Datasets:

mushroomsolutions

/

imdb_sentiment_3000_Test

like 0

Follow

Mushroom Solutions 2

I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.<br /><br />It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black<br /><br />Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10. <br /><br />''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now''

Soderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the get-go. The term "star-vehicle" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on, this will make your day.

I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.<br /><br />No way could I recommend this mess.

I thought it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle "Coxism State" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was "Diner" by Martin Sexton.

I have always liked this comedy as one of the few ever seriously trying to deal with the U.S. Government's yearly demand for taxes. Ever read a tax code?: it is quite a trial to follow it's multiple clauses that our congressmen and senators push in to help their financial backers and various interest groups. Despite claims that it is fair, the tax code has always laid the lion share of the burden on the middle and working classes rather than the rich and influential. Most of the various special clauses are meant for their use - go through the average 1040 or 1040A form and look at the variety of different investment and business ventures all of which have a different set of rules. Most people will never have any use for these.<br /><br />The story here is that a wealthy landowner (Philip Ober) uses his influence to tip off the IRS that his neighbors (Paul Douglas and Una Merkle) have not payed taxes in 20 years. The Baltimore office of the IRS is under Fred Clarke, and he is snapping to attention for Ober with his influence. He sends Tony Randall to check out the situation.<br /><br />Randall finds that Douglas, Merkle, and their three girls and two boys are pretty decent people, who rarely have need for cash (they get along on their farm produce and barter with their neighbors). But Randall, trained in the clear (to the IRS) lines of the tax code tries to pin down the family to fundamentals. But gradually Douglas notes that Reynolds is fond of Randall, and he keeps sidetracking Randall from his chore, eventually getting him drunk. He also makes it difficult for Randall to leave by having the motor of his car removed "for repairs" by his two sons.<br /><br />The plot follows the growing attraction and frictions between urban, vaguely ambitious Randall, and countryside, life loving Reynolds. They make a cute couple actually. Eventually, after Ober complains, Randall is sent back in disgrace and Clarke (a tougher cookie) gets down to brass tacks. And comes up with a very large tax bill, that will possibly ruin Douglas's family.<br /><br />The film does not end there - it does end happily, but it does remind us that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and that the Government does, all too frequently, go in for destruction. A chance in a million reversal saves the family, but it is so rare that we know it is just a dramatic trick. More realistic is how Clarke's boss, (Charles Lane) cuts to the essence regarding Ober's "help" by suggesting that next year his taxes will be looked at more carefully. After that Ober is rather green.

I'll keep this short, as I know I don't need to say much.<br /><br />"Alive" is a strange little film that obviously appeals to some, but I found it to be shockingly bland from almost the very beginning. The film did very little to make any of the characters likable and the story at times became so convoluted that I completely lost interest. As I said, I know others enjoyed it, but I found Kitamura's "Alive" to be anything but - a lame, extremely boring drama disguised as a thought-provoking action sci-fi flick. I felt like I was suckered into watching this film, based by its intriguing premise and uber-exciting cover art.<br /><br />My suggestion? Pass it up for Kitamura's far more enjoyable freshman effort "Versus" or his 2004 riot "Godzilla: Final Wars".<br /><br />...And don't get me wrong, I'm always up for a good thinking man's film, but this certainly wasn't it. There was nary a moment that I actually cared about a single event taking place in this overly-preachy, dialogue-heavy movie.<br /><br />If you wanna talk about something... talk about boring.

Bullets may not have bounced off his chest, but The Lone Ranger was every bit the symbolic icon to me as my other boyhood hero - Superman. He represented truth, justice and the American way in a classic TV Western setting, living by the principle that he would never use his gun to kill, while scouring the American Southwest with his faithful Indian companion Tonto to bring every single outlaw to justice. The advent of TV provided the perfect opportunity for a post War generation to find it's ideal in an enigmatic masked man who stood for law and order, while providing unparalleled entertainment for five seasons spanning almost eight years.<br /><br />Today I had the opportunity to view for the first time the complete three part origin episodes start to finish without the standard opening and closing sequences to interrupt the continuity of the story. For fans of the Ranger, this is the grand daddy of all Western sagas, telling as it does how Texas Ranger John Reid survived the ambush by the Butch Cavendish Gang, and how he was nursed back to health by an Indian friend from his childhood. Tonto (Jay Silverheels) declares his companion a 'trusty scout', and names him Kemo-sabe. I've read various interpretations of the origin of the term Kemo-sabe, but I'm satisfied with Tonto's explanation. Reading too much into it just detracts from the story, just like the English translation of 'tonto' from Spanish, which I won't reveal, because it's just better not to know if you can help it.<br /><br />I thought it quite clever how the origin story created the mystique of the Lone Ranger, like the sixth grave that created the illusion that all the Rangers died in the box canyon ambush. You never see the face of the man who becomes the Lone Ranger, as it's always turned away or obscured to hide his real identity. Even the origin of Silver is handled brilliantly; the voice of the story's narrator describing the wild stallion's sterling qualities. Would that relate, say, to sterling..., silver? I got the biggest kick out of that.<br /><br />Of course with the passage of time, watching the Lone Ranger episodes today offers a view of how unsophisticated the show was beyond the origin story. Some of them are almost embarrassingly goofy, particularly when it comes to a Lone Ranger showdown when he shoots into the middle of a crowd of bad guys to knock a gun out of it's owner's hand. And how about that little wave he gives to Tonto whenever they're about to ambush the bad guys - it's always the same gesture, but Tonto always knows what it means in different circumstances. Then you have the episodes where Clayton Moore takes off the Ranger mask to don a different disguise to impersonate another character in service to the story. He even went under cover once as an actor portraying President Abraham Lincoln to uncover a villain, top hat and all!<br /><br />Few fans that I come across ever know that actor John Hart replaced Clayton Moore for the 1952/53 season in a contract dispute that Moore had with the show's producers. If you ever saw that "Happy Days" episode where Fonzie idolizes his boyhood hero, you'll notice it was John Hart listed in the credits. It's difficult actually, to tell if you're watching a Hart episode or not, the key is to listen to the voice; Moore's is so distinctive that it's a dead giveaway.<br /><br />If you ever get the chance to sample some of the final season color episodes, you're in for a treat. The renditions I've seen on VHS are absolutely gorgeous, although I don't know if commercial prints are available. Most of the black and white episodes around have been re-packaged by any number of distributors in different configurations, so getting your hands on those should be no problem. The must see of course is the three part origin, and if you don't watch anything else, this gives you all the flavor and excitement you need to capture the imagination of one of the West's most famous heroes. Hi-Yo Silver, Awaaaay!

This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.<br /><br />Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.<br /><br />His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.<br /><br />The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.<br /><br />Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.<br /><br />The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences.

Another silent love triangle film from Hitchcock, not a mystery, but very English, very well-paced and photographed. Smooth boxer Bob Corby (Ian Hunter) recruits circus boxer "One Round" Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) to be his sparring partner, partly to keep the pretty but fickle Mabel (Lilian Hall-Davis) nearby. There are lots of character actors and grotesques—at Jack and Mabel's wedding the verger, standing in the aisle of the church, registers shock at the sight of the very tall and the very short men, the fat lady, the conjoined twins who, of course, argue about which side of the aisle to sit, and the wedding feast is amusing. The rest of the movie has Jack losing Mabel and boxing his way back to her heart, or something like that. It was another era altogether, with the audience in evening dress, and the boxers dressing up, too, when out of the ring. The camera angles, the pace, the use of symbols, the cutting—all very stylish and masterful. The camera-work and editing of the last boxing match is very gripping. Brisson's good looks are well-used in this one; his smiling is not so oblivious of what's going on around him as he is in Hitchcock's The Manxman, and so is not annoying. But can boxers have such dimples?

I love the first and third Beastmasters, but this one was an abomination. It was almost as horrible as 'The Never Ending Story 3', for the same reasons. They took a fascinating fantasy world of Barbarian tribes, farming villages, witches, supernatural creatures, and a cult of religious fanatics using a pyramid; and thought it would be funny to mix in our materialistic pop-culture world of rock & roll, sushi (I think thats what it was), and flashy sports cars. These two worlds do not belong together. I do not want to see a bunch of ancient barbarian looking people dancing to some rock song on the car radio. I have a sense of humor, but this is just stupid. This is what Hollywood does to good fantasy movies when they run out of ideas. Don't give up though, the Eye of Braxus is much, much better. That one I gave a 10. This one, Portal of Time, I give a 1. Believe me, I don't always give such extremely high or low ratings. I just tend to comment only such movies.

Well, this latest version of Mansfield Park seemed to try and take the edginess of the 1999 theatrical version (outright copied some of the ideas from it in fact), but tone things down a bit to bring it more in line with the original story. Unfortunately, the result is a rather lackluster, and schizophrenic, production. And, as with all the other versions of Mansfield Park out there, the character of Fanny Price is no where to be found. Instead there is a strangely child-like, bleached-blond woman running around who never really fully develops as a character. At least in the 1999 movie the character they call "Fanny Price" is firmly established as rebellious tomboy who is too clever for her own good. This "Fanny Price" is a complete enigma. Someday, I would really like to see a dramatization of Mansfield Park that actually includes a depiction of the character of Fanny as she was written by Jane Austen. A sweet, kind, compassionate girl with a timid personality and frail constitution. She is reserved in manner and painfully honest, but also strong in her convictions, unfailingly loyal, extremely intelligent, and remarkably astute. A bit of a late bloomer, it is not until her eighteenth year that she finally begins to make the transition from awkward adolescent to self-possessed young woman. And she wants nothing more in life than to be of some real use to those she loves most. It's a wonderfully complex character that I look forward to one day seeing faithfully portrayed.

Disney might just be on to something here. First, they had "Remember the Titans" with Denzel, a story based on truth involving sports and a small town in middle America. Now, with Quaid and The Rookie... yet another sports story based on truth.<br /><br />Both movies move you to tears at times, and both make you smile and feel all warm after seeing them. My wife and I took in The Rookie and we expected it to be a great feel good type movie. We were not let down, when asked if we'd be buying this on DVD when it comes out, it was a no-brainer. Most definately.

This show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.<br /><br />None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!<br /><br />If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.

The main attraction of Anywhere but Here is the superb performance of Natalie Portman. She gave her rather thankless character a lot of much-appreciated emotional depth. Susan Sarandon, a fine actress, is suitably sincere as the mother figure. I thought the chemistry between the two stars was believable, a chemistry that could have been developed more with a more involving script. I am not saying the script was bad in any way, I am just saying it seemed underdeveloped at times. I don't think it was the script writer's fault. The film did suffer from being overlong, and became sometimes unfocused in the longer scenes. The film does look beautiful, with some good direction and excellent performances. All in all, watchable certainly, but maybe more for an older audience. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.<br /><br />Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!<br /><br />Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.<br /><br />Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.

This movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow? <br /><br />There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying "here" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?

To identify this movie as a vampire movie would be technically correct. Simply because it will suck the life right out of you.<br /><br />Vampire Effect is an insult to movie-buffs everywhere. The plot is almost non-existent. The make-up is just plain awful. And the acting is just not there.<br /><br />I have to wonder if Jackie Chan owed someone a huge favor to be convinced to appear in this film.<br /><br />My wife picked up the movie at the rental store because it had a picture of Jackie Chan on the front (as though he was playing the lead) and thought that a good JC flick would be fun to watch. This movie was interesting to watch in the same way that you can't help staring at the car wreck when you drive by. You realize very quickly the movie isn't going to get any better but, you keep watching wonder just how bad it will get.

The film is partly a thriller and partly a public-service announcement when seeing the events through the perspectives of politicians, terrorists and of course victims. In this smart drama lessons are given about contamination and surviving chaos while meantime the backstage look at the way crisis is managed prompts viewers to distrust guardians and to be scared by assailants. The film, originally aired on BBC, gets to arouse effectively doubts on official prepareparedness. Performances are proper, understated though never terrific. The flick is just a beginning, a provocative start leading to a larger discussion but it gets to work in my opinion, giving the right thrills and causing the audience to reason and to ask itself questions.

I am oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby.

TROMEO & JULIET - 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION<br /><br />William Shakespeare's play Romeo & Juliet has been interpreted hundreds of times on stage and in films. Sometimes literally following the original text (which is, at times, vague in stage directions), sometimes in new interpretations where directors chose to show their own view on the piece. Some are good, many are mediocre. Lloyd Kaufman's film certainly stands out as one of the most original, modern versions of the bard's creation, It may be placed in a modern-day decaying New York and full of the modern-day anti-social behavior, body piercing, dismemberment and kinky sex (which, for the more than casual reader, Shakespeare himself wasn't shying away from), but at the same time it stays incredibly close to the overall feel and point of what the play is all about, which is quite an effort. Kaufman wrote the script with his co-director on the film James Gunn, who is now famous for writing two successful Scooby Doo movies, doing the impossible by making a perfect remake of an already perfect film with his script for Dawn of the Dead and directing one of the best horror-films of the year: Slither. Lloyd Kaufmans innovative directorial view alongside with James Gunns original and unrestricted writing make for an interpretation of Shakespeare's play that maybe not everyone will "get" immediately, but will certainly be recognized by a truly unique and highly important view on a classic play. With a script that is written entirely in iambic meter, appearances of Motorhead's Lemmy and an outrageous forceful soundtrack watching Tromeo & Juliet is something no one will ever forget. Apart from it's historical significance, Tromeo & Juliet is a treasure for film-lovers of all kind. Not only for the script by James Gunn, now a good influence on Hollywood while working from the inside, but also because it features an early part of legendary actress Debbie Rochon. Well known by everyone familiar with films that are made on lower budgets. The 10th anniversary edition on DVD adds to all that by including so many as-yet undiscovered gems that not only all the information one could wish for about the film itself and the experience of making it is presented in ways that make it impossible to turn off the DVD, but also a very honest (and disturbing) look is given into the ways independent cinema has to surviver these days. In many ways the extra's on the disc are an invaluable addition to the already impressive amount given on Kaufman's film-school "Make Your Own Damn Movie". Furtermore historical items from the Troma vaults which include James Gunn, Debbie Rochon and all other contributors to this masterpiece are included, and the film itself is, apart from looking better then ever, accompanied by no less than four audio-commentaries, each and everyone informative, excruciatingly funny and all done for serious addition to the film instead of the boring and nonsensical commentaries that are so common these days. There are new commentaries (one with Kaufman and Gunn together), but also the one James Gunn did for the original release of the DVD but couldn't be included there for some of honesty he displays about some other people is present on this disc. With fan-recreations of a few of the scenes from the film, a video diary of Lloyd Kaufman's visit to the set of James Gunn's Slither and a visit the two brought together to Eli Roth's Hostel Birthday party and much more, this is the ultimate set everyone must own. Weather you are a film historian, someone interested in interpretations of the great Bard's work, a fan of great cinema, a fighter for independent cinema, a fan of James Gunn, interested in learning more on making films on a low budget, a fan of Lloyd Kaufman or whatever: this is the most important DVD-release of this millennium!

It's not often that a TV series grabs me right off the bat; a recent chance download of the pilot for Surface had me glued to my seat for the entirety of the episode, after which I immediately set out on a fevered search to learn everything I could about this wonderful series. To my chagrin, I found out it had been canceled after a mere 15 episodes, despite its strong ratings and extremely favorable reviews. Such a shame.<br /><br />Since then, I've acquired the remaining episodes, and found the first 5 or 6 to be among the best television I've EVER watched. Just fantastic from start to finish, and as another reviewer commented, I LOVED how they ended every episode with a huge finish. I imagine watching it each week I would've been screaming with tension and just captivated, desperately waiting for the next episode to be released. Growing up, I always heard that was how early serial movies used to do it, ending with a huge cliffhanger to get the crowds back into the theater for the next episode.<br /><br />Well, it seems for some reason or another the suits decided to kill this off, and apparently the people behind the show must've seen the writing on the wall, because after episode 6 things definitely take a turn for the worse. I wouldn't say the episodes actually become BORING but a lot of the plot elements become a bit more clichéd, and I've got to say, the final episode really left me feeling cheated. I just wish the show's creators were given a fair chance. The *ONLY* other show that left me feeling like that was the first season of Stargate SG-1, which just resonated tremendously, feeling very "true", soulful and made from the heart. Surface was a great series, and maybe one day, some well-heeled TV lover will see all the outpouring of emotion about the show's cancellation, and bring back this show. One can hope, at least. :)

This film was great! I love the way it mixes dark humor with drama. There are times when you think there is no possible way you could laugh at the situation presented, and yet you experience a surprising giggle. It is wonderfully acted, with great performances by Sigourney Weaver, Jeff Daniels, and Emile Hirsch. It is well written with a stylish, surprising ending. I'm not one to say that everyone will like it as much as I did, but give it a chance and rent it. The DVD has great special features, including full-length commentaries by director, Dan Harris and Emile Hirsch and one by Sigourney Weaver, that give you interesting information about the film. I hope my comment is helpful, and that you enjoy the movie!

the acting is good.thats the positives out of the way! SOSN is shallow and superficial.Almost all the characters are middle class and English.The gay men are depicted as fickle sexual predators aiming to use children in their empty lives.This film could only appeal to people who know hampstead heath and would get minor satisfaction from pointing out any landmarks.There is no time to engage with the characters and has a result you really don,t care about them,Catherine Tate at the height of her comedic fame stars as a woman seeking a divorce from her husband and on screen for about the same time as her Nana sketches failed to convince,however if she had said "what a f****** liberty" i would have agreed <br /><br />I'd rather take a walk in the Park;unintelligent rubbish!

Watching Cliffhanger makes me nostalgic for the early '90s, a time when virtually every new action movie could be described as "Die Hard in a /on a." Cliffhanger is "Die Hard on a mountain," and pretty good, for what it is.<br /><br />But unlike Passenger 57 and Under Siege, which are decent Die Hard clones on their own terms, Cliffhanger dispenses with the enclosed feeling of many action movies and embraces breathtaking landscapes that, in their immensity, threaten to overwhelm and trivialize the conflicts of the people fighting and dying among the peaks.<br /><br />Years before other movies like A Simple Plan and Fargo dramatized crime and murder on snowbound locations, Cliffhanger director Renny Harlin recognized the visual impact of juxtaposing brutal violence and grim struggles to survive against cold and indifferent natural surroundings.<br /><br />The opening sequence has already received substantial praise, all of which it deserves: its intensity allows us to forget the artifice of the camera and the actors and simply believe that what we are seeing is actually happening. Not even Harlin's shot of the falling stuffed animal, which is powerfully effective but still threatens to become too much of a joke (and which he repeated in Deep Blue Sea), or the ridiculous expression on Ralph Waite's face, can dim the sequence's power.<br /><br />The next impressive set-piece is the gunfight and heist aboard the jet. As written by Stallone and Michael France and directed by Harlin, the audience is plunged into the action by not initially knowing which agents are involved in the theft and which are not: the bloody double-crosses are completely unexpected. As Roger Ebert has observed, the stuntman who made the mid-air transfer between the planes deserves some special recognition.<br /><br />Later, during the avalanche sequence, one of the terrorists/thieves appears to be actually falling as the wall of snow carries him down the mountain. So far as I know, no one was killed in the making of this movie (a small miracle, considering the extreme nature of some of the stunts), so obviously a dummy was used for the shot. But the shot itself remains impressive because we're left wondering how Harlin (or more likely one of the second-unit directors) knew exactly where to place the camera.<br /><br />I'll take Sly Stallone as my action hero any day of the week, because he's one of the few movie stars I've ever seen who's completely convincing as someone who can withstand a lot of physical and emotional pain, and at the same time actually feels that pain. The role of Gabe Walker really complements Stallone's acting strengths: he plays an older, more vulnerable kind of action hero, giving an impressively low-key performance as a mountain rescuer who must redeem himself.<br /><br />In contrast to many of today's post-Matrix, comic book-inspired action heroes, Stallone's Walker is an ordinary man who becomes a hero without any paranormal or computer-enhanced abilities. In Cliffhanger, the hero almost freezes to death, and his clothes start to show big tears as he barely escapes one dangerous situation after another. He winces when he's hit and bleeds when he's cut, particularly in the cavern sequence when he takes a Rocky-style pummeling from one of the mad-dog villains.<br /><br />It should be noted that the utterly despicable villains really contribute to the movie's effectiveness: when I first saw this movie as a teenager, I was rooting for the good guys every step of the way and anticipating when another bad guy would bite the dust (or rather, the ice); at one point I actually cheered as one of the most cold-blooded characters in the movie deservedly suffered a violent demise.<br /><br />Lithgow's British accent is as unconvincing as the movie's occasional model plane or model helicopter, but he's fundamentally a good actor, and one of the few who can perfectly recite silly dialogue: in one scene, looking at his hostages Stallone and Rooker, trying to decide which tasks to give them, he actually says "You, stay! You, fetch!" Even a better actor, such as Anthony Hopkins, might have had trouble with that line.<br /><br />Even if Cliffhanger occasionally tosses credibility aside, it does so only for the sake of a more entertaining show.<br /><br />Early in the movie, for example, Lithgow openly says to one of his men "Retire [Stallone] when he comes down." No real criminal mastermind would have made this mistake even unconsciously: his carelessness allows Rooker to shout a warning up to Sly on the rock face, and this precipitates a gripping tug-of-war between Stallone and the bad guys trying to pull him down by the rope tied to his leg.<br /><br />Lithgow could have given his order by a more subtle means, but the sequence might not have been as much fun to watch if it hadn't given Rooker an opportunity to openly defy the arrogance of his captor.<br /><br />Done very much in the style of a Saturday matinee serial or (at times) a Western, Cliffhanger is built on such a solid foundation that it survives some weak elements that would have undermined a lesser film.<br /><br />Besides the painfully obvious aircraft models mentioned before, the weak moments include a couple of scenes shot on cheap indoor sets with REALLY fake snow, as well as two other scenes involving bats and wolves that seem unnecessary in an already action-packed narrative. Finally, Harlin's decision to film some of the death scenes in slow motion seems pointless, since the technique contributes nothing to the scenes.<br /><br />It's a shame that Stallone is now too old for action movies, because his character in this movie seems so credible that inevitably I wonder what he would be like years later. But perhaps it's best that Cliffhanger stands on its own for all time, without a sequel: there are enough tired and obsolete movie franchises already. There was an unofficial sequel that called itself Vertical Limit: compared to that clinker, Cliffhanger belongs on the IMDb's Top 250 list.<br /><br />Rating: 8 (Very good, especially considering most of Stallone's other movies.)

I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way....

Maybe it's just that it was made in 1997, or maybe whoever managed to get this up to a 7 has a soft spot for kids with AIDS. But really people, the maniacal laughter & mayhem during the withdrawal scene? Did you not see that coming? I'm surprised there was no baby crawling across the ceiling and sickboy addressing the camera. The acting was fine, sure. But to me this is just one example of a movie from a time when situations and subject matter could pass for cinematic language. Things happen, but that's it. There's no glue or motive that can be detected on screen, allowing the subject matter to use pre-existing emotional connections to furthur the plot, without the script doing it like it's supposed to.

Great Movie! The sound track is awesome! Very relaxing sound. Elton was ahead of his own time even back in 1971. Lewis Gilbert did a magnificent job producing and directing this film! The movie was romantic and a breath of fresh air. The sound tracks written by Sir Elton complimented the movie to a T. Rex Morris does a great job with the tenor sax on the song "Honey Roll" and poem "I Meant To Do My Work Today" by Richard Le Gallienne was incredible! Kudos to everyone involved with this fantastic film! It was no surprise that a lot of the people involved with this movie went on to become the best in their field.

This is the latest Ghibli movie and it is also a MAJOR departure from the studio's established style. First of all, this film was obviously aimed at young children, much more so than any of their previous films. It lacks the depth of the other films and features a brand new far less realistic style of animation… and yet it is ever so entertaining. Even though there is nothing put in to attract adults, I still found myself drawn to the screen and fully immersed in the story. The movie's secret is brutal honesty with regard to the plot and the characters. The story and the characters are very upfront with their feelings/intentions etc. but that makes them all the more endearing. Special attention was also paid to the soundtrack which is absolutely amazing despite being way different from previous Ghibli soundtracks. I find myself singing the cute theme song all the time as will anyone who sees this movie!

I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years.

This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags.

Although THE FLOCK has some pretty good acting by veteran Richard Gere, and some okay shots that might harken some back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS days, the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere.<br /><br />The film is about Erroll Babbage (Gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. His office thrusts upon him his replacement, Allison Lowry (Claire Danes, STARDUST), who quickly discovers that Babbage is obsessed with his job. And that job ain't very fun. He monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. Allison goes with Erroll on many calls to check up on his "flock" of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. But Erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren't. He taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. Erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants' pasts. It is this "good justification" that challenges the audience on some level, letting us see how brutal Erroll is and yet how out-of-touch he's become (by being too close to his job).<br /><br />When a teenage girl goes missing in Erroll's "area", he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. But how could he know? Is Erroll that good at his job? Allison challenges him and Erroll pushes back. Their battles become as fierce as Erroll's need to find this missing girl.<br /><br />Although the set-up for the story was okay, it didn't have any umpf! I will give credit to Richard Gere, however, who plays the Erroll character very well. Battling retirement. Worried about everyone who's near his flock. Disgusted with those he's responsible for overseeing. Disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. Quite a change in character portrayal for Gere. But beyond him there's not much else. Some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. But that suspension has limits. The biggest push against those limits is the destruction of EXTREMELY vital crime scenes. Someone as meticulous as Erroll would KNOW that moving a body would be a huge no-no. Or trampling through a crime scene. Or moving evidence. It went beyond and hurt the film to no end.<br /><br />The other damaging part of this film is that we never get into Clair Danes' character, Allison. She's almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and we're never privy to what her intension might be: Will she stay or leave? Will she end up like Erroll if she does stay? This isn't a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground, but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.

A single mom,her son and daughter and their hippie chick friend are camping in the woods.A muscle bound,machete wielding maniac in a yellow ski mask appears.He starts terrorizing and sexually violating the family before murdering them with a machete."Wet Wilderness" is loaded with ugly hardcore sex,forced incest and blatant racism.It's as politically incorrect as XXX roughies get.The score is stolen from seminal Hitchcock's horror classic "Psycho" and also "Jaws".The acting is hilariously awful,the editing is bad and there are some huge lapses in logic.The repetitive nature of the sex scenes grinds the movie after while so the brief running time is a blessing.The scenes of violence are quite nasty for example the hippie girl is stabbed with the machete in her groin and one can see blood on her crotch.3 out of 10 and that's being generous.

"Quit while your ahead" is a phrase they never learn. Typical Hollywood sequel scenario: if the first film was only shocking, the second wasn't, expect the third to be the worst thing to hit the screen this year. Even worse are the prequels, events of which were already explained in detail. If you haven't seen to first two films you will not like this one. It's like starting to watch Lord of the rings or Star Wars with the last trilogy movie. So "stand alone" this film is not.<br /><br />Remember in the first movie about Lucians revenge? Remember the second about the long lost savage brother? Well if you saw those two 5 min moments and paste them together you would get… a 5 min prequel. But the creators ether thought these 5 min were vital historical events or just wanted to give a job to some actors, cast and crew and maybe make some money in the process. "I have a loot of money, I make movies for a living and I'm bored. What will I do? I know! I'll make a movie." So anyway you get this 5 min prequel and you stretch it for 90 min – that's this movie. And you know what will happen to the main "immortal" characters, so there is little suspense. By the way, all the drama of the movie is in those 5 min. The only thing that made my eyebrow rise was mom killing in the begging of the movie. Sick. The rest was Braveheart remix. If you want a comedy, see Braveheart first then this movie.<br /><br />Now I'm going to rant a bit – the movie put me in the mood. Who invented the concept of "vampire vs. werewolf" in the first place? It's older than I am and got old just as fast. And why do vampires look like Goth girls in heat, while werewolves look like psycho bears? Hiding bad films behind cleavage fails. Isn't it about time we got some sane slimmer werewolves with an upright posture? How can their unchangeable werewolves even breed if they rip everybody into shreds? And why with all their powers the vampires didn't rule the world? Blaa, blaa, blaa… What a waste.

Standard "Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all before.

I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of boxing movies and as such there is only one thing that prevents me from calling "Gentleman Jim" the best boxing movie ever made. That is the Robert Wise/Paul Newman flick "Somebody Up There Likes Me." That movie might be number 1, but "Gentleman Jim" is a close number 2.<br /><br />The movie doesn't just chronicle the rise of James J. Corbett, it also shows the sport of boxing at a crucial time of transition. In the late 1800s boxing was moving away from the brutal days of bare-knuckle rules to the more "gentlemanly" days of the gloved, Marquis of Queensbury rules. And the sport was moving away from the days when it was an illegal spectacle and towards a time of acceptance and respectability.<br /><br />"Gentleman Jim" is not a realistic look at those days. It is romanticized and, yes, even a bit hokey at times. But always delightfully so. Errol Flynn is perfect as the "Gentleman" Jim who really isn't a "gentleman" at all but merely a fast talker from a working class family. Alexis Smith is quite ravishing as the upper class woman with whom he has a love/hate relationship (and we all know it is, of course, love that will win that match in the end).<br /><br />At the end of "Gentleman Jim" the great John L Sullivan (whose famous line was NOT "I can lick any man in the world" of course...romanticism again) hands over his belt to Corbett. This is truly one of the best scenes in any sports move ever made. Realistic? No. But wonderful. Hey, if you want realism watch "Raging Bull" instead. That is a much more realistic boxing movie. But "Gentleman Jim" is a lot more fun.

In Theodore Rex poor Whoopi Goldberg is set up as a tough police cop who gets to work with a pathetic dinosaur on a case. The movie tries to be funny, and tries to make a story about abductions and more but it never works. The movie is far from funny, and the story is ridiculous. I voted 1/10

I live up here in croc territory and remember well the true events that inspired this movie. Our guts fall out each time we hear of a croc attack. BLACK WATER is, quite simply, the best croc movie I have ever seen. While I loved ROGUE last year for all its effects and splashy scenes, it was the local scenes that captured our audience. We laughed in ROGUE more than anything. BLACK WATER, however, really resonated with the eeriness and fear that you can experience when you are alone in the mangroves (you guys call them swamps or bayous - but they're mangroves). Every tourist should see this film before heading to the Northern Territory. The ending was a bit of a letdown after the rest of the film, but I'll be adding this one to my DVD collection when it becomes available.

"If I sit down I will never stand up again", that's what the mother (the one of the title) says to his son when he tells her to get some rest (she's just widowed). He means that resting is what a woman of his age and in her situation has to do: to rest in peace, to neglect herself. But she's not in the mood for "resting", not yet. She also has a daughter who reproaches her for each and every disasters in her life... Suddenly, the revelation comes: sex and passion in the figure of a muscular carpenter 30 years younger than her (Daniel Craig, the brand new James Bond) when she "thought nobody would ever touch her again". It is a story that makes you reflect on many things, specially on what's a 60 something woman is supposed to do with her life when his husband dies. It doesn't look that we've advanced that such in those aspects. I mean, nobody's surprised when Sean Connery has a love affair in a movie with Catherine Zeta Jones... but what would you think if it was otherwise? An old woman, a young guy... nah, you ain't ready for that, are you?<br /><br />The movie has intimist tones all along its length, except for 2 or 3 sequences in which that tones breaks and out comes some explicit and foul-mouthed dialogs. Those vulgar touches and the way the son and the daughter find out their mother's love affair (pretty absurd -you'll know what I mean when you watch it-) are the only discordant elements in "The Mother". <br /><br />*My rate: 7/10

I had the dubious opportunity to view this movie on TV. It's the perfect example of how to take a terrible script and turn it into one of the worst films ever made. Not only is the acting bad and the effects terrible, the movie has more logical holes than ten pounds of imported swiss cheese.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film as an example of how NOT to make a movie and what director not to use in one of yours.<br /><br />I turned off the TV during the last ten hideous minutes of the show. Calling it "pathetic" is a gross understatement.

The major fault in this film is that it is impossible to believe any of these people would ever be cast in a professional production of Macbeth. Hearing David Lansbury's soft voice struggling laboriously with the famous "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" speech made it impossible to believe anyone would ever consider him for the role. I kept believing therefore that he didn't get the part because he was a lousy actor; not because a bigger name was available. Then when we see portions of the play in rehearsal it is difficult to believe the director is not parodying things with a hopelessly miscast, misdirected travesty of actors who are unable to articulate or even understand the verse and directors who see the play through their own screwball interpretations. Sometimes directors are so anxious to have their films done (and writers think they have the ability to direct their own works)that they settle for less. This appears to be such an example.

I love this movie! 10 out of 10 hands down! It is that damn good! I am not much of a fan of movies but I gotta tell you this one opened my eyes. Astounding color and fast energy. I was fortunate to catch this at a screening during the Zoinks! Film Festival in Boston, and the story really enveloped me from the start. It had a lot of adult themes and character and when it ended I wanted more. I hope they make a sequel. That would be fun. My only problem with it is the performance of Melissa Connor as Anya. UGH! She SUCKS! I've seen a block of wood pull out a better performance. I don't what the director was thinking when he cast her. But if you ignore her you can't help but give this movie a big ten!!!

Michael Myers, the deranged, not-so-young-anymore psycho, who seems to get beefier with every appearance, is resurrected by his druid brothers to wreck more menace upon his family members, and any one else who gets in the way. Gaps in logic seem to be ignored in favor of a healthy body count. Michael, who originally preferred strangulations and kitchen knives, learns to swing an axe and use whatever means necessary to off his victims, and the result is an awful, patchwork, dollar store film virtually unhelped by a few genuinely creepy sequences. Donald Pleasance, who died shortly after production, seems to have been injected into this story simply so *somebody* could be billed as the star. You won't want to cover your eyes during this one, but you will shake your head at the downward slide of John Carpenter's classic creation.

When it was released, in the beginning of the 80's, Pixote brings to Brazilian society the problems of young delinquents, and the impact of this in Brazilian society. I can't watch the movie at that time, cause I was too young, but now I got a chance and watched It a few days ago. It's a very brutal movie, but everything is absolutely true, and sad. pixote is the name of a 12 year-old boy who lives in the streets, and survive with misdemeanors; he stays for a while in a house of detention, and when he left it he continues to plan robs with other buns and a prostitute, played by marilia Pera. the boy is still a marijuana addicted and smell glue with another teenagers, to forget his sad reality. the quality of the images it's not the best, but the movie is totally realistic about Brazilian problems, and must be viewed and admired.

I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.<br /><br />Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.<br /><br />However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.<br /><br />There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.<br /><br />The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).<br /><br />Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with.

Having grown up on westerns and considering the present dearth of westerns on TV and at the theater, I was really looking forward to Commanche moon.<br /><br />After watching two nights, and not another, it appears to be have been shot on a tight budget. Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones level stars are conspicuously absent. There is Val Kilmer, but what the heck is going on with him? Four or five buildings on either side of the street plus the Scull mansion make up the entire town of Austin. The capitol is never seen, only the inside of the governor's office.<br /><br />The dialog is often times hokey, meaningless rambling. The plot line disjointed. Altogether, completely forgettable.

With the advent of the IMDb, this overlooked movie can now find an interested audience. Why? Because users here who do a search on two-time Academy Award winner Glenda Jackson can find 'The Return of The Soldier' among her credits. So can those checking out Oscar winner Julie Christie. Fans of Ann-Margret can give the title a click, as will those looking into the career of the great Alan Bates. Not to mention the added bonus of a movie with supporting heavyweights Ian Holm and Frank Finlay. Any movie with so many notables in it is rewarded by the IMDb, given all the cross-referencing that goes on here. So, why isn't this movie out on DVD? Don't the Producers realize the Internet Movie Database is a marketing gift for such a film? And 'The Return of The Soldier' is definitely a gem waiting to be discovered. Get with it, people.

Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.<br /><br />Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.<br /><br />This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.<br /><br />I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available.

This may be the most tension-filled movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />In fact, it's so nerve-wracking, I haven't been able to watch it again after viewing it two years ago, but I will since I have the DVD. There were a couple of scenes in here that are almost too much to watch....so if you've got problems and need to "escape" for an hour-and-half this film will get your mind off anything else. <br /><br />The Russian actress Marina Zudina did a super job in facial expressions alone, which she had to do since her character in here is a mute. She plays a cute and wholesome makeup artist for a sleazy filmmaker. After the day's shooting is done and "Billie" is about to leave, she hears something. She takes a peek into the room where they were filming and discovers they are now shooting a "snuff film" and actually killing someone. Billie's eavesdropping is discovered and she runs for her life as the killers go searching for her in this big warehouse-type building.<br /><br />There are two extended scenes in which our heroine is running for her life and both of them will wear you out. The first I described above. The second scene, the climactic one, goes on too long and isn't as well done as the first. In fact, the film should have been trimmed a bit but, overall, since it's so good at keeping our attention, then it served its purpose as entertainment.

I would firstly say that somehow I remember seeing this movie in my early childhood, I couldn't read the subtitles and I thought Sonny Chiba was Sean Connery. But I did really like the concept. If you are not able to at least partially suspend your adult scepticism and embrace your inner seven your old you may want to avoid this movie. That said, having just watched the restored 137 minute version on DVD I have to say I enjoyed it, though not as much as when I was seven ( I remembered the ending ). <br /><br />There are aspects of the movie that are worthy of criticism , the first 15 minutes and final 15 minutes both have some really comic moments, my favourite being the contrast between scenes acted out in the final 10 minutes and the curious choice of backing music ( listen to the lyrics ). <br /><br />For an action film there is a great deal of focus on the personal stories of certain soldiers and the social dynamics of the squad as the strain of their time travel takes its toll. By the ending of the movie I had decided that this was a good thing, when seven I though the 'relationship' guff was a bad thing.<br /><br />For an action film there is also plenty of gratifying gory action, especially a couple of epic battle scenes between the platoon and hordes of Shogun era warriors. The makers of the movie have ensured that as many deaths as possible are bloody and, lets face it, humorous. I thought this was a splendid aspect of the movie when I was a kid, and I am not ashamed to say that I still do.<br /><br />I also like the fact that the modern day soldiers in general don't spend the movie walking on egg shells trying to avoid altering the space time continuum, they've got heavy calibre machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, a tank and a helicopter and they're hell bent on making feudal Japan theirs. Which is what I'd like to think any vigorous IMDb user would do in their boots.<br /><br />In short the movies worth watching, it makes the viewer regret that there are not more movies made with a similar premise, and at the same time offers some hefty hints as to why a movie like G.I. Samurai is so unique.

The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares.

This is one of the best movies I have ever seen...<br /><br />It's so full of details and every time you see it you'll find new things... Like then the father is in the shower but still only hears one voice, and when the girls flute, they can't do it at the same time cause then there would be two girls, and there aren't. <br /><br />I have some problem finding out, about in the middle of the movie their "Uncle" visit them, but why does his wife freak out?!? Else a fantastic movie.!!! The best Asian movie ever.<br /><br />I hope people will enjoy it. There have been so many movie, where the main character is skit-so (The machinist, Secret Window and so on), but this movie is way better than them!!!

National Treasure is about as over-rated and over-hyped as they come. Nicholas Cage is in no way a believable action hero, and this film is no "Indiana Jones". People who have compared this movie to the Indian Jones classic trilogy have seriously fallen off their rocker.<br /><br />I can't really figure out what kind of target audience this film was shooting for. Maybe the pre-teen audience will like it, but I found it to be absolutely ludicrous. I also can't imagine adults or young adults to find this to be that great of a film. Simply put: it's just OK at best.<br /><br />National Treasure is unimagined and uninspired, borrowing what it does have from "The Da Vinci Code". I would recommend waiting for that movie to be released in 2006, and passing on this nonsense.<br /><br />The whole idea of being able to so easily steal the Declaration of Independence and run around all over Washington DC and Philadelphia with it (while never damaging it once), while fighting the "bad guys" and experiencing what is supposed to be "non-stop action" is absurd. I particularly loved the scene with the Declaration folded in its tube laying in the middle of a busy road while cars whiz by it without damaging it. Oh brother! <br /><br />Reminded me of that episode of the "Brady Bunch" where they go to the amusement park and Mr. Brady loses his architectural plans. Except, that episode of the Brady Bunch was much better than this whole film! <br /><br />The idea of such huge treasure that nobody believes exists being buried within a secret ruin of the US is outlandish. Literally, there are thousand of undiscovered "priceless" items in this treasure trove. Yeah right!! Ridiculous!! <br /><br />Even worse, the speed and accuracy of which Cage finds and figures out what are supposed to be "tough" clues to these ancient riddles are pre-posterous!!! Oh.. the humanity! <br /><br />The performances by Cage, Voight, and the other actors in "National Treasure" are as stiff ,wooden, and flat as they come. However, when you're working with such lousy dialogue, it's hard to fault the actor's 100% for that.<br /><br />National Treasure is an OK film to see once. I can't recommend it beyond that and would definitely NOT purchase this over the top, outlandish scavenger hunt of a mess.<br /><br />Rent it if you must see it first.......

Everyone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. "The next Jane Campion", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)<br /><br />Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:<br /><br />(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.<br /><br />(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.<br /><br />(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.<br /><br />(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.<br /><br />(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.

Upon viewing Tobe Hooper's gem, Crocodile, in 2000, I developed a great interest in the college/crocodile niche of the exploitation/monster genre. I look forward to a wayward producer to follow up with several sequels to these delightful bonbons of camp goodness. If only Ed Wood could bring his subtle sense of flair and dignity to these remarkable scripts. With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.<br /><br />While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies. See if you can look past the Revenge of the Nerds sequel sets to find the allusions/homages?/rip-offs to Jaws, Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones' Last Crusade, The Convent, Godzilla 2000, and any James Bond movie. Also, try to find the ready-for-tv fade where the editor gave up on making sense of the stock.<br /><br />I was disappointed the crock didn't get to try out its sotto voce tenor with a soliloquy on environmentalism...or crocky appreciation, but the quasi-Captain Ahab of the story does get his tour de force speach. Perhaps, in the coming years, we'll see a crock galloping off after a shootout into a golden sunset. Or hopefully, a monkey will flush a crocky down the toilet of an international space station for midgets and enjoy the exploitative waltz of zero-G monkey/midget/crocodile bloodshed.<br /><br />All-in-all, the lack of a whammy bar in the surf music irked me.

Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...<br /><br />Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.<br /><br />The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.<br /><br />The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.<br /><br />One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.<br /><br />The Bottom Line: <br /><br />An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy.

I would not recommend this movie. Even though it is rated G and is clearly for kids there is quite a lot of swearing (including the dreaded 'F' and 'S' words). This kind of language doesn't offend me particularly but in a kids film? Come on.<br /><br />There was also quite a bit of implied sexual content, between one of the early adolescent male characters and any willing adult woman who came along - including a prostitute! <br /><br />The acting was as good as it gets in this genre of film but the story line was very very cheesy and even my four year old remarked that it was 'stupid'.<br /><br />Despite having Elizabeth Shue, this film is definitely not worth checking out if you haven't seen it.

Fellow noir devotees, be not deceived, this is a stinker...poorly filmed, poorly acted and there is nothing...nothing here for the film buff looking for yet another solid B-movie from the goldmine of the 40's & 50's era of classics. I gave it a try based on the relatively high rating on IMDb. There's no accounting for taste, but I found nothing in this movie to recommend to other IMDb members. This is a classic example of having watched a movie and feeling like you have been cheated out of x number of minutes that it took the movie to get to its thankful demise. To have Alan Ladd on the cover of the DVD/tape is nearly fraud, he is on camera less than two minutes and has almost no dialogue! This isn't This Gun For HIre folks...it is a classic in the lousy sense of the studios cranking out fodder on no budget...We all search for the great ones... save your time on Gangs, Inc./Paper Bullets...it is lousy!

Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film.

The pre-release version of 1933's "Baby Face" would make an ideal introduction to a corporate seminar on sexual harassment. Mentored by a Nietszchean professor, Lily Powers rises from a life of easy virtue at her father's speakeasy to a rapid climb up the corporate ladder at a large bank. Because each rung of the ladder is an executive with his brain below his belt and his ethics locked in the vault, the film has no victims, except Lily's childhood, which was destroyed by an abusive exploitative father. The destructive relationship with her father suggests Lily's hidden motive for using men to advance without regard for their fate. While Lily is cynical and obvious in her approach, the men she targets willingly betray wives and fiancés to trade jobs for sexual favors. Perhaps the bank failures in the 1930's owed less to economics than to morally corrupt executives distracted by ambitious women.<br /><br />The plot moves fast, and the camera amusingly moves from window to window up the façade of the office building as Lily climbs ever higher. Barbara Stanwyck reveled in tough hard-bitten roles, and she is in top form here. Sentiment does not intrude when she is ready to climb the next rung. Only her African-American confidante, Chico, receives Lily's affection, trust, and loyalty. In more enlightened times, the fresh natural beauty of Theresa Harris, who plays Chico, would have had the men throwing the furs and penthouses at her. Stanwyck often appears overly made-up and stiffly coiffed in comparison to Harris. However, despite Stanwyck's tough demeanor, obvious tactics, and artificial visage, she manages to leave a trail of duped and seduced men, including Douglass Dumbrille, Donald Cook, and a young John Wayne.<br /><br />The preferred version of "Baby Face" is the 76-minute restored cut. The edited release version of the film shyly turns from the hard facts, which the longer cut restores and makes explicit. Perhaps Darryl Zanuck, who wrote the story under an assumed name, intended a lesson by quoting from Nietszche, whose views on women were controversial. However, despite Alphonse Ethier's lectures and advice not to be defeated by life, Lily's grab for power and money likely owed more to her upbringing and her father than to her professorial mentor. However, the philosophy is but a distraction. Short, fast paced, and entertaining, "Baby Face" is as contemporary in its morality as "Wall Street." Substitute Gordon Gecko for Nietszche, and Lily could have declared her guiding philosophy to be "greed is good."

I really like Richard Gere...I always have and it seems as of late that his status as a Hollywood star and money maker has slipped but it would appear to me that the reason is that he is taking very mature, intense roles and has been very successful at it just not financially because I have seen him in some truly great gems as of late including The Hoax, The Hunting Party (both must see films! See my reviews) and now this The Flock which apparently was meant to be a big release considering it's substantial 35 million + budget. It seems that some of the other IMDb reviews are very, very harsh because I thought the film dealt with a potentially very serious social issue in a very direct, violent and disturbing way and Gere just brings it all home. It's an action thriller drama that kept my glued to the Television with it's story. I think part of the problem that people seem to have with it is that it Hollywood-izes a very serious issue but I don't think it does it with disrespect but rather tries to take a different spin to make people aware that this exists. In fact it's much the same way that The Hunting Party dealt with war. Hong Kong director Wai-keung Lau did a decent job holding it together but I think the cast is what made it watchable.<br /><br />Richard Gere as you may have guessed from my previous comments is brilliant as a social worker of sorts Erroll Babbage who has kind of created his own style and laws when it comes to keeping track of his "Flock" who are registered violent sex offenders. He holds no punches in tracking these people, following them and making absolutely sure they don't re-offend and if they do he'll be the one to identify and stop them any way he can. Gere is so intense and looks drained from this job and he's become violent and angry at watching these monsters loose on the street. He is just fantastic. Claire Danes is also terrific as Babbage's new partner and his replacement who he has to train to do his job. Danes' character is far more typical social worker and is a little taken aback by Babbage's style and methods but slowly realizes what he is trying to accomplish and go up against. The two of them are brilliant together and have terrific chemistry with such vastly different characters. KaDee Strickland plays a disturbed registered offender who appears to be torn from the headlines as she plays a character very reminiscent of Karla Homolka (Paul Bernardo's wife who is now out) for those of you who follow Canadian serial killers. Her character goes a little over the top but she is convincing and horrifying all at once. Russell Sams has a small role as Strickland's new boyfriend and he would have been better probably given a bigger role. Ray Wise, who is a terrific character actor (check him out in Dead End as well as the amazing turn as Satan himself in the WB show Reaper) and he gets a small but good role as the head of the Public Safety department and Babbage's boss.<br /><br />The movie isn't perfect despite the terrific performances of it's lead cast. It takes liberties by really trying to make the film more entertainment than educational but it's just a different angle not unlike the Nicholas Cage dud 8MM. The Flock takes you into the underbelly of the sex trade, kidnapping, human trafficking and more and is just really something to watch. Perhaps it wasn't directed or written as well as it could have been but I am telling you that Danes and Gere together make this movie completely watchable and a really great thriller. It's disturbing but also something that isn't very complex and yet Gere's character in many ways is intensely complex with many layers and also opens social stigma and makes you contemplate about vigilantism in many ways when you see the people Gere deals with. I encourage you all to ignore poor reviews and see it for yourself because it's worth checking out!! 8.5/10

I watched this film a few times in the 90's and nearly split my sides laughing each time. I love Eddie Murphy as an actor, but this stand up is some thing else. He is SO funny. Even the P.C. brigade would find this hilarious. It's a must watch, and even better if you've got the guys or girls in for a drink. The take off of Michael Jackson is so like him, if you close your eyes you believe it's him singing. The things he describes are true to life and you would seriously have to have a humour bypass if you thought this was not funny. My local video stores do not stock this video any more but I would love to get my hands on a copy to show my husband and boys when they are old enough to appreciate the humour. Anyway, highly recommended, hope you enjoy.

Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.<br /><br />In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.<br /><br />Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.

This amusing, sometimes poignant look at the Hollywood detective genre of the 1940's and 1950's stars Robert Sacci as an unnamed former cop who retires, uses his life savings to pay for plastic surgery to transform his image into that of his idol, Humphrey Bogart, then sets up shop as a private eye under the name "Sam Marlowe". Robert Sacchi, incidentally, is one of the rare few Bogart impersonators who got the lisp exactly right; more to the point, the body and facial language are there. For awhile, "Sam"'s only client is his landlady, who wants him to find her undersized boyfriend, and his only conversational foil is his secretary, simply called "Dutchess" (Misty Rowe), who in his own words, "looked like Marilyn Monroe and made about as much sense as Gracie Allen", and has a passion for banana splits. Then he encounters Elsa (Olivia Hussey), the plain, sweet, virginal daughter of a retired props-master who has been murdered for no discernible reason. In the process of investigating the murder, Sam shortly runs across: the Gene Tierney lookalike daughter (Michelle Phillips) of Anastas, an avaricious, obscenely wealthy Greek shipping tycoon (Victor Buono, turning in a creditable Sidney Greenstreet), his hapless, long-suffering second wife (Yvonne deCarlo, who manages to play a variety of put-upon emotions without saying a word), his two smarmy henchmen (Herbert Lom, channelling Peter Lorre, and Jay Robinson, doing a reasonably accurate Lionel Atwill), and Anastas' vicious, amoral Middle-Eastern potentate (Franco Nero) who comes complete with a glamorus and bafflingly loyal mistress (Sybil Danning), all of whom would give anything to acquire the "Eyes of Alexander", two huge, perfectly matched star sapphires. When Elsa is murdered, Marlowe's interest in solving the case becomes personal, and he sets out through a labyrinth of Los Angeles landmarks, including the Hollywood Bowl, the scatological and esoteric attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Catalina Island in pursuit of the rocks, determined to get at them before either of the two wealthy competitors. Throw in cameos by Mike Mazurki and assorted others, the traditional dumb-but-sympathetic ally on the police force, and a plethora of nicely drawn character turns that provide dimension to practically all players, and despite an unfortunate title song, you have, to my mind, a thoroughly enjoyable movie experience.

If only ALL animation was this great. This film is classic because it is strong is two simple aspects: Story and Character. The characters in this film are beautifully personified. I felt for all of the characters, and human-animal relationship in the movie works perfectly. The beautiful animation and 3-D computer animation hasn't worked better in any other film. This is a great movie for kids, and for adults who want a classic hero's journey. 8 of 10.

I must say, this movie has given me a dual personality. I've been told again and again to SHUT UP and start speaking like a normal person. But, it's very hard... no not the wang. Did you find that disgusting and disrespectful? Well, get in the mood for a lot more. This movie is just filthy! It's not a film to show your grand-parents, but you should show it to a teenager or some immature guy at your workplace. Anyway, back to the voice mannerisms. Fortunately this site has some Ladies Man (did anyone at the studio notice that there's supposed to be a apostrophe(?) between the e and s?) so you can always have a fine little something to say to your boss or the cops. I have a sheet in my wallet.

1958. The sleepy small Southern town of Clarksburg. Evil Sheriff Roy Childress (the almighty Vic Morrow in peak nasty form) cracks down super hard on speeders by forcing said offenders off a cliff to their untimely deaths on an especially dangerous stretch of road. Childress meets his match when cool young hot rod driver Michael McCord (a splendidly smooth and brooding portrayal by Martin Sheen) shows up in town in his souped-up automobile with the specific intention of avenging the death of his brother (Sheen's real-life sibling Joe Estevez in a brief cameo). Director Richard T. Heffron, working from a taut and intriguing script by Richard Compton (the same guy who directed the 70's drive-in movie gems "Welcome Home, Soldier Boys" and "Macon County Line"), relates the gripping story at a brisk pace, neatly creates a flavorsome 50's period setting, and ably milks plenty of suspense out the tense game of wit and wills between Childress and McCord. The uniformly fine cast helps a lot: Sheen radiates a brash James Deanesque rebellious vibe in the lead, Morrow makes the most out of his meaty bad guy part, plus there are excellent supporting performances by Michelle Phillips as sweet diner waitress Maggie, Stuart Margolin as a folksy deputy, Nick Nolte as amiable gas station attendant Buzz Stafford, Gary Morgan as Buzz's endearingly gawky younger brother Lyle, Janit Baldwin as sassy local tart Sissy, Britt Leach as stingy cab driver Johnny, and Frederic Downs as the stern Judge J.A. Hooker. The climactic vehicular confrontation between Childress and McCord is a real pulse-pounding white-knuckle thrilling doozy. Terry K. Meade's sharp cinematography, the well-drawn characters (for example, Childress became obsessed with busting speeders after his wife and kid were killed in a fatal hit and run incident), the groovy, syncopated score by Luchi De Jesus, and the beautiful mountainside scenery all further enhance the overall sound quality of this superior made-for-TV winner.

Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.<br /><br />My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.<br /><br />After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.<br /><br />So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.

Many more eloquent reviews than this have described the quite spectacular acting, casting and styling of this film. It appears that the only negative reviews focus on a perceived imbalance in the film's handling of the core moral question (euthanasia).<br /><br />This film is, bar the final scenes, meticulous in stressing Ramon's belief that he's not making some grand point but merely that, for him, a life devoid of dignity is a life not worth living. We, as viewers, see an enormous amount of dignity in his life - we see family and friends and culture and, but for its physical limitations, a life fully lived. Central to the tragedy of this film is that there is really only one person who thinks that Ramon's life is not worth living - and that is him.<br /><br />To watch this film and say that the only counter argument comes from the visit of a bumbling priest is a nonsense. The priest's visit is pure farce, a direct assault on the simplicity of the Spanish Catholic Church's response to the issue of euthanasia. However, the sister's parting words to the priest momentarily expose the powerful 'pro-life' sentiments quietly underpinning the entire film. We are constantly encouraged to see the hope and the beauty of a life lived with love. As the film progresses, we may gradually be encouraged to understand Ramon's reasoning but we are never reconciled to his decision. <br /><br />I do not remember a film which moved me and provoked me as much as this.

In a famous essay he wrote about Charles Dickens, George Orwell points out that many readers always regretted that Dickens never continued writing like he did in PICKWICK PAPERS: that is, he did not stick to writing funny episodic novels for the rest of his career. This would not have been too difficult for Dickens. His contemporary Robert Surtees did precisely that, only concentrating on the misadventures of the fox hunting set (MR. FANCY ROMFORD'S HOUNDS is a title of one of his novels). Among hunters and horse lovers Surtees still has a following but most people find his novels unreadable. Dickens was determined to show he was more than a funny man (and don't forget, his first book, SKETCHES BY BOZ, was also a funny book). So Dickens third book is OLIVER TWIST (which got pretty grim at points). Orwell says that for any author to grow they have to change the style of their books. Dickens would definitely (and successfully) have agreed to that.<br /><br />But Orwell overlooked the genre writer who transcends his fellows. Surtees, as I said, is a genre writer concentrating on hunting - but not everyone is interested in hunting. But P.G.Wodehouse saw himself as an entertainer, poking fun at the upper reaches of the British social system. His Earl of Emsworth is prouder of raising the finest pig in England than being...well Earl of Emsworth! His Psmith is always prepared to counterattack when he is supposed to be submissive to an unfair superior. His Stanley Uckridge will always have a "perfect" scheme that should net a huge profit (but always manages to come apart at the end). And best of all, his Jeeves will always put his brilliant brain to work rescuing the inept Bertie Wooster, his boss. Since Wodehouse had a limited view of his mission as a writer - he was there to do cartoon figures of fun for the entertainment of the world - his books never lost their glow. They served (and still serve) their purposes. In fact, compared Wodehouse with his far more serious contemporary Evelyn Waugh, who also wrote funny books, but of a more intellectual type. The best of Waugh remains among the high points of 20th Century British literature: BRIDESHEAD REVISITED, DECLINE AND FALL, and the rest. But in his determination to make his points, if his points failed to interest the reader the book frequently collapsed. For every VILE BODIES there was some failure late in his career like THE ORDEAL OF GILBERT PINFOLD. While Wodehouse could do lesser hack work too, his falling did not go as far as Waugh's did.<br /><br />Wodehouse also was a gifted lyricist (when you hear "Bill" in the score of SHOWBOAT, it is not Kern and Hammerstein's tune, but Kern and Wodehouse's tune transposed from "Oh Lady, Lady" a dozen years earlier). He was a handy dramatist too. So it is pleasing to see that he took his novel A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS and turned it into the screenplay here.<br /><br />It has the normal Wodehouse touches. That perfect butler Keggs (Reginald Gardiner in a wonderful performance) is a scoundrel in rigging a "friendly" gambling game of chance among the staff of the stately home he heads. He is also unable to refrain, occasionally, from singing Italian opera - despite Constance Collier's attempts to control his impulse. This is typical Wodehouse characterization. So is the way the love affair between Lady Alyce and Jerry keeps going well and going down due to the antics of Keggs and young Albert, both of whom want to win that game of chance pot of cash. Wodehouse always does that type of plot switch, with antagonists switching their point of view depending on their present state of interest.<br /><br />Wodehouse was also lucky here to have Burns and Allan to work with. It is generally considered that of all the films they made as supporting actors together (such as SIX OF A KIND and WE'RE NOT DRESSING) George and Gracie did their best support with Fred Astaire. The Fun House sequence, which includes the song "Stiff Upper Lip", is wonderful, as is an earlier sequence where the three do a "whisk broom" dance (that Astaire learned from Burns). But Gracie's marvelous illogical logic is used by Wodehouse in scenes with Gardiner (see how she manages to confuse him into giving her more money than her change deserves to be - only Albert happens to notice Keggs/Gardiner's mistake, and looks at Gardiner as though he's either stupid or mad). Her dialog with Lady Caroline (Collier)'s son Reggie (Ray Noble, the British band leader)leading him to imagine that he will marry her, but saying goodbye to Gracie as she drives off with George to get married is wonderful too.<br /><br />The film supposedly failed at the box office because of the lack of Ginger Rogers in it, and the weakness of Joan Fontaine. Fontaine is not doing a remarkable job in the role, but the flaw is really Wodehouse's - he didn't make the character very interesting. But the film can stand without that, given the other performers and their characters, Gershwin's music, and Wodehouse's marvelous sense of fun.

The plot, character development, and gags in this movie are all extremely weak. Quite a waste of time. The conclusion of Saving Grace is supposed to make one feel warm and fuzzy as though the characters have grown through their struggles. There was no such development to make such warm fuzzy feelings possible. The drug gags are cliched and much of the movie doesn't ring true to life. The plot builds what is supposed to be tension but the characters aren't developed enough to care. Then it rushes through a resolution of all the outstanding problems in about a minute of screen time leaving the viewer feeling like they have just wasted their time.

I AM NOT LYNNE BATES MY NAMES IS RITICHIE BUT LYNNE IS MY MUM I'M JUST USING HER ACCOUNT! Barney and Friends, (Or Barney, as it is called here in England) is the corniest show ever. I never really liked it, It had been about for 3 or 4 years when I was born, so It was nothing new. My friend, however, loved this dildo of a show. I was about 6, and I was at his house once, and he had a Barney VHS tape playing on the TV. I turned the power off, and he burst into tears. GROW UP ITS A TALKING DINOSAUR FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Anyway, I happened to catch the Barney movie on TV later that year, and I loved it. I got the VHS of it a few months later, and I wore the tape out I loved it so much! I gave that tape away a few years ago now, but I loved it at the time. But the show! My god the show was bad! Several kids fell victims to paedophiles because of this butt plug of so called entertainment! Never again, never again! Its not just me who hates Barney, either! 85% of all the comments on this show are bad, and and just look at the amount of You Tube Poops and videos that take the mess out of Barney are on You Tube! And don't get me started on Blow Job BJ! Why the hell would the producers dare give a character such a sexual name! Yet another subliminal message in a kid's show! And that Baby Bop is the worst thing since Osama Bin Laden! All in all, I give Barney and Friends MINUS 1000 OUT OF 10!

I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.

For a made-for-TV "horror" movie the movie started off very interesting. I was really intrigued by the story and the mystery of the film. But the ending was a total dissappointment. The movie was going along fast-paced and was building up to, it seemed like anyway, to a very climatic end. But guess what there is no end. The movie is just over and after almost one-and-a-half hours the audience is just left wondering what happened. Why were all the unanswered questions in the film left unanswered. There was no explanation at all about any of the key points in the plot. This film is like watching a murder mystery and then never finding out who did it. Very dissappointed. This film looks like the producers just ran out of money and never completed the film. A real BOMB!

Terrific, deeply moving crime thriller starring Andy Lau and Lau Ching Wan.<br /><br />From the dizzying opening sequence to the extremely satisfying conclusion, this cat and mouser hardly misses a beat.<br /><br />Johnny To, again working with ace composer Arthur Wong, constructs another operatic actioner that grots in the face of its contemporaries.<br /><br />To's images are strong and moving. His cutting, combined with the extraordinary music cues, is exemplary. You are in the hands of a master cinematician.<br /><br />The two sequences in which Andy Lau "hides" from the cops on a bus by pretending to accompany a lithe beauty (Ruby Wong) are testament to To's unique directorial skills.<br /><br />Lau Ching Wan is strong and commanding as the harassed cop while Andy Lau is dynamic as a dying man avenging his father's death.<br /><br />This is superb movie-making, only mildly compromised by some bad English dubbing in one scene with criminal Waise Lee.

Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, "cinematography" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...<br /><br />Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the "tribe"...that's pretty much it...<br /><br />Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the "so-bad-it's-good" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a "bonus" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this.

Well, were to start? This is by far one of the worst films I've ever paid good money to see. I won't comment on the story itself, it's a wonderful classic, but here it feels like a soap opera. To start with, the acting, except for Eric Bana, is soap opera quality. I've always been a fan of Brad Pitt, but here every actor on The Bold and the Beautiful puts him to shame. The camera action doesn't help, either. How it lingers on him when he's thinking, it just takes me back to Brooke Forrester's days in the lab! Peter O'Toole has either had a really bad plastic surgery, or he is desperately in need of one. Either way, he looks more like Linda Evans than Linda Evans! And to end my comments, Diane Kruger is a cute girl, but she sure is no Helen of Troy. Peterson should rather have chosen Saffron Burrows for the role, since Elizabeth Taylor would be rather miscast by now.

First of all the movie, is an ingenious work of art(movie). The plot was filled with surprises, a little kid pretends to be a grown up inherits one million dollars and how he spends it. I mean how whacked out is this. Walt Disney really outdid themselves this time. The comedy is most of the times expected but the other times unexpected. I mean was this movie OK or was this movie OK. It also teaches a lot about wise youths and I this kid is really wise and a bit time smart pants. But also it sucks. How the heck could a guy like that kid get a hot police babe and his dad let him go free. That's like let a killer get bailed free for ten years. If I were to do that I'd get beaten with a 'suble jack'(a huge stick that stings when used to bench your butts really hard). That kid is really lucky. Back to the story. The movie makers really knew what they were doing when they made this movie but still it's not perfect. The acting was good and bad. The kid and woman had no chemistry neither did the father but the bros were excellent'. The special effects on the other hand was lame. Plus this movie isn't based on reality. I hated and loved it at the same time.

Where to start, this movie started badly and ended badly! It consists of extremely poor acting and unrealistic effects that had me cringing in my seat, seriously, my cat could have acted better than this lot.<br /><br />Some of it was actually laughable because it was so unbelievable, i would of rated this lower but they haven't got anything else! So, heed my warning and unless your so bored your close to suicide and would like a good reason to continue with your suicide mission, don't bother with this one. I'm still in shock that this could actually be released to the public, this should be a crime and all involved should be arrested. I gather you've got the gist by now so i'll leave it up to you to decide.

Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury). This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.<br /><br />There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though. Lansbury is always good, but her character here is very one dimensional and the motives for her crime in the mystery are totally obvious. There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward. It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in. There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably). He does so with a very large tape recorder which she doesn't notice when she comes into the room I guess.<br /><br />A few perhaps unintentionally fun moments and basically the rest of the thing could have been done for TV.

This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"<br /><br />In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.<br /><br />Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.

Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film.

I was unlucky enough to have seen this at the Sidewalk Film Festival. Sidewalk as a whole was a disappointment and this movie was the final nail in the coffin. Being a devout fan of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' books I was very excited about this movie's premier, which only made it that much more uncomfortable to watch. Normally I'm enthusiastic about modern re-tellings if they are treated well. Usually it's interesting to see the parallels between the past and present within a familiar story. Unfortunately this movie was less of a modern retelling and more of a pop culture perversion. The adaptation of the original's characters seemed juvenile and usually proved to be horribly annoying. It probably didn't help that the actors weren't very good either. Most performances were ridiculously over the top, which I assume was either due to bad direction or an effort to make up for a bad script. I did not laugh once through out the duration of the film. All of the jokes were outdated references to not so current events that are sure to lose their poignancy as time goes by. Really, the only highlight of the film was the opening sequence in which the white rabbit is on his way to meet Alice, but even then the score was a poor imitation of Danny Elfman's work. Also, I'd have to say that the conversion of the croquet game into a rave dance-off was awful. It was with out a doubt the low point of the film.<br /><br />What a joke. Don't see this movie. After its conclusion I was genuinely angry.

I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.<br /><br />I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The "gothic" scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get?

This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.<br /><br />One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale.

We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.<br /><br />

I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.<br /><br />I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. <br /><br />Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.

i have to rate this movie at a 10. i'm sorry but i think it's classic comedy. then, if you're rating it to other Madonna movies...well, what? you wanna tell me it wasn't her best movie ever? didn't Mira Sorvino win an Oscar for almost the same performance not ten years later? please, this movie deserves much more credit than it gets. plus, i like to think of it as an A+ sociological study into the lifestyles of the 80's. remember when you could shoplift from Sam Goody and Cartier in the same day? remember when women wore bushy eyebrows proudly? so it was no "Last Emperor", it was still good. there are certain movies i'd be willing to watch everyday. three, actually, that pep up my day and make me smile. if you like "Who's That Girl?" then i'd also recommend "Party Girl" and "Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion".

I really wanted to like this movie, because it is refreshingly different from the hordes of everyday horror movie clones, and I appreciate that the filmmakers are trying for something original. Unfortunately, the plot just didn't hold together and none of the characters were likable enough for me to really care about them or their fates.<br /><br />Visually, The Toybox was pretty interesting. The director took a lot of somewhat risky moves, like adding in little bits of (Flash-looking) animation in parts and really cheesing up some of the special effects (such as the light from a certain amulet). Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't, but he deserves kudos for the attempt, and the cinematography was generally of high quality.<br /><br />Unfortunately, when this same approach of throwing lots of things at the wall to see what sticks was applied to the plot, the results were not very good. The film never really finds a tone that it likes, moving schizophrenically from black comedy to family soap opera to 80's witchcraft flick to childhood nostalgia to embattled-family slasher. Taken on their own, bits and pieces of each of these elements work fairly well, but nothing ever coheres into a satisfying whole. Besides that, large bits of the plot are never really explained. I'm not one who likes to have everything spoon-fed to me, and I like movies that leave things up to the audience to decide, but the parts that are left out from The Toybox just seem like they either ran out of money before they could explain them or they didn't really think things through to begin with.<br /><br />I look forward to the director's next project, since I think there is a lot of talent lurking under the surface here, but I can't really recommend The Toybox on its own merits.

As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.<br /><br />It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.<br /><br />This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)

The way this story played out and the interaction between the 2 lead characters may lead me to believe that if the X-Files continues without Mulder and Scully, these would be a pretty good replacement duo.

Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible.

Being a Bills fan, I originally found it annoying that they made a movie about the Bills and the losing of four superbowls. But once I began to watch, I felt really connected. It was actually nice to see the "Bills" win the superbowl, and I must say, that for a TV movie it was actually very well done. Gil Bellows as the QB, and Jon Voight as the old-school Coach did a very fine job. 8 out of 10

This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!<br /><br />6/10

And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself. <br /><br />Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles. <br /><br />Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor. <br /><br />The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.

While it has been many decades since I last read Mr. Wells "War of the Worlds", or "The Time Machine", or any other of his works, I believe that they were all set in London, or at least, in England. This Grade "B" ("C"?) movie is set in the Eastern part of the United States as was Orson Welles excellent radio adaptation 67 years ago. However, this film exhibits none of the quality of the narrative style of the Mercury Playhouse program. Thomas Howell's emoting would not be acceptable in most high school drama clubs. I was actually embarrassed for him. His rolling around in the grass on the hill crying "My family, my family" was almost laughable, as was his reaction to the death of his brother. Of the three film versions of the story that I have seen, this was by far the worst, with Gene Barry's 1950's version the best. Additionaally, this was the first time I ever saw a "machine monster" dripping sticky saliva such as did the creature in the "Alien".

This documentary on schlockmeister William Castle takes a few cheap shots at the naive '50s-'60s environment in which he did his most characteristic work--look at the funny, silly people with the ghost-glasses--but it's also affectionate and lively, with particularly bright commentary from John Waters, who was absolutely the target audience for such things at the time, and from Castle's daughter, who adored her dad and also is pretty perceptive about how he plied his craft. (We never find out what became of the other Castle offspring.) The movies were not very good, it makes clear, but his marketing of them was brilliant, and he appears to have been a sweet, hardworking family man. Fun people keep popping up, like "Straight Jacket"'s Diane Baker, who looks great, and Anne Helm, whom she replaced at the instigation of star Joan Crawford. Darryl Hickman all but explodes into giggles at the happy memory of working with Castle on "The Tingler," and there's enough footage to give us an idea of the level of Castle's talent--not very high, but very energetic. A pleasant look at a time when audiences were more easily pleased, and it does make you nostalgic for simpler movie-going days.

SPOILER ALERT!!!<br /><br />You can listen to Wong Kar-wai's movies like a radio play: Invisible vibrations between the characters, the rooms where they stay in, the rhythm that presses them ahead, attraction and dislike - the whole spectrum of the atmosphere is played back by the sound track. The dialogue is mostly completely unimportant.<br /><br />The narration is similar to a childish amorous look at a beautiful woman and a sad man whose sorrows are noticeable, but helpless. "In The Mood For Love" is told from a child perspective, but the child never appears as a narrator. The aesthetic of the film is developed by an extreme light and color dramaturgy, harsh cuts, an unattached, almost documentary camera and a complex, unobtrusive sound.<br /><br />The genius use of Nat King Cole's "Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps", whose mysterious power grows the more often it is repeated and the melancholic waltz helps in the graceful choreography of the two protagonists. Maggie Cheung in her beautiful dresses is brilliant, the perfect vis-à-vis to the handsome, stylish Tony Leung. The audience assumes a romance between them, but Wong just sees sad resignation. The two potential lovers are revolving around each other like satellites, knowing that they never will share the same orbit. You wish that they will find each other. They won't and the emotional power of their non-love-sex-relationship makes the movie immensely fascinating.<br /><br />It is about broken luck and unspoken love. In all of Wong's films these are the leitmotives. Love, whether it comes too early or it comes too late to take the one and not the other person. The yearning of the characters that is never satisfied, their loneliness, the mourning, and the luck that they experience when it is too late.

Very enjoyable 50's Western. I have it in my collection and recommend it to Western fans.<br /><br />Mostly Victor Mature's movie and quite well done in my estimation.<br /><br />He's a trapper who joins a frontier post as a scout. Red Cloud caught three of them on their land and took their possessions. They all joined as scouts after their loss.<br /><br />Victor has set his eye's on the Colonel's wife and lives life on the post without much regards to regulations.<br /><br />Action done quite convincingly but no great depth or much feeling to other characters.<br /><br />50's Westerns are my favorites and this slides easily to a satisfaction. A Western of this kind is in the pages of the past and perhaps never to be made much again. One to enjoy. Gave it a 7 rating. Likely 6.8 worthy but films like these become more precious over time.<br /><br />For film-noir fans..."The Big Steal" "They Live By Night" "Side Street" are most wonderful movies to be enjoyed. Bought and viewed. Noir seems to resemble Westerns in a way. Some long ago and never forever.

The show start out with the boat. Desmond was i it. Then they went to try to save Walt. And Lock things that the button pushing is a big joke at the same time Desmond found out that hes the one that crashed the plane. Eko tries to open the door that Jhon locked on him, and Charlie helped him find the Bomb. While Sayid and Jack plan is that, Sasyid is to find the others first and see who and what the other are. And find if there armed and have any weapons. <br /><br />Micheal takes Jack, Swayer, Kate, and Hugo in a trap. And they get caught.<br /><br />After the show there were more questions then answers, but that what makes the show great. And can't wait until Season 3

Doctor Mordrid is one of those rare films that is completely under the radar, but is totally worthwhile. It really reminds me of the old serials from the 30s and 40s. Which is why I'd have loved to see follow-up movies... but judging by the rest of Full Moon's output there simply weren't enough tits to satisfy the typical audience. Unfortunately, thanks to a completely superfluous sacrifice scene there two too many for a family audience - which is unfortunate, because without em' this could have been a Harry Potter-style magicfest that kids would have eaten up. Both Jeffrey Combs and Yvette Nipar are great - I wasn't sure if Ms. Nipar hadn't wandered off an A-list picture onto this film, she was very believable. No, seriously! Anyway - it's a shame they didn't have the bucks to license Dr. Strange, because I think this could have been a total kiddie phenom.