code 46 meant. If/when it was explained in the film, I must have been in a coma, or possibly brain-dead by then. I only watched it for Tim Robbins. The fact that I did not know any of the other actors should have been a tip-off. We all have to start somewhere, but this film should not be it. As to the 'anti empathy virus virus'-Holy Utility Belt, Batman! Where were The Joker, The Riddler, etc? Also, why are the women all so damned ugly? If I want to see less-than-plain stick-figures, I'll just walk down the street. The best part of the film was the car crash. It was totally believable, and not over-the-top like most movie crashes.

This has to be the worst movie i've seen this year.. and i watch a lot of cable. The plot is just ridiculous, the scenes are just thrown at you with no action, no start or ending of any scene.. it's just random idiots with make-up that scream in some plane.. The "special effects" ( Spielberg would laugh his ass off ) are horrible, the yellow eye contact lenses are cute though.. I have to admin that i couldn't bear to watch it to the end. The scene where the great scientist Bennett was holding for dear life by the engine body was too much for me.. I'm sorry for my bad English.. i am from Romania ( and this is my first post ). I had to sign up just to make a comment on this movie because i just can't believe that this is a movie released in 2007.

Chen Kaige gives us magnificent depth of atmosphere. Yes, it's a 'period piece', but Chen's artistic use of imagery makes it something more. The actors often behave like players using the stylized diction, postures and facial expressions of Peking Opera. All the actors in a scene play to the 'back wall' even when addressing each other. They are like spirits of the past enunciating with powerful clarity a story with urgent meaning for those in the present. Combined with close attention to scale and masterful cinematography indoors and out, "Jing ke ci qin wang" is a stunning tale told with great reverence in its own idiom that captivates completely.

Corben Bernsen directed horror film about a chemical weapon being released in a sporting event and turning everyone in to insane monsters. We watch as the staff at a radio station takes reports.<br /><br />Its has moments but mostly it plays like a Lifetime horror movie with breasts and blood. There are some really good ideas here, but they just don't work. Actually the film's ideas are better handled in a film called Pontypool which pretty much works all the way through and builds tension by not showing us anything. This shows us stuff and it just seems cheap. Given the choice I'd watch Pontypool again rather than watch this film again.

This film was seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.<br /><br />And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.<br /><br />When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.<br /><br />This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.

While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved.<br /><br />"Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide")

Horrendous pillaging of a classic.<br /><br />It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.<br /><br />It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.

End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.<br /><br />That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.<br /><br />I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:<br /><br />(SPOILER)<br /><br />After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?<br /><br />Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name "Christine York" after examining the phrase "Christ in New York" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.<br /><br />All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?<br /><br />The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.<br /><br />As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and *falls on it* physically.<br /><br />The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.<br /><br />How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.<br /><br />In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.<br /><br />Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?<br /><br />Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like "YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line "You're the luggage!".<br /><br />The whole theory about 666/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire. <br /><br />(END SPOILERS)<br /><br />It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.<br /><br />Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />